Tag Archives: American Renaissance

When Murder is just Tough Love: the Culture and Practical Reason of Terrorism after the Quatorze Juliet

A close friend sent me a cute French electronic card for Bastille Day 2016.   And what a Bastille Day it turned out to be, eh?  Think about it!!! A third massive attack on the French people in about a year… But… Cui Bono? What is an attack but an invitation to a counterattack? So if you’re going to start a war, your attack should always be something that weakens the enemy in some regard, right? But NONE of these stupid Muzzies seem to get that, do they? They always attack innocent civilians—everywhere they go, or at the most they attack government bureaucrats….What kind of logic is that? You attack people to prod them into attacking you, but all of your attacks seem carefully designed to arouse ire and anger among the populace while leaving the infrastructure of war that will be used against you completely intact and untouched. Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture? It’s almost like the people making the attacks ONLY want to make the people MORE willing to counter-attack them back? How is that logical?

Holidays are very important, especially those with fireworks.  I have never lived in France or Quebec, but by the time I was 18 I had lived in London, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Honduras, and whether it’s New Years’ Eve, Guy Fawkes’ Day, the Fourth of July, the 15th of September, or the Queen’s Birthday, fireworks celebrations are really great.  So I try to imagine what would have happened if there had been a bombing during one of those holidays in any of the places I ever habituated…. and what would have been the purpose.  

And what of the Quatorze Julliet?  My grandmother was a Francophone and Francophile native of Louisiana and my Texas-born grandfather’s life took him from Galveston to “the City” on a regular basis, plus I took French in High School and College, and several of my professors were Francophones and Francophiles at Tulane and during those years—including  Archaeologists Harvey Bricker and Cynthia Irwin-Williams who had both studied under Hallam Movius, and from them all, I obtained a love for and habit of celebrating July 14, Bastille Day.

Terrorism, traditionally understood, is a species of poor-man’s war or revolution.  As such, it is inherently secretive and illegal.  War is open and honest: Austria declared war on Serbia, so Russia declared war on Austria, Germany was required by treaty to go to war with Russia to defend Austria, Britain was required by treaty, etc., and so the Great War of 1914-1918 began.  BUT EVERYBODY KNEW IT.

When terrorist organizations claim responsibility after the fact for their crimes… they are doing just that, they are claiming criminal responsibility… and when criminals claim responsibility for anything, you have to wonder: why?

And so I think to myself, what do the April 1995 Bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, 9/11/01 in New York City and Washington, 7/7/05 in London, Dylan Storm Roof’s murderous assault in Charleston last June 17, Charlie Hebdo in France, and now this latest atrocity in Nice all have in common?  

Well, they neither advance any coherent revolutionary plan, nor weaken the countries they attack.  They all happen either on days with interesting numbers or anniversaries.   But the truck bombing that took out 84 yesterday, including two American tourists apparently, just “takes the cake” on Bastille Day—which now joins Guy Fawkes Day and 9/11, 7/7 and 6/17/15 anniversary of the collapse of Denmark Vesey’s 1822 slave uprising in Charleston as “false flag” or stage events of terrorism.

Bastille Day was already a slightly fictitious holiday because, as Louis XVI wrote in his diary, on 14 July 1789, “Nothing Important Happened.”  A mob knocked down an old prison with one prisoner, but the embattled King with a short life-expectancy didn’t even notice, under his peculiar circumstances.  As my son likes to say—the 14th of July was really a tragedy for the future of French Tourism—the Bastille, Mediaeval relic fortress that it was, would have been a major attraction had it survived…  But the French know how to make a good party out of a bad deal—and very few American Fourth of July Cookouts EVER equal the average 14 July party in France or among Francophile/Francophones worldwide… the comparison of the food and wine alone…. oh well, never mind.

But I keep trying to think to myself: if I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would attacking innocent people over and over again at random make any sense?  What would I be hoping to accomplish?  What would be my goals?  What good TO ME AND MY CAUSE could possibly inure from committing such crimes?

A sophisticated and coordinated attack in the United States followed by a similar attack in London, and then a decade later two similarly “low tech” attacks in France, and a bunch of random attacks in the meantime… scattered around the world.  Shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Boston Marathon whatever it was, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Chattanooga, TN veteran shooting, connected or not?  Who knows?

What is absolutely certain is that SOMEONE wants to create the image of Islamic terror as a world-wide phenomenon that requires  coordinated security and response.  If I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would this kind of premonitory strategy seem like a good idea to me?   The answer is NO.

Revolutionary terrorism needs to be targeted on ONE government, one regime, one power structure—and it needs to be consistent and persistent enough to destabilize a society or at least an elite.  The pattern of Islamic Terror since the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing is NOT THAT.   The movement around the map, the focus on NON-STRATEGIC, NON-MILITARY, NON-INFRASTRUCTURE targets is very consistent.

The murder of innocent people was an integral part of Timothy McVeigh’s and Dylan Storm Roof’s approach in distinctly non-Islamic terrorist events in the United States—and their two attacks had no more coordinated relationship to any ideological goals than the long line of supposed Islamic terrorist events.  Even my dearly departed, mild mannered, deeply religious late mother said, way back in April 1995, “if they call themselves Patriots and wanted to make a meaningful statement, they really should have bombed the IRS.”  And if Dylan Storm Roof were really a racist White Supremacist, the LAST associations he would have wanted to make were the killing of elderly black people during a prayer meeting at a conservative African Methodist Episcopal Church on the 193rd anniversary of the Suppression of one of the most famous Slave Rebellions in U.S. History: this sort of symbolism all plays for the OTHER side—and so does bombing the French Riviera during Bastille Day celebrations.  

IF you want to make sure to build your enemies’  anger and take every step possible to ensure that NOBODY has any sympathy for your cause, (a) make sure nobody knows what your cause is and (b) do things in random places but on important days to make sure people remember the randomness.

In short, to my mind, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Nice attack on Bastille Day was organized by anyone sincerely to advance the Islamist cause.   You want to bomb a target on a holiday?  If you’re a real revolutionary, you seek a target like an electrical power plant or water pumping station or even a sewerage processing plant where you can disable your opponents entire city and infrastructure in some really inconvenient and expensive way.  Osama bin Laden was a structural engineer and IF he had been in charge of 9-11, as a plot against the United States, I’ve always said his targets of choice would have been the undefended dams along the Colorado River, in order to cutoff the water supply to evil sinful cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and the California “Inland Empire.”

So none of these attacks, my friends, are about an Islamic agenda for World Domination or even in revenge for the (indisputable) wrongs suffered by the Arab and Islamic people generally at British, French, and most recently American Imperialist hands….

WHO WANTS TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER THROUGH TERROR?  The Radical Islamic World?  Or Powers, Princes and Potentates MUCH Closer to Home!

All these attacks, in my opinion, reflect a “tough love” strategy of the United States, French, and British Governments to “soften up” the people and by long-term repetitive pseudo-Pavlovian conditioning make them (i.e. US, the free and responsible people of America and Europe) willing to accept an all-encompassing, eternal “Thousand Year” Police State—exactly what Strom Thurmond predicted was the goal in his “Dixiecrat” Platform of 1948.  They want to impose the police state for our own good and our own protection, don’t you understand?  That’s why modern government false-flag murder is just TOUGH LOVE.  And if you don’t like it, well, tough s__t, you know, my fellow Americans: “We have to break a few eggs here and there to prepare for you our New World Order of Omelette—-they’re all for you, you know!  But we know you’re too stupid to want this wonderful highly organized Police State where we can organize and regulate all of your lives, so we have to scare you into it.”  

In other words: Tales of Terrorism function for the modern media  motivated masses exactly the way Perrault’s or Grimm’s Fairy tales did in days of yore…. scary stories are INSTRUCTIONAL!  You need to scare the children by telling them about the BIG BAD WOLF and what he did to Little Red Riding Hood, or about what the Witch did to Hansel & Gretel with her candy house, so that they will live in constant fear of strangers and of attempting to strike out on their own.  FEAR!  FEAR!  FEAR!  “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, it’s got to be taught from year-to-year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, You’ve got to be carefully taught.”


The Dallas Police Murders last week, which suspiciously took place on the now recurring date of 7/7, were not Islamic either, but they served the fear purpose and the “Divide and Conquer” purpose to a degree unmatched in any other attack.  Black people killing black cops—a recipe made by Machiavelli in Hell….

Peaceful black protesters complaining about police brutality were forced to hide behind the police lines when one or more black gunmen murdered 5 and injured 7 more.  DID THIS ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF “BLACK LIVES MATTER”?  No, but it was a boon for American Renaissance (and I write this as a regular reader  of and a subscriber to AmRen).

To feed the ignorant white suburban paranoia of blacks attacking whites was a simple stroke of Genius on the part of the Obama administration—all of a sudden, we have forced a portion of the black population into making a choice: either they act out the worst fears of the white middle class suburbanites or they support the Police.  Obama, as usual, was totally two-faced, but two-faced is how the supporters of the police state need to be: they need to FOMENT inter-racial violence on the one hand and then condemn murder on the other, because THIS STRATEGY SUPPORTS INCREASING THE POWER AND THE EFFICACY OF THE STATE.

The way to satisfy the Black Lives Matter movement is to suppress white-conservative expression and culture and desires to be left alone in an essentially segregated society.  To satisfy the White AND Black Middle and Upper Classes, the government must enlarge (a better word might be to engorge) the police state and enhance the power of the police to protect them from the rising black tide.

Now I read AmRen and similar publications and websites because I support what I perceive as their key long-term goals, namely segregation of the races to maintain cultural continuity.  Strangely enough, many black civil rights advocates share these goals, and I wholeheartedly support those who do.  BUT I HATE INJUSTICE, UNFAIRNESS, and  OPPRESSION and the way the POLICE STATE MAXIMIZES all three.  And the only thing that all the terrorist murders of the past 21 years since Oklahoma really have in common is: they justify oppressive measures and unfair oppression.

I totally disagree, then, with the advocacy of increased police power and authority which the reaction to Dallas has engendered both among the White and Black Middle Class.   Whites may believe that the police are on their side, but my experience in life is quite the opposite.  The calibre and IQ of men (and women) who opt for a career in law enforcement are not the highest, and police ONLY support the “side” that pays them directly (namely the State and City power structures, and the banks and other large institutions who support those) AGAINST ALL THE PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF RACE CREED, OR COLOR.

One feature of modern society that deeply distresses me is the increasingly lack of respect among people.  The police do not respect anyone’s rights, as can be seen from countless examples in various fields of law enforcement, from domestic relations to enforcement of judicial foreclosures.  But ordinary people, too, do not respect each other’s rights, space or property, and depend for all protection on the police or state power generally as arbiters of everything.  Individuals need to take responsibility for all things, including their own protection and that of their loved ones and property.

Concern over lack of respect is, I think, a unifying theme in both the radical White and radical Black Lives Matter movements.  

Quatorze Juillet  (Edith Piaf)

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Des musiques de la rue.
Chaque estrade a son orchestre.
Chaque bal a sa cohue.
Ces gens-là m’ont pris ma fête.
Je ne la reconnais plus.

Dans ma chambre, je me chante
L’air que nous avons valsé.
Je regarde la toquarde
Où tes doigts se sont posés.

Tu m’as dit : “Tu es si belle.”
Et tu as, l’instant d’après,
Ajouté : “La vie est bête.”.
J’ai compris que tu partais.
Si tu ne reviens jamais,
Il n’y aura plus de quatorze juillet.

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Un murmure qui s’éteint,
Les chansons d’une jeunesse
Attardée dans le matin.
N’allez pas troubler mon rêve.
Allez rire un peu plus loin.

Que m’apporte, que m’apporte
Cette joie de quelques heures ?
Je suis morte, je suis morte
Et je t’ai déjà rejoint
Et mon corps est près du tien
Mais personne n’en sait rien…

The 14th of July

He comes to my window
The music in the street
Each stage has its orchestra
Each dance has its crowd
These people took my celebration
I don’t recognize it anymore

In my room, I sing to myself
The air that we waltzed in
I watch the infatuation
Where your fingers encountered mine

You tell me “you are so beautiful”
And you after a moment
Added “life is stupid”
I understood that you left
If you never come back
There will not be another 14th of July

He came to my window
A murmur that has extinguished
The songs of youth
Lingering in the morning
Don’t go troubling my dream
Laughing one step further away

That brings me, that brings me
The joy of a few hours
I’m dead, I’m dead
And I already reached you
And my body is close to yours
But nobody knows anything…

Are Cultural Behaviors Genetically Programmed or Learned? Can Crime be Genetically programmed if Law is Culturally Determined?

Posted on August 30, 2013

Genetically Tamed?

John Engelman, American Renaissance, August 27, 2013


Are we declining for the same reason as the Romans?

InThe Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” published in 2010 in Evolutionary Psychology, Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost presents a fascinating new explanation for the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. This explanation provides insight into why the different races have different crime rates. It can also explain why most whites have come to accept the immigration of less civilized races, and why they are willing to make excuses for blacks. Finally, it offers a way to understand some of the ways white Americans differ from Europeans.

Evangelical Christians blame the fall of the Roman Empire on Roman paganism and decadence. In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon blamed Christianity. People often blame public misfortunes on what they privately dislike. Dr. Frost offers a biological explanation.

In Paleolithic and Neolithic societies all men participated in war. The best warriors had several wives and more sons, who inherited their aggressiveness. With civilization, the military becomes a professional specialty, and most men have no experience of combat. As governments increase in power, those who are submissive to authority have more children than those who defy it.

Dr. Frost’s argument is that by crushing rebellions and by executing criminals, the Roman government removed physically aggressive men from the gene pool. He points out that variation in physical aggressiveness is heritable, and cites figures of 40 to 69 percent, depending on the study. Over a period of centuries, as aggression was weeded out, rebellions became rare in the Roman Empire, the crime rate fell, and a genetically pacified population became receptive to Christianity, with its emphasis on gentleness and submission.

Dr. Frost does not mention this, but while the Roman Army killed some aggressive men, it also attracted others into service, thereby reducing the number of descendents they would have. Enlistments in the Roman Army were usually for 20 years. When soldiers were discharged they were often given land to farm, but many were too old to begin families, and it was next to impossible for an enlisted man to raise a family. The children some of them may have had with prostitutes, bar maids, or an occasional rape victim probably had a high infant mortality rate and a short life expectancy

Too busy for families.

Meanwhile, the same male population that became less inclined to revolt and commit crimes became less willing to join the Roman Army in order to defend the Empire from external enemies, especially the Germanic and Hun barbarians to the north. These enemies had not been genetically tamed, and the Roman Army became increasingly dependent on barbarian mercenaries, whose loyalty could not be taken for granted.

Eventually, marauding barbarians crossed the borders of the Roman Empire. They looted, raped, and killed a population that lacked the ability to resist effectively.

Destruction by Thomas Cole (1836).

Does that sound familiar? Whites in Europe, the British Commonwealth, and the United States increasingly lack the will to exclude, or even control more violent alien populations. Whites have been genetically tamed by centuries of capital punishment and long prison sentences, which also prevent aggressive men from having children. The two world wars also killed off millions of the more aggressive Europeans before they had a chance to reproduce. Whites have become innately civilized, and no longer need a draconian criminal justice system. Unfortunately, many of them lack the ability to understand the mentalities of other races. They keep trying to rehabilitate criminals from races that are only a few generations removed from an environment where the most skilled killers had the most children.

When the Roman government acquired a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, the kind of men who had previously been most prolific were bred out of the population. Selective fitness was achieved instead by those who were more peaceful. Some violent men joined the military or became rebels, while those with less integrity became bandits or pirates. In each case they had fewer children.

Dr. Frost does not point this out, but the Roman Empire also selected for superior intelligence. Intelligent men became merchants, money lenders, government officials, artists and so on. These men were more prosperous than peaceful but less intelligent men, and more likely to pass on their genes to future generations. During most of history, prosperous people have tended to be more prolific than poor people. It was an empire-wide case of “revenge of the nerds.”

As time went on, literate Roman citizens noticed they were different from barbarians—both those beyond the borders of the empire, and barbarian immigrants. The barbarians were seen as having such traits as “crudelitas (cruelty), feritas (wildness), immanitas (savagery), inhumanitas (inhumanity), impietas(impiety), ferocitas (ferocity), furor (fury), and discordia (discord).”

Soft Romans

Although the Romans generally attributed barbarian characteristics to living in a colder climate, we can see that these characteristics had survival value in an areas with no government and no law enforcement. We can also see that the same characteristics could create problems in a state where rebellion and criminal behavior were severely punished.

Dr. Frost’s explanation for the fall of the Western Roman Empire can also explain why whites in the United States have lower crime rates than blacks and Hispanics, but have higher crime rates than whites in Europe.

Americans tend to be more individualistic than Europeans, more suspicious of government, more insistent on the right to own firearms, more willing to defend themselves from criminals rather than to rely on government law enforcement, and more willing to fund and join an expensive military.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” A poll on this statement would almost certainly find that a higher percentage of whites in the United States agree with it than whites in Europe.

Europeans who crossed the Atlantic tended to be poor, and were sometimes economically desperate. They wanted better economic opportunities. It is also likely that most were by nature more adventuresome, and less willing to submit to traditional authority, especially absolute monarchs and hereditary aristocracies. Aristocrats would not have tolerated physical aggressiveness, whereas it paid off on the frontier, where the government was weak or nonexistent, and a man had to defend himself and his family against Indians and outlaws.


During the 20th century it became fashionable to attribute character, personality, and even intelligence to childhood upbringing, and to factors governments could improve through social reform and welfare. The Nazi movement increased this tendency. After World War II, fewer people wanted to believe that innate individual and racial characteristics were important, or that they even existed.

More recently there has been a tendency to give genetic factors more credence. The civil rights legislation and the war on poverty did not cause most blacks to behave and perform as well as most whites. Increased spending on public schools has not improved academic performance. No Child Left Behind left millions of children behind, especially blacks and Hispanics.

The fall of the Soviet Union represented the failure of an ambitious effort to create a “new Soviet man,” who would be motivated by altruism rather than self interest.

Coal miner Alexey Stakhanov was held as an example of the "New Soviet Man" after setting mining records. He was featured on a December 1935 cover of TIME.

There are still taboos against recognizing the biological contribution to ability, personality, and character. However, the taboos are weakening as World War II fades from memory, and as the evidence for biological influences increases.

In “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” Dr. Frost provides a plausible explanation of what happened 2,000 years ago and of what we see today on the six o’clock news.

A Harvard Anthropologist’s Thoughts about Race in America between Barack Obama, George Zimmerman, Bob Hurt, and Jared Taylor—I

I was an “Honors Program” Freshman undergraduate at the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University in New Orleans in 1975-76.  That meant that in my second semester of Freshman year, I got to take one senior and two graduate level classes.  The two graduate level classes were “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature”, taught by the Mellon Professor of the Humanities, Cleanth Brooks, (1906-1994).  The other course was “Ethnic Relations, Conquest, and Colonialism” by Dr. Victoria Reifler Bricker (1940-   ), then a young associate professor of Anthropology with a Harvard Ph.D. who wore rather (even for the mid 1970s) scandalous mini-skirts every day to class (a detail no straight male college Freshman could ignore or forget).  

Bricker and Brooks were in some ways as different as people could be.  But in other ways they complemented each other: they both articulated and affirmed the important relationship between race and culture in history. Cleanth Brooks was one of the great Southern Literary Critics of all times (a founder of “New Criticism”, author of “the Well-Wrought Urn”, and an ally of the Southern Agrarians, John Crowe Ransom, Andrew Lytle, and Donald Davidson, Vanderbilt “Fugitives” Allan Tate, Robert Penn Warren, and their later associates Walker Percy).  Bricker was, I believe, actually born in China or to Chinese missionaries of some sort.

I just about have to disown my friendship with Bob Hurt.   Even before today I had written to him, in King Harry’s words to Jack Falstaff, “I know thee not old man, fall to thy prayers; How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!”  

Twice in the past day, Bob has published two articles on “Lawmen”, Numbers 5472 and 5476, 10-11 August 2013, ” with the phrase “Negro Thuggery in the title.  I disown this sort of writing.  It is not only not mine, it is nothing I want to be associated with.  Bob Hurt has been a friend, faithful and true to me (sometimes) but I cannot tolerate his hypocritical, ignorant, mish-mash of quasi-Neo-Nazi racist and pro-Constitutionalist ravings.  Bob wrote recently that the post-War of Secession “Reconstructed” period of 1865-1914 was the best period of American history.  Really Bob?  You’re a southerner and you think this?  REALLY?  You believe that the era of the Robber Barons when our grand-daddies could press down upon labor a crown of thorns and crucify mankind upon a cross of gold were the BEST years in American History?  The old man in Clearwater has clearly lost at least a few of his marbles…..

Writing about “Negro Thuggery” amounts to throwing out fighting words in Obama’s America and are about as likely as Al Sharpton’s speeches or Charles Manson’s rantings from prison to produce any positive effect.  Neither Jared Taylor nor anyone writing for American Renaissance write or speak this way, even as they aspire to awaken a sense of “racial realism” in America—whether they have achieved anything or not being a totally separate issue.

First off, such phrases as “Negro Thuggery” amount to rude, crude, and uncivilized writing.  I do not endorse censorship or doctrines of “political correctness” by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not think that using these kinds of labels in public makes it any easier to engage in rational dialogue about either race or crime in America in August 2013.  And I do agree we need rational dialogue about crime and race in America.  But, whether Bob Hurt or I like it or not, we have a half-white (“Mulatto”) President whose father was an anti-White, anti-British, pro-Communist terrorist in Kenya, either a member or an ally of the feared and despised “Mau Mau”, and whose mother was, like me, an anthropologist, but unlike me was also a weak-minded communist who used her relationships with men, apparently, to promote her revolutionary anti-white agenda (at least if the movie “Obama 2016” is to be believed).

Obama’s 50% mix of white and “Negro Blood” is probably about the same as Trayvon Martin, a fact on which the President, to his own MASSIVE discredit, has been trying to capitalize on politically.  The President has a more debased and corrupted sense of justice and constitutional authority that I would ever have dreamt possible in any holder of high office in this country.

Second, Bob Hurt is just being a terrible hypocrite here.   I have known Bob personally and he has black friends and black relatives (in-laws mostly, I believe) who would probably be deeply offended by his use of such epithets.   Bob Hurt is utterly unqualified to be a racist on personal grounds, and he lacks the academic background in either law or anthropology or biology to realize how wrong he is about eugenics and his advocacy of forced sterilization and controlled reproduction as solutions for any of the problems he describes.  Jared Taylor and some of the writers at American Renaissance seem to be tiptoeing on the edge of endorsing eugenics or forced sterilization.  I would never endorse or tolerate any such governmental interference with individual human life or liberty.  I could not possibly do so—I have seen too much of the stupidity of government, and too much injustice and error in the courts.  

As I have learned, observed, and seen first hand from personal experience, ordinary civil and criminal process in the courts simply result in MUCH too much inequity, injustice, and downright horrible outcomes to permit the Courts to go any farther than they already do interfering in people’s lives.  We need to cut WAY back on government, perhaps abolishing the current government all together and starting over.  But we should never think of empowering it be allowing anyone in government to try to play God and supervise or guide the course of human biological evolution.  They have made enough of a hash out of their social engineering attempts, most if not all of which I totally oppose and despise.

I have previously criticized and tried to distance myself from Bob Hurt’s bigoted and downright reprehensible advocacy of 1920s-30s style forced sterilization as a solution to what he calls the “Negro Crime Wave”—I have sat outside jails with Bob in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties waiting for one of his dark-skinned nieces to be released from custody for her criminal cavortings with people of even darker skin.  Should not this close proximity to the people he condemns make Bob more sympathetic rather than critical and sanctimonious?

There are many causes of high crime rates among African-Americans—but the basic cause was the abolition of chattel (property-based) slavery and its replacement with the 13th Amendment which only permitted slavery “as a punishment for a crime.”  Americans have to own up to themselves as a nation of Bob Hurts who want slavery badly—they just want to pretend that it is just.  The high (one could say “mass” incarceration rates of black males results directly and consequentially from the successive abolition of slavery and segregation.  

I do not accept or believe for a moment that black people are more criminally inclined than whites.   In not so ancient U.S. and U.K. history, it used to be accepted and common knowledge that the Irish, Italians, and Jews were chronically criminal and deviant, but nobody seems to remember or believe that anymore, and even people like Bob Hurt (including Bob Hurt himself) acknowledge that Jews have superior “group average” scores on IQ tests than non-Jewish whites, for whatever that is worth, at the same time as he says that blacks should be sterilized on account of their low IQs and criminal tendencies.

There are direct correlations between IQ and socio-economic status, within ethnically homogeneous groups (such as the Nazi High Command, as tested at their trials at Nuremberg, for example, running from 143 (the financial and banking genius Hjalmar Schacht), and 142 (the equally brilliant Austrian lawyer and jurist Arthur Seyss-Inquart) to poor old Julius Streicher at 106—the most like Bob Hurt of the lot, a vulgar anti-Semite who run a couple of news rags for the NSDAP and never knew when to shut up.

To the degree that there are inter-ethnic group differences in IQ, I still believe that this is cultural, because after many years of considering the question I consider it inconceivable that there is such a thing as “untutored innate human intelligence”, i.e. any intelligence which is NOT created by parents primarily and/or educators in their children.  I have recently discussed this question at length with a New Orleans psychologist (Dr. Robin Chapman), and the reason that IQ tests correlate well with success in school is that IQ scores test school-taught subjects.  Manual dexterity, the earliest use of the human brain which distinguishes us from animals by our envisioning and creation of tools as “extrasomatic adaptations to the environment”, is certainly not a matter of IQ, for example.  So the key survival techniques to exist in the “uncivilized” human societies of palaeotechnic prehistory (i.e. Stone Age chipping stone tools, making good fires, fletching straight and sharp arrows, and later forging and using swords and spears of iron and fitting out good Phoenician or Roman ships and Viking longboats, for example) are completely outside the realm of Intelligence Quotient testing.  

African cultures up through and until the 19th century dawn of Colonialism had achieved just as high levels of proficiency in iron age technology as had their European Counterparts up to and including the early phases of pre-Roman society in Italy or “mainland” Germanic or Viking society (although the native Africans did engage in some fairly extensive coastal and riverine trade by boat in precolonial times, especially in East Africa on the Indian Ocean side, influenced by Arab sea-farers).   

Literate Civilization never independently evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa, and in pre-Colonial times never even extended further south than Ethiopia by diffusion. This lone fact, probably more than any other single historical reason, explains why blacks do not score so well on IQ tests—literate schooling in the Western tradition neither formed part of their cultural nor evolutionary heritage—but that doesn’t make them criminals or stupid, it makes them DIFFERENT.

And it is the study of the function and meaning of human differences which concern us today in America.

I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Harvard University, and the title-subject of my doctoral dissertation was “Ethnicity and Social Organization”. I was and remain interested in the question of the reality of ethnic differences and the dynamics of interaction between groups.  “Ethnicity”, across the world, operates largely a mythological construct and ethnic conflict operates as a metaphoric system whose sole purpose, in a virtually monolithically homogeneous society, to maintain social hierarchy.   “Ethnicity” in Europe denominates cultural differences based on  linguistic-nationality, as between French and German, German and Czech or Polish, English and Irish, Italian, Spanish, Yugoslav and Greek.   Looking at the maps of Europe, the Near East, and Latin America today, I think this operational, functional approach to ethnicity as mythology still works.  In short, “ethnicity” and “class” match each other more closely than “ethnicity” and “population biology” in terms of human genetics.

In the United States, we have something called “Race” which both sounds simultaneously deeper in terms of genetics than “ethnicity” and harder to miss on the surface, because “race” implies skin colour.   World culture has evolved into a fundamentally global phenomenon.  Based on what people wear and use, in terms of material culture (a subject on which I focused in my doctoral dissertation, which focused on artistic and historical portrayals of different groups—whether ethnic or not), it is hard to distinguish the “races” of North America.

In North America, our 21st century usage of the term “race” implies fairly strong dividing lines between (1) how people identify themselves, (2) how other people identify them, (3) patterns of behavior, (4) social and cultural values, (5) residence.

In the aftermath of Time Magazine’s cover Story “After Trayvon” (nearly a special issue devoted to the subject of George Zimmerman’s Acquittal, dated July 29, 2013) showing his ghostly “hoodie”, I think it is critical to address the subject of race, which is everywhere in the news and commentary on America.  

Most of what I see is unadulterated hogwash from ALL sides of the debate.  I will start off with the very simple stuff which will permit you to classify me as your ally or enemy, depending on how you feel.  In addition to my Ph.D. from Harvard, which I do not use professionally except to think, I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago, which I also do not use professionally except to think.  

My legal, academic, and personal background lead me to the inescapable conclusion that George Zimmerman’s acquittal was completely proper, George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and Trayvon Martin was a punk kid, neither the best nor the worst of his kind, who may not have deserved to die for anything he did but really has no complaint (under the circumstances) about being shot when he pinned down a guy on a sidewalk with something less than humanitarian intent or expressions of Christ-like sympathy for his victim….. In my opinion, George Zimmerman also, was neither the best nor the worst of his kind, something slightly better than a punk kid, possibly a failed cop and aspiring neighborhood bully who never quite made it. The battle between Zimmerman and Trayvon was hardly worthy of inclusion in any heroic series about Achilles, Hercules, or Odysseus, but one COULD get confused on that point, reading the news both in print and on-line these days.

But George Zimmerman committed no mortal sin in shooting Trayvon, and the fact that this is all not just news but DIALOGUE on an EPIC PROPORTION in America is symptomatic of a very sick, disturbed society.

Up one minor notch on an increasing scale of complexity, from the discussion of Zimmerman’s acquittal is the question of whether there is too much violence in modern society. The acquittal was exactly as simple as the jury made it: self-defense, justified under the circumstances including but not limited the fact that he was attacked and had no duty to retreat under the laws of the State of Florida—NO HUMAN BEING SHOULD EVER HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT WHEN ATTACKED, in my opinion).  So now, must we discourage violence?  I think the answer is NO, we must train people how to prepare for and engage in duels to resolve their disputes—observed by, but not carried out by, society as a whole.

As a lifelong student of Anthropology, Biology, Classics, Economics, Geography, and History, I know that violence is an essential aspect of the condition known as “animal life”, generally, but especially “human life” in particular.  As a strictly theoretical matter, but also in practice, I strongly favor personal violence over group violence.   From a biological standpoint, personal (individual-on-individual violence is so much easier to understand and situationally justify).  

Imagine trying, if you will, what it would take to convince a group of Male and Female Lions, for example, that the Death Penalty makes sense: Scar killed Mufassa, so to retake his father’s kingdom, Mufassa’s son Simba kills Scar.  Lions could probably understand that story.  But what if Simba had died in the stampede or the jungle?   Should Rafiki the Baboon Priest somehow have assembled Sarabi (Mufassa’s widow), Nala, and enough other female lions and possibly other “food” animals to arrest, pass judgment on and execute Scar for Mufassa’s murder?   (Priestly and judicial roles are closely related, from an evolutionary standpoint—even today, Priests and Judges are united in wearing anachronistic black robes in public for ritual purposes).

I will come back to the “Lion King” plot-line later, but from the standpoint of non-human animals who NEVER operated that way, the human “justice” system looks pretty ridiculous and frankly, unnatural and counterproductive.  After substantial experience in the law from the perspectives of both judicial chambers and litigants, I question how much sense it makes for humans to operate that way: personal knowledge and experience are a much more reliable index of who deserves to live or die.  No less an authority than my grandmother taught me this, although she phrased it in terms of kinship, “If close relatives don’t know who deserves to live or die, nobody else does either.”

Personal justice is better than, morally superior by far to collective social justice in my opinion, and accordingly, personal violence should be encouraged.  This is true because, if lawful, the credible threat of immediate retribution will actually make for a more peaceful, cooperative society.  That was why murder led to feuds among the Vikings and Scots and their descendants in the Blue Ridge Mountains and Appalachia generally: death by intentional violence was so rare that everybody knew who was responsible and why it happened when it did.

But does Trayvon’s Ectoplasmic Hoodie Really Rate a Full Cover Treatment on Time Magazine?  Does Trayvon Martin really belong among the  ἀθανάτοι θεοὶ?  (the “deathless Gods” as described in Homeric idiom)?   At least seven contributors to the July 29, 2013 issue seem to think so.  I do not intend to join them.  

As a matter of fact, I think that what our so-called President and his propagandists (and I suppose I have to include Time Magazine in this list) have done to try to promote race conflict and racial tension.  It makes me ill.

Catch 22: When Dogmatic “Diversity” will not tolerate “Dissent”, Dialogue Dies and with it any Dynamic Diversity: can students be expelled for thinking?

Bucking the College Diversity Cult

Noah Steadman, American Renaissance, December 28, 2012

Asking the wrong questions at Simon’s Rock.

Bard College at Simon’s Rock is a liberal-arts school in Great Barrington, in the Massachusetts Berkshires. The town was established in colonial times, and is nearly 95 percent white. The college was founded in 1964, and is very small; there are fewer than 400 students, and almost all live on campus.

Since Bard acquired Simon’s Rock Early College in 1979, it has pushed “diversity” very hard. This graph, taken from the college website, is a source of pride: Non-whites have grown from 10 percent to 30 percent of the student body in the last 10 years.


This graph, also taken from the website, brags about how Simon’s Rock forces diversity into the curriculum.


The result is that, compared to students who attend lesser institutions, Simon’s Rock students claim to be greatly enriched.


The website describes efforts to make Simon’s Rock more diverse.

When Mary Marcy, provost and vice president of Bard College at Simon’s Rock, arrived on campus in 2004 she recognized an opportunity to deepen the College’s commitment to diversity. Like many initiatives at Simon’s Rock, the object was to go beyond the numbers and to help forge meaningful connections between and among students and faculty from diverse backgrounds with integrity, significance and context.

All students must take a course in “cultural perspectives,” and the campus celebrates something called Diversity Day. It has a Director of Multi-Cultural affairs, “spaces for students of color to meet,” a Black Student Union, a student-run Race Task Force, a Queer Student Alliance, and a Latino Student Alliance—all for just a few hundred students.

Simon’s Rock has indeed “deepened its commitment to diversity” since 2004, to the point of absurdity. When I enrolled as a freshman last fall I was unaware just how zealous the school was. Everyone took it for granted that diversity was a wonderful thing, but no one ever explained why.

It was clear, however, that many students self-segregated, with Asians spending time with Asians, blacks with blacks, etc. Encouraging students to join racial groups such as the Black Student Union encouraged identity politics and ran counter to the professed goal of diversity. The hypocrisy of this never dawned on anyone until I decided to call it to their attention.

Diversity Day is an important observance at Simon’s Rock; all courses are cancelled and students must attend three seminars on diversity. We had our pick of about 20 sessions on race, gender, and class. They had names such as “Are We Born Racist?” “Am I A Racist?” and “Dear White People,” which explained white privilege. There was no intellectual diversity.

The Kellogg Music Center: a campus landmark.

The Kellogg Music Center: a campus landmark.

I prepared for Diversity Day by putting up two dozen fliers. They asked students to email me five benefits of diversity, aside from ethnic food and music. My plan was to compile a list of the benefits and conduct a workshop to discuss them on Diversity Day. I never said diversity was bad; I just wanted to hear the reasons why it is good.

The fliers were all torn down and some students cut them into snowflakes or paper dolls holding hands. I learned that my flier was going to be discussed at a Black Student Union meeting in a few days, so I decided to go.

There were about 30 people in the room, in what was essentially a kangaroo court. Everyone sat in a circle and went around the room complaining that I was “invalidating the existence” of minorities and was willfully ignorant of my white privilege. They talked about how personally offended they were and how disgusting it was for me to ask for an explanation of the advantages of diversity. This went on for nearly two hours. I had only a minute or two to respond. At one point, a black student began to agree with me, but other blacks told him to shut up, saying I “would’ve supported slavery.”

I did not hear a single argument in favor of diversity, but there were implied threats of physical violence if I acted up again.

I received a lot of e-mail about the flier, mostly insults. A few people actually sent me arguments in favor of diversity: It broadens your perspective and makes you worldlier. When I put the text into a Google search, I found it had been copied from a website.

There were also Facebook comments that show how Simon’s Rock students think. One girl called me a “white freshman idiot” and complained that “the faculty and staff don’t do a good enough job of really reinforcing [anti-racism] to the white students in its population.” One student wanted to know, “Do we have a flag pole we can duct tape him to? Preferably naked.” An Asian Indian student wrote, “Go punch him in the gut, then talk to him.” Another student wrote “I just consider this fucker fresh meat.” One offered a reward “to whoever gives this kid the best swift kick in the ass.” Another student’s plan was to “drop him off in some housing projects somewhere, I’d say kick his ass, but daamn, why give him another reason to play the sniveling victim. For God’s sake, he sounds like the reincarnation of Samuel George Morton.” Another Indian wrote, “Your very presence effectively oppresses the being of people of color. There’s a thing called history.”

It is remarkable how quickly their fantasies turn to violence when anyone challenges their dogmas. Some people even started using my name to post outrageous messages on discussion boards. One included an image of the Simon’s Rock campus with cross hairs on it, and another asked, “Can someone tell me how to make a bomb?” I was called down to the Great Barrington police station, but the officers quickly accepted my explanation that these messages were posted by impostors.

An upperclassman, a Dravidian Indian, sent me a detailed response in which he accused me of having a “white supremacist ideology” and telling me to “check my privilege.” He went on a tirade against white Christian men, claimed he was a member of an oppressed group, and that I was the oppressor. He also called me a white boy.

I replied to his arguments and made sure to call him an Indian boy—but that was when I got in trouble with the administration. He said that I had “crossed the line between free speech and hate speech,” and filed a formal complaint. He claimed I had harassed him so terribly and his feelings were so badly hurt that he didn’t feel comfortable going about his day-to-day activities. This student was a critical theory major, but apparently couldn’t handle criticism.

I had to respond to the complaint. I argued that my accuser didn’t have a right not to be offended, and that if what I said to him was inflammatory and merited a harassment charge, then he should be charged as well, since he said exactly the same thing to me. The school nevertheless accused me of harassment and ordered a psychological assessment and diversity training—at my own expense. Even worse, there was an attempt to expel me. I was sent home for a de facto suspension of more than a week while the provost decided my fate.

Simon's Rock

Simon’s Rock

Needless to say, my family was shocked by all this. They could hardly believe I was getting in so much trouble and being treated like a danger to the campus just because I asked for five benefits of diversity.

I got in touch with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and my parents threatened to sue the school if I were expelled. Perhaps for this reason, the provost gave up on the idea. I met with the president of the college, and he had to concede that I had done nothing wrong. I was finally allowed back on campus—to the dismay of many students.

As it happened, Diversity Day was held during the very week I came back—but it was a flop. The non-white students who were supposed to be running many of the workshops boycotted the event. I didn’t show up to watch, but they gathered on campus and handed out fliers. Their flier (see entire text here) says the problems all began with “a document distributed by a student on campus questioning the value of diversity, and therein questioning our very existence and invalidating our lived experiences.”

The flier went on to complain that “the provost has, in recent decisions, explicitly gone against our wishes and best interests as a marginalized and oppressed faction, essentially legitimizing white supremacist ideologies on this campus.” So far as I can tell, the failure to expel me was what legitimized white supremacy, but in any case, they had “feelings of being unsafe and threatened.” They said that if the administration were really serious about diversity, “each day would be observed as diversity day, and every day, the needs of the marginalized students in this community would be met and with dignity and respect.” A mere one-day Diversity Day was “a consolation prize” so they tried to shut it down.

I have decided to transfer to another college, but I have not yet decided where I will go. Because I chose to leave Simon’s Rock I did not have to take the diversity training or undergo the psychological assessment—though that would certainly have been an interesting experience.


THE ROAD TO HELL, WELL-PAVED WITH INTENTIONS (but are they really GOOD intentions? For example: birth control started to transform Europe and America starting in the 1920s—why did the “foreign aid” explosion that began simultaneously with the retreat of Colonialism in Africa and Asia cause a huge population explosion? Why was Latin America immune from the population explosion until Pope John Paul II “energized” Catholic fanaticism against birth control in 1978-79?

One topic NOT covered in this excellent review (from American Renaissance) is that American “foreign aid,” starting in the 1950s, LITERALLY was designed to take the place of (nominally) retreating French & British colonialism.  The imbalance in the world’s population began right after World War II—any idea why?  Well, the developed nations started practicing birth control fairly effectively while exporting MEDICAL supplies, based on supposedly humanitarian concerns, to the former Colonial/Emerging Third World, WITHOUT birth control (until much later).  The result was that “the horror of infant mortality” (which had been a long-standing and traditional, normal, if nowhere beloved, grim-but-real aspect of the way of life in “Civilized” Europe and the Americas THROUGH the 19th century, into the 20th)  began to abate, but the specter of STARVATION DUE TO OVERPOPULATION began to haunt Africa and Asia.  Latin America had a good enough start in the 19th century so that ONLY Haiti and a few other small pocket territories ever seemed quite as bad off as Africa—could there be a common reason why this is true?  Was it all by grossly negligent accident or careful design to destroy European and North American Civilization?  If so, it’s almost succeeded….

As I have previously written on this blog—MEXICO, BRAZIL, and VENEZUELA in particular were on their way to becoming genuine First World Countries in the 1960s-1970s, until Pope John Paul II (often placed in a “triumvirate” [duum virate/adrogynate?] with Ronald W. Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as the trio who formed and shaped the modern world)  went first to Mexico and then travelled throughout Latin America urging them to “be fruitful and multiply” in the name of sadistic Catholic orthodoxy.  Such preaching was hardly necessary in Africa and Asia—

Shaking Hands with the Devil

Jon Harrison Sims, American Renaissance, July 13, 2012

The perverse consequences of foreign aid.

Linda Polman, The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid?, Metropolitan Books, 2010; $24.00, 229 pp.

What’s wrong with humanitarian aid? The short answer to the question posed by Dutch reporter Linda Polman in the subtitle of her book is “everything.”

When Smedley D. Butler called his 1935 pamphlet War is a Racket, he knew what he was talking about. He had fought as a Marine Corps officer in Nicaragua, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba, and concluded that he had been nothing but a “high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street, and the bankers.”

Likewise, Miss Polman knows what she is talking about when she says foreign aid is a racket. She has tramped through countless refugee camps in Africa, interviewing aid workers, refugees, African government officials, and rebel leaders. What she found is one of the biggest con-games of our time.

That there is genuinely terrible suffering, disease, poverty, and violence across much of Africa and Asia she does not question. That western humanitarian and development aid is the answer, or even part of the answer, she does question. She thinks all it does is perpetuate poverty, fund corruption, and foster dependence. To the question “So we should do nothing then?” she answers that that would be better than what we are doing now.

Miss Polman is not the first reporter or chastened aid worker who has come to that conclusion, yet every year the money spent on humanitarian and development aid increases—she says the idea of donor fatigue is a myth—and what she calls “the crisis caravan” rolls on. Why? The short answer is money.

The biggest players in the aid game are the international non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, which get money from governments and private donors. There are tens of thousands of them; no one knows how many. On average, 1,000 of them descend on a humanitarian crisis zone, along with 10 United Nation agencies, and at least twice as many government aid organizations. With their flags and tents, and white Land Cruisers, relief camps are like a traveling circus.

Each year governments spend $120 billion on humanitarian and development aid, but an average of 60 percent never leaves the donor countries. It’s called “phantom aid,” and is spent on salaries, conferences, publicity, transportation, and contracts for Western businesses that make or deliver aid supplies. Miss Polman says the Americans are the worst offenders; an estimated 70 to 80 percent is phantom aid.

The outright stealing begins after supplies and money reach the target country. Corrupt local governments “tax” aid, by demanding payment either in cash, or in relief supplies, which they sell on the black market. In Somalia, aid organizations paid warlords 80 percent of the value of all aid supplies. In Aceh, Indonesia, after the tsunami, they paid 30 percent to the Indonesian Army. Sometimes officials or rebel commanders tax aid organizations according to the number of patients they treat or people they help. These deals are often made with the very thugs who are committing atrocities and mayhem. This is called “shaking hands with the devil.”

Devastation in Aceh, Indonesia, after 2004 tsunami that killed 200,000 people.

Aid workers also must bribe soldiers and officials just to move about in a relief area. There is “no access to war zones without payment, whatever form it may take,” writes Miss Polman, “especially if you’re a humanitarian.”

Aid organizations also provide jobs, and disburse lucrative contracts to local companies, which are usually started up for the sole purpose of getting aid money. The scramble for this business is called “contract fever.” The aid agencies keep poor records of how their money is spent, and when the local economy becomes wholly based on aid—which it usually does—it is called NGOism.

Because the agencies are independent, and compete for money and publicity, they cannot take a common position against corruption. If just one agency refuses to pay off a corrupt general, another 10 will step in and grease his palm.

Miss Polman says that most journalists cannot be trusted. Often their travel expenses are paid by NGOs, and they are wholly dependent on aid workers for food, lodging, transportation, and protection. As a result, their reporting is superficial and biased. Miss Polman calls their work “churnalism;” they just churn out what they are told.

The refugee camps in Goma,Congo, that operated from 1994 to 1996 were subject to the typical whitewash; the media covered them as an epic humanitarian response to a flood of Hutu refugees who fled war in neighboring Rwanda only to be stricken with cholera inside the Congo. In fact, this flood of Hutu included the entire Rwandan Hutu army and militias that had just helped murder more than 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis. They were fleeing from a Tutsi army that had invaded Rwanda from Uganda, and Miss Polman calls them “refugee warriors.” She gives other examples of soldiers and fighters posing as refugees in order to rest up before resuming the killing.

The Hutu refugees continued their campaign of murder right in the camps. The Hutu doctors and nurses who staffed the camp hospitals would murder any newly arrived Tutsi patients, as well as Hutus suspected of disloyalty. They would dispose of the bodies, and bring in Hutus to fill the empty beds. A common Hutu saying was “Crushing a cockroach [a Tutsi] isn’t murder, it’s a hygiene measure.”

One aid worker estimated that the Hutu militias stole 60 percent of the aid that went to Goma, which they sold for cash or traded for arms. One aid worker called Goma “a total ethical disaster.” The truth was never reported in the Western media.

Hutu Refugees

Miss Polman was in Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, in 2001. The United Nations Development Program had just declared it the poorest country on earth. That meant the crisis caravan would soon arrive, and everyone was celebrating. As Col. Vandamme of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) explained, “The white man are soon gonna need drivers, security guards, and houses. We’re gonna provide ’em.”  He added that “NGO wifes” (“wives”—aid workers are seen as submissive wives) had already arrived and wanted to count how many children and sick people were in the area. He said aid workers would have to pay him before they did that.

Miss Polman also spoke to the leader of the RUF, General Mike Lamin. His men had been battling the government for ten years in a brutal civil war that left more than 200,000 dead. His troops were long known for scorched-earth tactics, but only recently for “amputation squads,” which hacked off the arms or legs of women and children.

General Lamin confirmed the rumor Miss Polman had heard: The sole purpose of the amputations was to attract media attention and aid. He explained that although the war had gone on for a decade, “you people looked the other way all those years.” He said he had not tried to negotiate a cease fire with the government because “there was nothing to stop for.” As he explained:

Everything was broken and you people weren’t here to fix it. All you cared about was the white man’s war in Yugoslavia and the camps in Goma [Congo]. You just let us go on fighting . . . . [But] when we started cutting hands, hardly a day BBC would not talk about us. Without the amputation factor you people wouldn’t have come.

As she left the interview, a young RUF gunman shouted a question: “White woman! Do you know what warmeans?” “Fighting and killing?” she offered. “Wrong! Waste All Resources! Destroy Everything! Then you people will come and fix it.” Miss Polman calls this the “logic of humanitarian aid.” Since suffering brings aid, and more suffering more aid, why not wreak havoc in order to cash in?

While Miss Polman was in Sierra Leone, she discovered that Americans from religious organizations with names such as Gifts of Limbs and Noah’s Ark were taking children and teenage amputees from the camps, driving them over the border to Guinea, and flying them to the United States for adoption. Here, too, she found the same deceit, corruption, and perverse idealism that characterize all foreign aid.

Amputee from Sierra Leone.

First, the organizations were telling donors that the children were without prostheses, did not have medical care, and were orphans. None of this was true. The children had custom-fitted European prostheses, regular medical care, and at least one parent. Miss Polman found out these groups always left the children’s medical records behind, to make the children seem more pathetic and their actions more heroic.

Why was the American embassy in Freetown approving visas for children who had parents and were getting medical attention. “For political reasons,” explained an embassy official:

Amputee children have been politicized. Recently I had some member of Congress on the phone from Washington demanding I tell him what the fuck was the problem with the visas for a group of amputee children. Pretty remarkable, since those visas hadn’t even been applied for yet. Get the picture?

The Sierra Leonean government was taking bribes to let the children out of the country, and Miss Polman found organizations were either bribing or tricking the parents into giving up their children. She heard one American tell a woman that in America her child’s missing limbs would be magically regenerated. It is clear that despite humanitarian pretentions, these allegedly Christian groups were stealing children for naive whites who wanted to adopt a black baby from Africa.

Miss Polman writes that veteran aid workers harbor few illusions about their business. Over drinks, they admit that development aid is a racket, that aid merely perpetuates  poverty and corruption, and even that the recipients of aid are hardly worth saving. So why do they stay? Miss Polman explains that “the salaries, and per-diems, and danger and discomfort bonuses . . . make working in the established aid sector highly attractive.” Even in the most hellish countries, there is a secure capital with swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, discos, five-star restaurants, and prostitutes. Aid workers live like colonial administrators of old, perhaps even better.

Miss Polman leaves no doubt that the entire business of aid is morally, as well as politically and intellectual corrupt, but that’s what it is: a business.

Can the Family be Saved as the Core Institution of Society? As the family goes, so go private property and the State. Friedrich Engels saw this at the birth of Communism when he wrote “The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State.” AmRen Review of a recent French critique of the Sexual Revolution—into which I was born and in which I grew up, along with most other Americans…

Sex and Derailment

 Michael O’Meara, American Renaissance, June 29, 2012

How the sexual revolution is destroying the West.

Guillaume Faye, Sexe et dévoiementÉditions du Lore, 2011, €26.00, 376 pp, (soft cover, in French). 

Four years after Guillaume Faye’s La Nouvelle question juive (The New Jewish Question, 2007) alienated many of his admirers and apparently caused him to retreat from identitarianism and Euro-nationalism, his latest work signals a definite return, reminding us of why he remains one of the most creative thinkers defending the future of the white race.

In this 400-page book, which is an essay and not a work of scholarship, Mr. Faye’s central concern is the family, and the catastrophic impact the rising number of divorces and broken households is having on white demographic renewal. In linking family decline to its demographic and civilizational consequences, he dissects the larger social pathologies associated with the “inverted” sexuality now disfiguring European life. These pathologies include the de-virilization and feminization of white men, the normalization of homosexuality, feminist androgyny, Third-World colonization, miscegenation, the loss of bio-anthropological norms (like the blond Jesus)—and all that comes with the denial of biological reality.

At the core of Mr. Faye’s argument is the contention that sexuality constitutes a people’s fundamental basis; it governs its reproduction and ensures its survival. Thus, it is the key to any analysis of contemporary society.

As the ethologist Konrad Lorenz and the anthropologist/social theorist Arnold Gehlen (both of whom have influenced Mr. Faye) have demonstrated, there is nothing automatic or spontaneous in human sexuality, as it is in other animals. Man’s body may be like those of the higher mammals, but it is also a cultural, plastic one with few governing instincts. Socioeconomic, ideological, and emotional imperatives play a major role in shaping human behavior, especially in the higher civilizations.

Given, moreover, that humanity is no monolith, there can be no universal form of sexual behavior, and thus the sexuality, like everything else, of Europeans differs from that of non-Europeans. In the United States and Brazil, for example, the sexual practices and family forms of blacks are still very unlike those of whites, despite ten generations in these European-founded countries. Every form of sexuality, Mr. Faye argues, stems from a specific bioculture (a historically-defined “stock”), which varies according to time and people. Human behavior is thus for him always the result of a native, inborn ethno-psychology, historically embodied in cultural, religious, and ideological superstructures.

The higher, more creative the culture the more sexuality also tends to depend on fragile, individual factors—such as desire, libido, self-interest—in contrast to less developed cultures, whose reproduction relies more on collective and instinctive factors. High cultures consequently reproduce less and low cultures more, though the latter suffer far greater infant mortality (an equilibrium that was upset only in the 20th century, when high cultures intervened to reduce the infant mortality of lower cultures, thereby setting off today’s explosive Third-World population growth).

Despite these differences and despite the world’s great variety of family forms and sexual customs, the overwhelming majority of peoples and races nevertheless prohibit incest, pedophilia, racially mixed marriages, homosexual unions, and “unparented” children.

By contravening many of these traditional prohibitions in recent decades, Western civilization has embarked on a process that Mr. Faye calls derailment, which is evident in the profound social and mental pathologies that follow the inversion of  “natural” (i.e., historic or ancient) norms—inversions that have been legitimized in the name of morality, freedom, and equality.

Sexe et dévoiement is an essay, then, about the practices and ideologies currently affecting European sexuality and about how these practices and ideologies are leading Europeans into a self-defeating struggle against nature—against their nature, upon which their biocivilization rests.

The Death of the Family

Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, expressions of egalitarianism and a nihilistic individualism have helped undermine the family, bringing it to the critical stage it has reached today. Of these, the most destructive for Mr. Faye has been the ideology of libidinal love (championed by the so-called “sexual liberation” movement of the period), which confused recreational sex with freedom, disconnected sex from reproduction, and treated traditional social/cultural norms as forms of oppression.

The “liberationists” of the 1960s—the first generation raised on TV—were linked to the New Left, which saw all restraint as oppressive and all individuals as interchangeable. They were convinced that all things were possible, as they sought to free desire from the “oppressive” mores of what Mr. Faye calls the “bourgeois family.”

This ‘60s-style sexual liberation, he notes, was “Anglo-Saxon” in origin, motivated by a shift from prudery to the opposite extreme. Originally, this middle-class, Protestant prudery confined sexuality to the monogamous nuclear family, which represented a compromise between individual desire and familial interests. This compromise preserved the family line and reared children to carry it on.

In the 1960s, when the Boomers came of age, the puritans passed to the other extreme, jettisoning their sexual “squeamishness” and joining the movement to liberate the libido. In practice, this meant abolishing conjugal fidelity, heterosexual dominance, “patriarchy,” and whatever taboos opposed the feel-good “philosophy” of the liberationists. As the Sorbonne’s walls proclaimed in ‘68: “It’s prohibited to prohibit.” The “rights” of individual desire and happiness would henceforth come at the expense of all the prohibitions that had formerly made the family viable. Mr. Faye does not mention it, but American-style consumerism was beginning to take hold in Western Europe at the same time, promoting self-indulgent materialism and the pursuit of pleasure.

Americans pioneered the ideology of sexual liberation, along with gay pride and the porn industry, but a significant number of “ordinary” white Americans resist their elites’ anti-traditional sexual ideology. Salt Lake City here prevails over Las Vegas. The Washington Leviathan nevertheless continues to use these ideologies and practices to subvert non-liberal societies, though not always with success: The Russians have rebuffed “international opinion” and refuse to tolerate gay pride parades.

Europeans, by contrast, have been qualitatively more influenced by the “libertine revolutionaries,” and Mr. Faye’s work speaks more to Europeans than to Americans, though it seems likely that the European experience will sooner or later come to the United States.

Against the backdrop of ‘60s-style sexual liberation, personal sexual relations were reconceived as a strictly individualistic and libidinal “love,” based on the belief that this highly inflated emotional state was too important to limit to conjugal monogamy. Marriages based on impulsive sexual attractions and the “hormonal tempests” they set off have since become the tomb not just of stable families, but increasingly of Europe herself.

For with this adolescent cult of sexualized love that elevates the desires of the solitary individual above his communal and familial duties, there comes another kind of short-sighted, feel-good liberal ideology that destroys collective imperatives: the cult of human rights. This flood of discourses and laws promoting brotherhood and anti-racism are synonymous with de-virilizition, ethnomaschoism, and the destruction of Europe’s historic identity.

Romantic love, which is impulsive on principle, and sexual liberation have destroyed stable families. This “casino of pleasure” may be passionate, but it is also ephemeral and compelled by egoism. Indeed, almost all sentiments grouped under the rubric of love, Mr. Faye contends, are egoistic and self-interested. Love in this sense is an investment from which one expects a return—one loves to be loved. A family of this kind is thus one inclined to allow superficial or immediate considerations to prevail over established, time-tested ones. Similarly, the rupture of such conjugal unions seems almost unavoidable, for once the pact of love is broken—and a strictly libidinal love always fades—the union dissolves.

The death of the “oppressive” bourgeois family at the hands of the  emancipation movements of the ‘60s has given rise to unstable stepfamilies, no-fault divorce, teenage mothers, single-parent homes, abandoned children, homosexual “families,” unisex ideology, new sexual categories, and an increasingly isolated and frustrated individual delivered over almost entirely to his own caprices.

The egoism governing such love-based families produces few children. To the degree that married couples today even want children, it seems to Mr. Faye less for the sake of sons and daughters to continue the line and more for the sake of a baby to pamper, a living toy that is an adjunct to their consumerism. And since the infant is idolized in this way, parents feel little responsibility for disciplining him. They subscribe to the “cult of the child,” which considers children to be “noble savages” rather than beings that need instruction.

The result is that children lack self-control and an ethic of obedience. Their development is compromised and their socialization neglected. These post-‘60s families also tend to be short lived, which means children are frequently traumatized by broken homes, raised by single parents or in stepfamilies, where their intellectual development is stunted and their blood ties confused. Without stable families and a sense of lineage, they lose all sense of ethnic or national consciousness and fail to understand why miscegenation and immigration ought to be opposed. The destruction of stable families, Mr. Faye surmises, bears directly on the present social-sexual chaos and the impending destruction of Europe’s racial stock.

Against the sexual liberationists, Mr. Faye upholds the model of the past. Though perhaps no longer possible, the stable couples of the bourgeois family structure put familial and communal interests over amorous ones, to the long-term welfare of both the couple and the children. Conjugal love came, as a result, to be impressed with friendship, partnership, and habitual attachments, for the couple was not defined as a self-contained amorous symbiosis, but as the pillar of a larger family architecture. This made conjugal love moderate and balanced rather than passionate. It was sustained by habit, tenderness, interest, care of the children, and la douceur du foyer (“the comforts of home”). Sexual desire remained, but in most cases declined in intensity or dissipated in time.

This family structure was extraordinarily stable. It assured the lineage, raised properly-socialized children, respected women, and won the support of law and custom. There were, of course, compromises and even hypocrisies (as men satisfied libidinal urgings in brothels), but in any case the family, the basic cell of society, was protected—even privileged.

The great irony of sexual liberation and its ensuing destruction of the bourgeois family is that it has obviously not brought greater happiness or freedom, but rather greater alienation and misery. In this spirit, the media now routinely (almost obsessively) sexualizes the universe, but sex has become more virtual than real: There is more pornography but fewer children. Once the “rights” of desire were emancipated, sex took on a different meaning, the family collapsed, sexual identity was increasingly confused, and perversions and transgressions became greater and more serious. As everyone set off in pursuit of an illusory libidinal fulfillment, the population became correspondently more atomized, uprooted, and miscegenated. In France today, 30 percent of all adults are single and there are even reports of a new “asexuality” in reaction to the sexualization of everything.

There is a civilization-destroying tragedy here: for, once Europeans are deprived of their family lineage, they cease to transmit their cultural and genetic heritage and thus lose all sense of who they are. This is critical to everything else. As the historians Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder write: “The family is one of the most archaic forms of social community, and at all times men have used the family as a model for the formation of human societies.” The loss of family stability, and thus the collapse of the family as society’s basic cell, Mr. Faye emphasizes, not only dissolves social relations, it brings disorder and makes all tyrannies possible. Once sexual emancipation helps turn society into a highly individualized, Balkanized mass, totalitarianism—not Soviet or fascist, but US progressive—becomes increasingly likely.

The Idolatry of Homosexuality

Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and makes war on the family. Mr. Faye claims that in the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic affliction affecting fewer than 5 percent of males, but he does not object to homosexuals practices within the privacy of the bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who flaunt their alleged “superiority” over heterosexuals, who are seen as old-fashioned, outmoded, ridiculous. Heterosexuals are like women who center their lives on the care of children rather than on a career, and are thus something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style “emancipation.”

Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less damaging than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Even in traditional societies, women who engaged in homosexuality retained their femininity and so were not so shocking as their male counterparts. By contrast, male homosexuality was considered abhorrent, because it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer “properly” male and thus something mutant. To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, was never to be “made of woman,” i.e., penetrated.

Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and, willfully or not, choose their sexual orientation—as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are a blank slate upon which they inscribe their self-chosen “destiny.” This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure, even if it is professed in our elite universities.  Like anti-racism, it denies biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology—or, in the way of secular 20th-century ideologies that have become religious faiths.

Despite its progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and indifferent to future and past, promoting “lifestyles” hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia here marches hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white survival.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.

In its public displays as gay pride, homophilia defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Mr. Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins—not on a dysgenic sexual orientation.

Schizophrenic Feminism

The reigning egalitarianism is always extending itself, trying to force genuine sexuality, individuality, demography, race, etc., to conform to its tenets. The demand that women have the same legal rights and opportunities as men, Mr. Faye thinks, was entirely just, especially for Europeans—and especially Celtic, Scandinavian, and Germanic Europeans—for their cultures have long respected the humanity of women. Indeed, he considers legal equality the single great accomplishment of feminism. But feminism has since been transformed into another utopian egalitarianism that makes sexes, like races, equivalent and interchangeable. Mr. Faye, though, refuses to equate legal equality with natural equality, for such an ideological muddling denies obvious biological differences, offending both science and common sense.

The dogma that differences between men and women are simply cultural derives from a feminist behaviorism in which women are seen as potential men, and femininity is treated as a social distortion. In Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” Feminists therefore affirm the equality and interchangeability of men and women, yet at the same time they reject femininity, which they consider something inferior and imposed. The feminist model is thus the man, and feminism’s New Woman is simply his “photocopy.” In trying to suppress the specifically feminine in this way, feminism aims to masculinize women and feminize men in the image of its androgynous ideal.

Justin Beiber

This is like the anti-racist ideal of the mixed race or half-caste. This unisex ideology characterizes the mother as a slave and the devoted wife as a fool. In practice, it even rejects the biological functions of the female body, aspiring to a masculinism that imitates men and seeks to emulate them socially, politically, and otherwise. Feminism is anti-feminine—anti-mother and anti-family—and ultimately anti-reproduction.

Anatomical differences, however, have consequences. Male humans, like males of other species, always differ from females and behave differently. Male superiority in achievement—conceptual, mathematical, artistic, political, and otherwise—is often explained away as the result of female oppression. Mr. Faye rejects this, though he acknowledges that in many areas of life, for just or unjust reasons, women do suffer disadvantages; many non-whites practice outright subjugation of women. Male physical strength may also enable men to dominate women. But generally, Mr. Faye sees a rough equality of intelligence between men and women. Their main differences, he contends, are psychological and characterologicalfor men tend to be more outwardly oriented than women. As such, they use their intelligence more in competition, innovation, and discovery. They are usually more aggressive, more competitive, more vain and narcissistic than women who, by contrast, are more inclined to be emotionally loyal, submissive, prudent, temperate, and far-sighted.

Men and women are better viewed as organic complements, rather than as inferior or superior. From Homer to Cervantes to Mme. de Stäel, the image of women, their realms and their work, however diverse and complicated, have differed from that of men. Women may be able to handle most masculine tasks, but at the same time their disposition differs from men, especially in the realm of creativity.

This is vitally important for Mr. Faye. In all sectors of practical intelligence they perform as well as men, but not in their capacity for imaginative projection, which detaches and abstracts one’s self from contingent reality for the sake of imagining another. This is true in practically all areas: epic poetry, science, invention, religion, even cuisine and design. It is not from female brains, he notes, that have emerged submarines, space flight, philosophical systems, great political and economic theories, and the major scientific discoveries (Mme. Curie being the exception). Most of the great breakthroughs have been made by men and it has had nothing to do with women being oppressed. Feminine dreams are simply not the same as masculine ones, which search the impossible, the risky, the unreal.

Mme. Curie, French-Polish physicist and chemist.

Akin, then, in spirit to homophilia, anti-racism, and ‘60s-style sexual liberation, feminism’s rejection of biological realities and its effort to masculinize women end up not just distorting what it supposedly champions—women—it reveals its totally egoistic and present-oriented nature, for it rejects women as mothers and thus rejects the reproduction of the race.


Sexe et dévoiement treats a variety of other issues: Christian and Islamic views of sexuality; immigration and the different sexual practices it brings, some of which are extremely primitive and brutal; the role of prostitution; and the effect new bio-technologies will have on sexuality.

From the above discussion of the family, homophilia, and feminism, the reader should already sense the direction of Mr. Faye’s arguments, as he relates individual sexuality to certain macro-changes now forcing European civilization off its rails. His perspective is especially illuminating in that he is one of very few authors who link the decline of the white race to larger questions of civilization, sex, and demography.

Nevertheless I would make several criticisms. Like the European New Right as a whole, he tends to be overly simplistic in attributing the origins of the maladies he depicts to the secularization of certain Christian notions, such as equality and love. He also places the blame for undesirable social/economic developments on cultural/ideological influences rather than depicting a more realistic dialectical relationship of mutual causation. Likewise, he fails to consider the ethnocidal effects on Europe of America’s imperial supremacy, with its post-European rules of behavior and its anti-Christian policies.

But having said that—and after having written reviews of many of Guillaume Faye’s works over the last 10 years, and reading many other books that have made me more critical of aspects of his thought—I think whatever his “failings,” they pale in comparison to the light he sheds on the ethnocidal forces now bearing down on the white race.