Race

Race is a natural part of all living things. If you look at any given species of animal or plant, you will often find subspecies. Members of subspecies can breed with one another, but they have clearly evolved differing mechanisms with which to deal with different physical environments.

This is undeniably true in the human race as well. People may say that "race doesn't exist" because of the tiny percentage of genetic difference between, say, a white man and a black man. That is fallacious. There is a relatively small difference, genetically, between a chimpanzee and a human. Does this mean we should consider ourselves closer to chimpanzees than we actually are?

Human races clearly exist. Yes, I will grant the scientists that: 1) races form clines (i.e., there is no sharp geographic break between, say, the white race and the black race, but that populations in northern Africa and Mediterranean Europe show gradations of the two), and 2) the genetic difference between any two given humans of different races is relatively small. That doesn't change the fact that: 1) human beings have clearly evolved differing physical mechanisms to deal with differing climates, and 2) human beings have for virtually all of human history considered these differences sociologically important, e.g. in determing who "we" and "they" are.

Examples are rife. There is an Asian fast-food restaurant near where I live which uses as its pictoral logo a stylised image of an Oriental girl--you can tell she's Oriental because her eyes are straight lines rather than round ("slanted") and because she has black hair. If race didn't exist, couldn't that just as easily be a picture of red-haired freckled Wendy from the fast-food chain named after her? And again: my friend commented on my Dutch relative looking like a "quintessential Dutch boy." He has blue eyes, very pale skin, and blond hair. So what it means to be Dutch is not merely to honour the Queen of the Netherlands, believe in parliamentary government and all that other triumphalist Enlightenment-EU-end of history bullshit, but to look a certain way. Presumably Muammar Qaddafi or Ho Chi Minh, to take two non-Caucasians, do not "look" Dutch (nor, to a lesser extent, would a southern European such as Benito Mussolini).

As a Mongoloid living in Anglo-Saxon North America, I get personal experiences that signify that people think of me sociologically and culturally based on what I look like. I have been asked my ethnicity, and upon my reluctance to say anything other than "Canadian," I was told: "but you have an Asian face." I have been given the nickname "Dim Sum," which is some sort of Chinese food. People I don't know have started to speak to me in Japanese and Chinese, neither of which I know or wish to know. I was told by a homosexual friend (I am not a homophobe) that I could be a "beautiful Asian man." I have an Asiatic middle name and a European first name, and I was told by another friend that I "look more like a Daewoo than a Thomas" (I made those up). When in elementary school, I, who did well, was asked if "I was like a perfect Asian student." And at least on two occasions people have insinuated that I should be romantically involved with a certain girl or woman, for no other reason that I could see than that that girl or woman happened also to be a Mongoloid.

All very well and good, Joe Enlightenment (or, as I like to call him, Last Man) says. But we live in a different, more enlightened world now than our zillions of ancestors did. People are more thoughtful. They're less racist, and someday they won't be racist at all, thanks to things like Anti-Racist Action.

Really? I'm actually not a great fan of Benito Mussolini, but he once said something very wise: "No revolution can change the nature of man." This is true. What revolutions can do is stifle natural human instincts so that they torture the person--much like the situation of the beast of prey in the age of slave morality. This is the way of political correctness. Nothing can actually change man himself--after all, all the examples I showed you above are from my personal experience, dealing with people who are still alive, who have had years to digest the writings of Rousseau and Marx and the consequences of the French and Russian Revolutions. And yet, somehow, they're still racist. And to automatically equate "racist" with "evil"--that's the problem of modern society, because it's calling being-human evil. It's like calling sexuality evil, a major pitfall of Christianity.

In truth, before the age of enforced racial cohabitation and mixing, there was probably less racial "hatred." The desire for racial separation seemed natural and mutual, even friendly perhaps. It is part of the protection of one's cultural heritage, along with the preservation of your language, your homeland, and so forth. It is tacky to put a fake palm tree in a deciduous zone, but it is beautiful to gaze upon a unified ecosystem of any sort, as long as it is coherently adapted to the physical and climatic circumstances. And this ecosystem includes humans too, of the appropriate subspecies. Blacks in sunny Africa, pale whites in frigid Scandinavia, slant-eyed Mongoloids in the dusty steppes and deserts of the far east--these are beautiful. Racism is not hatred. It is liberal hate against humanity and against beauty to call this appreciation hateful.

Self-Introduction

This serves as my self-introduction.

I espouse a worldview antithetical to that of the modern world, especially that of the modern West. The modern West is a man-centred world; in short, the world is seen to exist for the benefit of man, and everything is subordinated to man. This is unhealthy and destructive. It is also unhealthy and destructive that all men are considered equal, and equally valuable and precious. This is, of course, one of the bequests of Christianity, a religion in which esoteric elements are mingled with a vulgar slave revolt.

This is not very precise or clear, but I would direct you to certain works I have found enlightening for a fuller exposition: Savitri Devi's The Lightning and the Sun, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morality, Plato's Republic, Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics, and Spengler's The Decline of the West. As well as the essays of Pentti Linkola.

Aha! you say. I've figured you out! You're a crypto-Nazi!

Well, very clever and acute of you, indeed. Of course, you'd be both simple-minded and wrong to say so. "Nazism" doesn't exist any more except as a label. Nobody except a few probably mentally deficient persons today call themselves Nazis (see Rockwell, George Lincoln, as well as the self-hating Dan Burros and the child molester Frank Collin). What the term "Nazi" does serve as, in a material way, is to label anyone against modern western humanism--the ideology of death that underlies both capitalism and communism (although the communism bit isn't that relevant anymore)--as "evil," as "beyond the pale." We no longer need discuss the merit of their ideas, we can simply call them "fascist" or "nazi" and be done with it. Perhaps it is because these anti-humanists actually have some good ideas? Perhaps it is because modern western humanism is an ideology that will inevitably consign our species and much of the other life on this planet to destruction (and in the meantime creates much suffering and ugliness)?

Hm....I wonder. This blog is here to explore these views.

New Blog

Testing.