​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

One Does Not Simply Ask For One’s Freedom

The following passage is taken from pages 57-58 of Personality and Evolution, by Stan Gooch:

‘The Ego, ideally, bears its sufferings in silence and without complaint. Again, ideally, it does not break this silence even under torture. It does not request mercy. Nor does it request freedom – it simply takes it, or dies in the attempt. ‘Let my people go’ is the request of the Self. (And one must report, sadly, that those who merely ask for their freedom do not usually get it.)

There is, indeed, a sense in which the Self does not want to be free and in which it enjoys its suffering. This is a statement one must make with caution – for, though it is, I believe, in a certain sense true, it is the kind of statement which is apt to be only too useful as fascist propaganda. Is one saying, for example, that the Jews enjoyed the concentration camps of the last war? Or that Negroes wanted to be shipped as slaves to America and elsewhere, there often to die of starvation and mistreatment? That obviously goes much too far. Yet there is a sort of truth here. There is a joking question which asks : “What does a Jew fear more than persecution?” to which the answer is : “being overlooked.” And something of this is true, I think, also of women. Some women, at any rate, seem willing to accept a good deal of physical violence and other ill-treatment from the men they love. The wanting of punishment or suffering has in fact obtained clear recognition, not only in clinical psychology, but in common parlance, with the term ‘masochism’. A masochist is a person who, in some sense of the terms, enjoys suffering and invites pain.’

For the purpose of this essay I will be referring to Gooch’s theory on the human mind, which simply proposes that it is comprised of two systems, the Ego and the Self. In short the Ego can be roughly equated to a daytime, conscious, linear, masculine brain, located in the cerebrum and the musculature of the body, whilst the Self can be equated to a nocturnal, unconscious, irrational, feminine brain, located in the cerebellum, and the autonomic responses of the body – the reflexes, the senses, the viscera etc.

Some populations of the world are led more by the Self, and some by the Ego. But every one of us contains both at all times. It’s the essence of human. Across the world, where cerebellar activities such as ‘soul’ singing, dancing and the use of emotional feelings to describe one’s state are more popular, we can say these people, as a whole, are more driven by the Self. And where we find a greater propensity for cerebral activity, such as technical discussion or time-regulated tasks, as well as a sense of individuality, we will find people who are more Ego-dominant. Incidentally, on average, men are more ‘Ego’ focused and women more ‘Self’ focused.

Americans asking for their freedom

Getting back to our point, the notion of freedom, to an Ego dominant individual, is inherent in his personality. The very idea that another individual doesn’t have freedom is incredulous. How can you not have something that you were born with, he will say? How can you let someone (whom you have not contracted with) tell you what to do? For individual freedom is indeed a natural state for the Ego dominant personality. A Self dominant personality, on the other hand, is naturally submissive (lacking a dominant internal Ego), and so practically requires a master to give him the discipline required in an Ego dominant system, such as the West. If we apply Gooch’s theory to our world, then we begin to understand why some people just can’t be free.

Take the current situation in America for example (and to some extent across the Western world). Radical, separatist African-Americans, or at least their latest incarnation known as Black Lives Matter, are asking for the American establishment to give them the same privileges and freedoms apparently only allowed by white Americans. The question that no one seems to ask is why don’t they simply walk away from their oppressors and start their own country somewhere else? Isn’t this exactly what the white American people had to do in order to free themselves from their former master England? Break off all ties and never speak again, or at least until the dust had settled and they had found their own identity as a cohesive, separate nation. Of course, it wasn’t easy, but the end result was vastly more freedom than they had been previously ‘allowed’ by the English. They never complained during the hardest years, neither did they ask England to save them during events such as the great depression, they suffered their pain in silence rather than buckle under and crawl back in a submissive position.

Black people resisting

Black Lives Matter (along with many other ‘oppressed’ Self groups) talk about forming resistance (which is at least a step up from ‘assistance’). But resistance is exactly what they don’t need to be doing. Why would someone want to remain a part of a system that supposedly treats them with such abject disrespect, and always has? Resistance is the language of the willing victim, for it is only someone who wants to be accepted by the system who feels they have something to resist in it. They could apply their full force in resistance but eventually they will expend all their energy and the age-old system will still be there. If you wish to make yourself an enemy of the masters, who hold all the power, you will, inevitably, lose. The only way to negate the effect of the system is to totally remove oneself from it, and refuse to interact with it ever again. Of course, this would also mean no more special rights and privileges such as welfare, free schooling, access to jobs etc, but after a few years hard work they would be truly self-reliant, self-sufficient, and free.

The same argument can be applied to Israel, and the Jewish populations of the West. Historically, almost every Jewish population has claimed to have suffered oppression under their host nations. Even as far back as ancient Egypt we find Moses tasked with freeing his people from slavery (((which they had apparently been placed under for no reason))). The question is, if the West is so anti-Semitic, why don’t they simply move to their own country which they fought so hard for (and continue to fight for), and never have contact with the so-called evil Europeans again? Could it really be true that some people relish their place in society as the eternal victim, using it to milk assistance from the countries who are simultaneously accused of abusing them?

Is it then the fault of the ‘oppressive’ Ego-led, self-responsible Europeans, with their ‘one man’ mindset, or is it the fault of the ‘oppressed’ Self-obsessed peoples of the world, with their ‘one world’ mindset? In reality, it is no ones ‘fault’. It is simply a ‘fault’, or more correctly, a ‘feature’ in the genetic make up of each human race that is responsible for their actions and reactions. Only our recognition of this hard-wired precurser can prevent us from repeatedly making the same historic mistakes, over and over.