​The Race Question

The Race Question was a report put out by UNESCO in 1950 to decide once and for all whether man was one species, or many sub-species. Of course the result was a foregone conclusion, as UNESCO were dedicated to combating ‘racism’, and (((Post-war Socialism))) – preached by the remaining cowardly intelligentsia who had managed to hide from the bloody and protracted fighting of the Second World War – would put forward the idea that all differences in the races were a result of purely environmental factors, such as economics, geographical location and cultural norms.

With this big idea, they would attempt to erase any sense of belonging or heritage in the races of men, and reduce them to amnesic wanderers with no history, no borders and no national allegiances. This misguided social engineering experiment would instead lead to the very dangerous place we are in currently, where Europeans – whose wicked ‘nature’ is apparently exempt from the environmental argument of sociologists – are being blamed for every problem in the world, and no other race can take responsibility for their own actions. Corporations are exploiting this plot hole as a way to enslave us all in what is fast becoming a totalitarian Global Socialist world.

By way of supporting this argument, I’ll take a look at some of the noted authors of this report, as I think they each merit a brief mention for their own interests. The full report can be found here.

The main rapporteur, or appointed investigator, of the report was Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu. Montagu was born in London as Israel Ehrenberg, and studied at the London School of Economics, where he became one of the first students of Bronisław Malinowski, who was an influential social anthropologist.

Juan Comas was a Communist Spanish Republican exiled during the time of Franco, who wrote many titles on social anthropology. He was also a recipient of the Bronislaw Malinowski award in 1978.

Luiz de Aguiar Costa Pinto was a Brazilian sociologist who specialized in race relations in Brazil. Brazil had long held to the idea that racial integration and mixing was the way forward. Particularly in São Paulo, the dominant idea was that national workers were unable to develop the country, and that only foreign workers would be able to work in a regime of “free” (i.e., wage) labour. The goal was to “whiten” Brazil through new immigrants and through future miscegenation in which former slaves would disappear by becoming “whiter”.

Edward Franklin Frazier was an American sociologist and author. A successful graduate of the then segregated US school system, his 1932 Ph.D. dissertation was published as a book titled The Negro Family in the United States (1939); it analyzed the historical forces that influenced the development of the African-American family from the time of slavery to the mid-1930s. The book was awarded the 1940 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for the most significant work in the field of race relations. It was among the first sociological works on blacks researched and written by a black person.

Morris Ginsberg was a British sociologist, who played a key role in the development of the discipline. A Talmudic scholar, he later found his way into the London School of Economics, working under the professor Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse. Hobhouse was a leading internationalist of his day and an early proponent of Social Liberalism.

Claude Lévi-Strauss was one of the founders of ethnology and leading theorist of structural anthropology. He was born to French Jewish parents in Brussels, and during WW1 lived in Paris with his maternal grandfather, who was the rabbi of the synagogue of Versailles. He also stayed for some time in Brazil, where he served as a visiting professor of sociology at the University of São Paulo. Later, during WW2, he moved to New York, whilst his former wife stayed to work with the French resistance.

The report was revised by Ashley Montagu following criticisms submitted by various ‘great minds’ of the day, some of whom are listed below:

Hadley Cantril, a researcher of public opinion, and the main author of The Invasion from Mars, an academic study of Orson Welles’s 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds, which caused widespread panic.

Dr. Gunnar Dahlberg, a Swedish physician, eugenist and geneticist, and one of the signatories of the ‘Eugenics Manifesto’, a manifesto published in the journal Nature in 1939, titled Social Biology and Population Improvement.

Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky, a prominent Ukrainian-American geneticist, evolutionary biologist and fellow signatory of the aforementioned ‘Eugenics Manifesto’.

Julian Huxley, whose name precedes him, was the first director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and the first President of the British Humanist Association, as well as a eugenicist, and internationalist. He was also a signatory of the ‘Eugenics Manifesto’.

Otto Klineberg, who was a Canadian psychologist. His work in the 1930s on the intelligence of white and black students in the United States and his evidence as an expert witness in Delaware were instrumental in winning the Supreme Court school segregation case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Herman Joseph Muller, an American geneticist and educator, who amongst other things loved the USSR and helped edit and distribute an illegal leftist student newspaper in the USA, The Spark.

Karl Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist, sociologist, and politician. In 1974, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Friedrich Hayek for “their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.” He is best known in the United States for his study of race relations, which culminated in his book An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. The study was influential in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision Brown v. Board of Education. He was also presented with the Bronislaw Malinowski Award in 1975.

Curt Jacob Stern, a Jewish German, whose teaching and 1949 textbook were instrumental in re-founding human genetics on a non-racist basis.

I will leave you with the closing paragraph of the report, which reads like an SJW manifesto:

‘biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives toward co-operation, and unless these drives are satisfied, men and nations alike fall ill. Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration. In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper. For every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, because he is involved in mankind.’

taken from –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronisław_Malinowski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Comas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_de_Aguiar_Costa_Pinto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Franklin_Frazier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Ginsberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Hobhouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Lévi-Strauss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cantril

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Dahlberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Klineberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Joseph_Muller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Myrdal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Stern

Advertisements

The Importance of the 1st Amendment

All around the world, the United States is held in high esteem for being “free”. However, do we ever take a minute to stop and think what that means? There are plenty of countries in the world that are considered free, but what makes us different?

This is where the first amendment comes in. There is a reason it was put first. This amendment lays the groundwork for the rest of, not only our freedoms, but the country itself.

This is how it was for years, until recently. It is becoming more and more evident that our 1st amendment rights are gradually being taken away.

Let’s take a look at the original 1st Amendment, so we can break it down.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of this amendment is regarding the freedom of religious practice. Although I personally believe the US should legally be a Christian nation, I do agree that no law should prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

The Founding Fathers make various references to God, yet they stop short of converting that faith into a state religion. However, that is beside the point I am trying to make, for it simply isn’t going to happen (at least not in the current state of the country).

Most importantly, this also gives religions the right to protect themselves when they come under attack, and allows them to be critical of other religions. In the current state, it seems as though Christianity is able to be criticized by all other religions, but if Christians turn the table back on those who started it, we are labeled bigots.

This is especially evident with Jews and Muslims. It is a fact that, at this moment in time, there is a bill on its way to the Senate that would effectively criminalize any anti-Jewish speech. Some direct lines from this bill (H.R.672) include:

C) Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the State of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

(D) Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

(E) Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own countries.

This is extremely perplexing to me, seeing as how the ones who established this country, AKA Christians, have no such laws protecting them from any sort of critique. The same thing goes for Muslims. Anything remotely anti-Islam, such as noticing that many Muslims actually support (or at least don’t disavow) terrorism, is immediately labeled Islamophobia. Disobeying either of these unwritten rules can actually ruin your life. You can be fired, kicked out of school, or even arrested.

On to the next portion of the 1st Amendment, regarding the freedom of speech and press. Here is the fun part, and, in my opinion, the most important piece of American law.

Freedom of Speech is by far the most important thing in a Democracy like ours. It is very easy to become ill-informed, or simply not informed at all, in politics. Free speech is the ultimate counter to this. If you want to find a way to take a stand and change the current state of the US, this is the way. You have the ability to shape people’s minds and shine light on topics they have never thought of. Who knows, you could start a chain reaction that begins a movement.

However, like I said earlier in the article, our 1st amendment rights are being taken away from us. It is becoming obvious that the left, many without realizing it, are pushing an anti-free-speech agenda. By automatically labeling anybody who opposes them a Nazi, fascist, or a racist, they are scaring people away from speaking their minds.

While nothing pisses me off more than this bullshit agenda, it all within the confines of the law; which means that you are allowed to verbally fight back.

There is no easy way to do this, since you may lose your job or be kicked out of school for having the wrong opinion. This is why it so very important for young people to get involved with like-minded individuals. You can create a network of support to ensure this can’t happen or at least isn’t as likely. So by all means, actively discuss controversial topics, call out people on using faulty left wing logic, and quite simply use your voice to its full extent.

This brings us to the final portion of the 1st Amendment, the right to peacefully assemble. I am a firm believer in real life activism. It is one of the hardest parts of having far right views.

You may lose friends over outwardly showing these opinions. However, this is the most effective way of showing unity with the people sharing your ideas. By collaborating and connecting with people, you can show a true strength in numbers. The Unite The Right Charlottesville rally was a perfect example, regardless of whether or not you think it succeeded or failed.

One thing is for sure, people started taking the Alt-Right seriously. Imagine how our movement could grow, if people saw us standing shoulder-to-shoulder like that, defending our existence. People take notice when you aren’t just anonymously shitposting online. Meeting people who you can have a face-to-face discussion with, makes it all seem real. Use this to its full extent, tying back into creating a network. When you know the people in real life, it makes it much easier for them to support you.

With all of this being said, the time is now to defend our 1st amendment rights. If you see something you know is wrong, point it out. If we don’t practice these rights, it makes it that much easier for them to take it away from us. Don’t let the Founding Fathers visions for America die in vain.

 

 

If anyone has any questions or comments on the article, the best way to reach me is on twitter @MacTonight_

 

 

 

 

Contributions to Western Civilisation

The map above is largely based on observations of the American project, but also of the Europeans in their homelands, both presently and historically.

The majority of achievement levels unlocked in North America are by northern Europeans, specifically the English and Scottish races. These include the first colonies, the subsequent settlement of white lands, the constitution, and the establishment of major cities. Many of the presidents, secretaries and leading thinkers were or are whom are termed WASPs, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
The next group of predominantly northern European peoples to have made a huge contribution to the advancement of white people in America, and also Europe, are the northern French, western Germanic and southern Scandinavian people, the Teutonic tribes. They were able to take the English inventions and ideas and ruthlessly perfect them, until farming, weaponry, medicine and industry were able to be rolled out on such a massive scale as to support the growing population of America. From the early agricultural developments, to the rocketry that took whitey to the moon, the Teutons have an autistic attention to detail when it comes to administration, and the perfection of technology.

These groups arrived early to the party, that is, they were involved in the establishment of civilization on the continent. Both the French and the Spanish races also played a part in this early venture, but being Catholic their role was largely antagonistic towards the northern European Protestants. Eventually, the Catholics all but gave up, the Spanish fell away towards the south and the French headed north.

The next group to enter north America, after the majority of the hard work had been done, were those from the far west, south, north and east of Europe. These immigrants were mainly poor, and brought with them the trappings of their lifestyle – crime, alcohol and carbohydrate rich food. The mafias that subsequently spread across America were, and are still made up of, the Irish, Mediterranean and Slavic races, each of whom’s traditional foods make up the bulk of the modern american cook book. Another huge contribution from particularly the Irish race was American folk music. It was even the Irish who gave the Africans the guitar, which spawned the blues music and eventually rap. Depressing sentimentality will be familiar to anyone who knows Irish folk music.

One could argue that the Greeks and the Italians made massive contributions to western civilisation, and therefore to the American project, but one could also argue that apart from a brief spell of excellence, neither managed a consistency any longer than a few centuries. One should also point out that the history of the Britons tells the story that the people who populated that fortunate island were the survivors of the Trojan war, who left that region and founded Rome and then went onto Great Britain. So the genetic stock of the Greeks and the Italians was the ancient Britons. This adequately explains the situation we find regarding the temporary excellence of the Greeks and Romans.

So there we have it. More proof that race is very real and its traces can be seen not just in Europe, but in project America. If each of the groups clearly outlined above could play to their strengths and not try to enviously block the efforts of the other, some sort of ethnic cohesion could be reached within the continent, allowing the American to naturally flourish.

A Realistic American Future

To the Alt-Right, an ideal future could mean a multitude of things. The most universally agreed upon aspect of this future is that white people are allowed to live as the majority within it. But what comes after that? What about economics? What of culture? Should we be ruled with an iron fist? Or should we be focused on liberty and personal freedom? Seeing as how the Alt-Right encompasses many different, distinct ideologies, these questions often cause conflict between us. I will be delivering my personal overview on the best -and most realistic- future for America, outside of the what everyone already knows.

Economically, the United States has, and always will be, capitalist. Even if we fail, corporations are still going to rule the USA. Sure, presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt have added bits of socialism into our country, but we will never become fully socialist, no matter how hard the left tries. Corporations simply have too much power. This may also be irritating for some on the “right”, such as National Socialists. Even though it has some admirable points, such as looking out for the common man, National Socialism is not realistic, plausible, nor will it never be possible in the United States. The country is too large geographically, the society is too focused on capitalism and “The American Dream”, and American whites are too genetically diverse to support a single, uniform culture rather than the “American” culture of celebrating the various roots of your European ancestry. I don’t mean to be rude, but there’s quite a few edgy, fed-like Nazis in the AR who cannot comprehend that there are people who do not love National Socialism as much as they do, and don’t want to apply it to every single country in the world. That Guy T (a based black guy, I know) made a very good point regarding the economic future for the United States. He believes that “corporate culture will lead humanity” and that because of this, the right “needs to obtain corporate power”. The only issue I take with his point is the implication that corporate culture does not already lead humanity. Even though I am not the biggest fan of corporatism or pure capitalism, and support regulations to protect workers and the environment, the future of our economy and culture is in corporations – just look at the obsession with consumer products by the general public. If we do not take control of corporate America, they will continue to control, and ultimately destroy, us. We need to start our own businesses, create our own inventions, and stop letting leftist corporations control us with our wallets, no matter how badly we want the product they’re selling. In regards to the far, far future, when humanity should supposedly be “conquering the stars”, I believe Neo-Reactionism would be the best ideology in this setting. Corporations should be able to control planets, have private armies, and wage war with each other, but this may be a little too soon to start getting that LARPy about the distant future.

In regards to authoritarianism against personal liberty, I am personally divided. But for America, I believe freedoms such as freedom of speech are some of the most sacred fundamental principles of this country. The freedom to say anything short of terroristic threats is a uniquely American concept, and should continue to be part of America, even if this freedom has to be given to those who oppose us. Other freedoms, such as the right to bear arms, should also be kept, no matter what political system we have in the future.

Many of the points previously stated are still up for debate within the movement itself. My opinions are not mandatory instructions for the movement to follow (even though I have the hugest IQ out of anyone), but merely advice and opinions for us to consider as we gain more power politically. Keep in mind that I am an American and am thus smarter than every single European combined, meaning that the insightful words I have provided are for us superior Americans to follow, as everything mentioned above is not 100% applicable in Europe. This is all assuming that we win, and that should be the main task at hand for us right now.