By Michael Woodbridge:
“Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
the blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard…”
When the United States relieved Spain of the responsibility for administering the Philippines, Kipling wrote these words to his friend Theodore Roosevelt, as a warning about the consequences of taking on an imperial role. Likewise, Mark Twain declared that the colours of the American flag should be changed from red, white and blue to black, blue and white, and that the field of stars should be replaced by a skull and crossbones.
It has often been said that only Whites can be racist and coloured people are innocent of any such, allegedly, uncharitable feeling. However, this article will go even further and argue that White folk should, far from denying their racism, consider whether they might claim sole possession of the term and so wear their racism, not with shame but with pride.
The comedienne Jo Brand, having taken a break from her usual sarcasm, dressed up as humour, was recently taken to task for saying, “My personal opinion is that you can’t be a racist towards White people,” adding, “You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.” When pressed further Miss Brand let slip her Marxist credentials by explaining, “I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be Racist towards a group that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced against a group of people who are more powerful than you but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.”
By denying race as a biological fact, by implying that race is a social construct, Marxists, or more accurately neo-Marxists, portray race as simply a factor in the interplay of power politics. Unlike true socialists, neo-Marxists, such as Miss Brand refuse to acknowledge any natural hierarchy or organic order in human society. Their barren collectivism is the collectivism of the desert where one stone or grain of sand is much like any other. Theirs is the procrustean urge of the ‘Untermenschen’ to cut everything down to ‘a one size fits all’ world.
By contrast the collectivism of Racial Socialism is a collectivism which respects each individual as an unique being; never as an end in him or herself, as the universalists and sentimental liberals believe, but as a vital link between all that’s preceded him or her in evolution and all their progeny might yet become. In fact Racial Socialists would see their individual lifespan as no wider than the thickness which could be measured by a postage stamp on top of Nelson’s Column. White Racists can only view themselves as on the cusp of ever greater things in the future. Indeed, accompanying such racial consciousness comes the greatest of responsibilities. Other races may wither on the vine of evolution but White racial loyalists are duty bound to carry the beacon of evolution, lit by the Promethean fire of creativity: the fire which was stolen from heaven.
By respecting the true individual, Racial Socialists reject the sham liberalism of universal equality. How could we respect any individual or individuality if we refused to recognise or acknowledge variations in intelligence or ability? It’s only by discriminating between one individual or between one race and another that we can demonstrate any true respect. Sham liberals and neo-Marxists want us to respect all individuals and all races regardless of actual merit. True individual character and freedom is thus stood on its head and crushed by a mob of fanatical “politically correct” pandandrums. To do this they set up an imaginary ideal of some universal being, a monster even; sometimes ironically described as a disabled, lesbian mulatto; sometimes described as God.
Alongside Miss Jo Brand, also showing her tantalisingly but dirty neo-Marxist slip, is Miss Bahar Mustafa, ‘Student Union Welfare and Diversity Officer’ from Goldsmith’s University; a University that supplies teachers for our children by the way.Miss Mustafa claims that she can’t be racist because she is an ethnic minority woman. Miss Mustafa came to the attention of the ‘Evening Standard’ after she banned White people, unless they happened to be homosexual or lesbian, from an event which she claimed to be promoting equality. The theme was called “diversifying the curriculum.” She wrote to her ‘Facebook’ friends, “Invite loads of BME Women and non-binary people!! Also, if you’ve been invited and you’re a man and/or binary white PLEASE DON’T COME just because I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to accept this is a BME and ‘non-binary’ event only.”
For the less hip amongst us, BME translates as Black Minority Ethnic, and non-binary is “urban speak” describing those of indeterminate sexual identity. In a statement read out to fellow students Miss Mustafa said, “Ethnic minority women cannot be racist or sexist towards White men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender. Therefore women of colour cannot be racist or sexist, since we don’t stand to benefit from such a system. On this point Miss Mustafa is undoubtedly wrong because the whole structure of European culture and civilization was built by the Aryan/White Man, reaching this pinnacle of success by working as a team — as part of a self-identifying society — and it’s a success that is threatened as never before by mass-immigration, threatened as never before by the very same coloured benefit seekers with whom Miss Mustafa so obviously identifies.
Leaving aside Race and the Marxist argument that race is merely a proxy for the interplay of economic factors manipulated by greedy bosses, and leaving aside any biological foundation for racial variation as insignificant, we might consider another non-racial explanation for group identity — that mankind has a visceral need to organise itself into cultural groups regardless of blood loyalty.
Accordingly, the enemies of White identity have seized on the tribal nature of spectator sport to launch their counter attack.
A prime example of this is that whilst the controlled media has been busy promoting Negro footballers as national heroes, they have at the same time instituted the campaign, “Kick Racism out of Sport” under the Chairmanship of Lord Ouseley. Whilst ordinary mortals, and working class students in particular, may have to study hard for their university degrees, Lord Ouseley, of West Indian origin, and who to the best of our knowledge never got further than a Diploma from Catford College in the real world, has been awarded no less than 13 honorary degrees from universities as far apart as Brighton, London, Oxford, Sheffield and Edinburgh.
Another underhand trick of channelling the masses away from their natural inclination to favour racially loyal groups, has become obvious with the emergence of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Even some seasoned Nationalists have been bluffed into thinking they’re doing something clever by supporting UKIP and so avoiding the racist tag. The truth of course is that civic nationalism is grudgingly tolerated by the Establishment as a means of taming and neutering any opposition, just so long as it remains non-Racist.
Although as a people we can draw sustenance and inspiration from our history and culture, civic nationalism on its own spells disaster. It was civic nationalism which inveigled Britain and Germany to fight to the death in two “brother’s wars” — two world wars — which have brought our blood line as North Europeans to the verge of extinction.
Some progressive and intelligent minded people are understandably inclined to describe retarded civic nationalists as “Patriotards”; combining the word patriot with mental retardation. Although, American “culture” with its razzmatazz and superficiality, together with its military, gungho bombing of civilian populations, has done so much to undermine any serious concept of patriotism, the origin of the word ‘patriotism’ comes from Latin and has a racial connotation. Patriotism refers to one’s paternal blood line, so it would be shameful and unnecessary to discard the word altogether because of its American toxicity.
Another term that needs rescuing is “nation”. Left to itself nation has all too often lost its original biological connotation. Primarily it should mean a people, a folk, united by one blood, but in many minds it has come to signify no more than a convenient civil arrangement, as proposed by the Eighteenth Century purveyors of the “Social Contract” and found, for example, in the ‘American Declaration of Independence’.
To overcome this dilemma many racists like to distinguish themselves as “Racial-Nationalists” or “White-Nationalists”. However, the descriptive terms “Racial Socialist” and “Racial Socialism”, as advocated by Ben Klassen have the added advantage of clearing away any undeserved connection with civic nationalism. Racial Socialism recognises that “race is everything”.
A White man or woman are bound by their racial history, whether living in an inner-city ghetto or on the outer reaches of the Himalayas. An individual’s racial history signifies the society to which he genuinely belongs far beyond his fragmented surroundings. Of course that said, the idea of Racial Socialism doesn’t in itself necessarily preclude the concept of nationhood once we accept the full biological implication of the word ‘nation’. In fact whilst remaining international in scope, Racial Socialism has to work through national structures in practice — that is to say, it has to be organised culturally so as to provide resonance and a sense of identity for its adherents.
The term “racist” (as is well known) was allegedly first coined by Leon Trotsky or by the circle of Jews surrounding him. It was used initially as a derogatory word of abuse to protect the anti-Tsarist plotters from criticism. It was feared that once the overwhelming evidence of Jewish complicity in Bolshevik agitation became widely known the Russian people might become less pliable.
Nowadays, as we are increasingly aware, the term “racism” is used as an all embracing means of thought control, so effective that even the mildest verbal opposition to our national destruction is frequently preceded by the words, “I’m not a racist but…” So prevalent has the word racist become as a term of abuse that it would be futile to distance oneself from it. We could insist until we were pink in the face that we’re not nasty, misanthropic bigots but just genteel patriots, to no avail. Our enemies in the media occupying most of the strategic high ground, hate us and are out to destroy us verbally, if not in every other possible way. Therefore our only means of defence is to accept the description of ourselves as ‘racist’ and by so doing neutralise it. We must learn to wear it as a badge of honour.
When Nietzsche wrote ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ he included a chapter entitled, ‘The Bite of the Adder’. In it Zarathustra is bitten by a viper but before the reptile can slither away, Zarathustra calls it back saying, “I haven’t yet thanked you for waking me up.” Zarathustra then asks the snake whether it can afford to waste its venom on someone with a likeness to a dragon. The snake thus sucks the poison back out and goes on its way.
Likewise, if we prove ourselves impervious to verbal abuse by taking ownership of the term ‘racist’, our enemies won’t obtain any advantage by describing us as such. Enoch Powell, a twentieth century student of Nietzsche, understood this well. When, writing in the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ he described the then leader of the Labour Party, Michael Foot, in glowing terms as a “racialist”.
During an era which had yet to succumb fully to “political correctness”, Michael Wharton wrote a regular column in the ‘Telegraph’ under the nom de guerre, ‘Peter Simple’. Exuding a gentle and genuinely funny satire for fifty years, the ‘Peter Simple’ column became something of a moral lifeline for intelligent Racial-Nationalists. Indeed, Nick Griffin was privileged to be received by Michael Wharton at his home shortly before Wharton died in at the venerable age of 92 in 2006. The two events are not related.
A notable feature of ‘Peter Simple’ was his staunch advocacy of racialism of which he said, “We’re all racialists”, implying that anyone who failed to admit as much was suffering from self-delusion. The question as to what extent racism is a natural human feeling common to all peoples, and what extent it’s more specific to White/Aryan folk, bears further examination. The very fact that many North Europeans are perversely and uniquely hostile to their own racism strongly suggests that North Europeans are actually intensely aware of their own racial feelings, feelings they have nevertheless been conditioned to suppress by a hostile mass-media.
Among the supporters of what might be dubbed as the “racist but equal brigade” is American author Richard McCullock. McCullock is an ardent proponent of racial separate development. On his website ‘The Racial Compact’ he has drawn up a map in which he attempts to divide the United States into various racial compounds, compounds which would allow each distinct nation state to live exclusively with its own people. He writes in his ‘Charter of Racial Rights’: “All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races.”
The Utopian dream continues, “All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial inter-mixture and replacement.”
Of course many will find this vision extremely attractive as an ideal. Unfortunately, whilst ideals must be upheld if we are to evolve to higher forms they also have to be based on a realistic understanding of nature. The ideal of the “lion lying down with the lamb” is static and therefore a non-starter. In fact demographically Richard McCullock’s map is already hopelessly out of date. The nature of life is essentially one of movement and evolution through struggle: not “poor, nasty brutish and short” as Thomas Hobbes would have us believe but joyful because of the fulfilment we find through our active participation.
Similarly, if the White enclaves as planned by ‘WIN’ and by ‘Western Spring’ are to succeed they must become the advanced guard of a reborn nation just as the Kibbutzim were in Israel and the Saxon or Norman Castles once were in England. The nature of our folk would soon become bored with a static society, however attractive the rural idyll might appear from the outside, a static society would rapidly become a stagnant society.
Interestingly, there’s an implied contradiction to the static society in an earlier McCullock book of 1982, ‘The Ideal and Destiny’, when he says, given a choice most human beings would wish to evolve towards the European ideal of Aryan perfection as found in the statues of Michelangelo or Arno Brecker. We find some suggestion of this in mixed race Negroes with their hierarchy based on lightness of skin; Indians have their caste system of course, whereas wealthy Mongoloids sometimes pay for cosmetic surgery to make their eyes rounder: most races will have members who dye their hair blond from time to time.
Having dispensed with any serious suggestion that racism, as defined here, is in itself immoral we have to move on finally to consider whether it can be adopted as an exclusively White ideology. We’ve just seen how many coloured people attempt to emulate White features and it’s the contention of this article that those who object to White hegemony very often do so out of a negative resentment of the White man rather than a healthy appreciation of their own kind. This is a question often asked in the case of the Jews.
As Evola writes in ‘Racism and anti-Semitism’: “According to racial theory, Jews are not a race in the true sense, but a people of mixed race. The Semitic peoples, to which the Jews belong, are considered by Gobineau in his seminal ‘study’, ‘The Inequality of the Human Races’ to already be a mixed race derived from a cross between the White race and the Black race … this mixture would have been further complicated by other racial elements … At the time of the Diaspora and the last prophecies, other residual elements of Mediterranean ethnic and spiritual decadence coagulated into Judaism … if the Jews are liberated from the law, they automatically become a factor of dissolution. Thus, themselves without race, Jews then become the anti-race themselves without nation, they become anti-nation … They exert an uncanny corrosive force on everything that is differentiated, qualitative, bound by blood and tradition in politics, this culminates in the Judaizing Masonic ideology, with the consequent social and internationalist humanitarian myths.”
That may be the case with a significant number of influential Jews but many would hesitate to lay the entire responsibility for Pandora’s Box at Judah’s feet. No more could one honestly say that all anti-White racism is conceived as a product of spite and envy. In summary there is no conclusive evidence to say that the racism of non-European peoples, is necessarily swayed by anything other than a natural racial loyalty on their part.
Where the White Man might claim a more exclusive racist identity than the rest is in his place at the forefront of evolution. The White race which has reached for the stars is essentially aspirational. The White man loves truth above all things and is a fearless innovator. If the White/Aryan race and racism is superior to other group loyalties it is because of its ability to wed that loyalty to a moral code, a code that embraces the concept of eugenics and aspires to become a new species.
Jane
- Edit
This article is very well written. Congratulations Michael, you make your case that only White people can be racist very well and as convincingly as such a suggestion probably could be made.
I have objected to you in the past that really if one were to ask oneself which race qualifies as the LEAST racist of them all, the answer would be the White Race, due to the large degree of suicidal self-hatred among White people. And for that matter, the Jews with their religous racial/group loyalty to their own qualify as the most “racist” both in terms of their pride in their belief of their superiority and their hatred of all outsiders.
I see that the case you make, however, is that only the White Race is truly a race of worth and virtue and although very few White people are “Racist” this is like a shoe that was meant for our race’s foot exclusively if you consider how much more reason we have to be proud of our race than do other races.
Still I prefer to say that ALL races should be “racist” in their own way as group loyalty is normal and natural. My argument has always been that we would rather explain we are “racially loyal” – again as all races should be – when accused of negative hatred with the epithet “racist”.
I fear that if we have an attempt to say that no other race but the White is “racist” then it will just be seen as an admission of guilt, and imply that our race really is that evil, so the concept you are explaining, Michael, will be far too complicated to be understood by the public and indeed by our own folk.
Dan England
- Edit
In the past and before the BBC started to rig their audience I saw number of debates about Racism, the audience mostly the Asians agreed that of all countries, Britain and particularly the English were the most tolerant nation of all.
.
I might add how would they have gotten a foothold in the first place, as stated in the article the white race and particularly British have been at the forefront of invention and technology.
.
Years ago I recall a Peruvian nobleman lamenting if only the English had conquered that country how many more of their historic treasures would have survived.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Thank you for your responses. The original intention of the article was an exercise in thinking aloud as to whether “only Whites can be Racist?” As Jane advised me all along other races might also have their legitimate racial pride and loyalty. Unable to establish Racism as an exclusively White phenomena I nevertheless think it worthwhile to portray the concept of Racism as a positive thing. The conventional wisdom of the “Patriatards” is that Racism is a bad thing based on bigotry rather than love for one’s own kind. The discussion in far too many nationalistic circles has implied that Racism is bad and that Negroes and Asians are worse than us because their supposed Racism is based on an intense hatred. As we have seen, such hatred is more often based not so much on genuine racial pride but on the revolt of a raceless mob of underlings.
Dan England
- Edit
It all boils down to tribalism and as a young lad in the early fifties I was down in West Africa traveling up the creeks and many other ports down there. The main thing I found was that the whole of that part of the Africa was just that,tribal, a river where you could throw a stoneacross was a barrier where there was no mixing. They would even speak a different language and hatred was just part of their lives, this is how cultures vary and don’t really mix.
One size doesn’t fit all, that is something the multiculturalists have never got through their thick heads,people and races are different, Kipling got it right about East and West.
Jane
- Edit
I would propose that the White Race is the most (or perhaps exclusively) pathologically altruistic.
This is a down-side of our close genetic kinship since other races, especially those native to Africa, have all the genetic diversity that is possible in humanity. Black Africans are often as genetically close to their own offspring in their tribe as they are to a random European stranger. (Hence the idea that race is a “social construct” although it is a reality for those races with the most homogeneity like northern Europeans).
The more homogeneity in the population the more trusting, kind and cooperative that population is and they sadly need to learn to go against that altruistic instinct and realise the life-and-death competition the presence of genetic diversity inevitably causes.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Thank you Jane, I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggest that we need to go against our altruistic instincts in order to survive in the life-and-death competition for racial survival. Fortunately though we don’t have to fight our instincts as such. What we have to do is to disentangle them from the distortion wreaked by Christianity and liberal Universalism. Applied properly altruism is as essential to our racial survival as any other instinct.
BOnele1982
- Edit
First, define “White”.
Remember the ever-resourceful but disingenuous retort by Mike Wallace to Morgan Freeman? “[I’m not white] I’m Jewish”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
So let’s eschew the pea under a shell game for a moment and take it that Jews are in fact truly, not “Whites”. We can then properly say that no, Whites aren’t the only racists (if such were the case actually) since for one, Jews are racists, and that’s according to their holy book, the Hebrew Bible. (No need for digging into the enhanced degeneracy of the Talmud or other ‘derivative works’). Just read Deuteronomy and some other choice passages for example:
Deuteronomy:
{11:23} Then will the LORD drive out all these
nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater
nations and mightier than yourselves. {11:24} Every place
whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours:
from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river
Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.
{14:2} for thou [art] an holy people
unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to
be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that
[are] upon the earth.
{15:6} For the LORD thy God blesseth thee,
as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations,
but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many
nations,but they shall not reign over thee.
{23:20} Unto a stranger thou mayest lend
upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon
usury.
Isaiah:
{49:22} Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles,
and set up my standard to the people: and they shall
bring thy sons in [their] arms, and thy daughters shall
be carried upon [their] shoulders. {49:23} And kings
shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy
nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with [their]
face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet;
and thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD:
for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.
{60:14} The sons also of them that afflicted thee
shall come bending unto thee; and all they that
despised thee shall bow themselves down at
the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee,
The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
{60:16} Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles,
and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know
that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer,
the mighty One of Jacob.
Psalms:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
[the Babylonians’] little ones against the stones.
-137:9.
Gentle Jesus wasn’t so gentle either. For example, from Luke:
{19:27} But those mine enemies, which
would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and
slay [them] before me.
Incidentally, concerning “Whiteness”: a great apercu from Raspail’s “Camp of the Saints”:
‘ “What I wanted to tell them,” Hamadura continued, “was that, to my way of thinking, being white isn’t really a question of color. It’s a whole mental outlook. Every white supremacist cause —- no matter where or when —- has had blacks on its side. And they didn’t mind fighting for the enemy, either. Today, with so many whites turning black, why can’t a few ‘darkies’ decide to be white? Like me….”
–p.304
Here the tenor of the article is reflected. The superior ‘racism’ of judiciousness, standards, impartiality, the hallmarks of White civilisation; contrasted with the nepotism and corruption of the ‘third world’ where these values rank lower than loyalty to clan.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
I’m grateful to BOnele 1982 for the interesting light thrown on the whole subject. Perhaps we need to make a further clarification and say that whilst all Racial Loyalty can be legitimate and above the mere greed of the underling, European Racism, if taken as a positive ideology, might lead us to a eugenic policy leading to a higher form of human being.
James Stenzel
- Edit
Dear Michael,
I found your article The Bite of the Adder to be exceptionally well-written. If I were better educated I’m sure I’d declare it also to be very well researched.
If I understood you correctly you were positing that the nominate-melanated folk are possibly more racially-suicidal because they have the greater ability to apprehend and consider the value of their innate racism and to “overthink” things and reject it—yes? Is that something at least akin to what you were getting at?
I have a theory about the greatly-accepting nature of the nominate-melanated folk. The extreme lightness of which our skins are capable bespeaks our distinct race being forged in a crucible of the most extreme climates with low “carrying capacity”—places others with less adventurous spirits would never attempt to exploit as homes.
In such low carrying-capacity environments the typical living situation would have to be small roving bands–most likely extended families. They’d have to move to find sufficient sustenance. The band would need to be small so as to be small and light and mobile.
Such bands would have to quickly accept strangers they’d encounter so that their children could intermarry. The ones who would had fewer genetic problems which might be amplified by “inbreeding” ( not as dangerous as we’re led to believe but it has hazards ). The more easily-accepting bands would likely have somewhat of a survival advantage over long periods.
So this easy acceptance of strangers could and probably is just like almost any other characteristic one is going to find in any other creature—a survival adaptation whose presence is going to be naturally reinforced by even a slight advantage it confers.
I believe it’s in our nature. Yes, we have racism innate in us but the innate racism is probably lowest in us than almost any other racial group. The way we’ve *allowed* our natural more-recent homelands to be invaded by all manner of strangers would indicate it. In fact I think in scouting us and assessing us the Israelites realized we had this fatal flaw and that they could exploit it mercilessly.
There is undoubtedly a secondary form of racism which is what I prefer to dwell upon when contemplating the term and that’s a scientific theory that race is an important determinant in the outcome of any particular individual’s or a group’s life. I think study after study has generated data which reinforces this concept. Statistics collected by bureaucartic organizations such as the U.S. F.B.I. reinforce it. The ability to look around one’s self and apprehend what is going on reinforces it.
I was taught by science instructors that there is nothing less common than “common sense” in attacking various invalid theories whose only source was “common sense”. But that doesn’t mean that common sense doesn’t sometimes argue for valid outlooks and when scientific method and common sense both reinforce a theory then it must be looked at more carefully and studied more intensely.
A very instructive anecdotal demonstration of the difference between races can be seen in a debate between William Shockley ( leader of the team which developed the first economically feasible active semiconductor ) and Frances Cress Wellsing whose bona fides escape me at present. This occurred on a television program titled Tony Brown Journal and can be found posted on you tube.
Poor Shockley fell into the trap of eschewing his own racism, having already accepted the proposition that it was a pejorative. I really must confess ignorance as to whether the origin of the term is in-fact jew and an artifact of the Red Revolution in Czarist Russia designed to deflect the jew stigma form said revolution.
What I know is that I have two Collegiate dictionaries from the same publisher at different times. One was my father’s and one was given to me decades later when I was in “middle school”. In my father’s dictionary there isn’t even any word “racist” or “racism”. By the time I came along the superior meaning of the word was a theory that race was an important factor in the outcome of a person’s life with an inferior meaning akin to bigotry.
Of course currently the terms have been and is being catachresized [ sp?] into a mere synonym for bigot or bigotry. I believe this has been done under the shield of the reality of philological “drift” as a historic fact ( but for which there has been no valid excuse since mass printing methods have become available and almost everyone at least knows someone who is literate and has access to dictionaries ) so that debate about the validity of a theory that race matters can be made more difficult or even largely impossible by morphing the word which means that theory from the lexicon used to discuss such matters.
I believe that my race has an inherent vulnerability to accepting so-called “diversity”. Just as having one gene for sickle-cell is a positive adaptation against rampant malaria but having a copy from both parents is a disease so too is our willingness to accept strangers more easily than any other race both a blessing ( when we were being forged as a distinct race ) and now tens of thousands of years later a horrible curse.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I had this theory long before my community was converted into an international municipal pariah by the race-hucksters last summer subsequent to the righteous police street-execution of a local “unarmed” thug-in-training. That’s all been an interesting experience, BTW. And certainly the subject of a whole other lengthy spew, if any.
Thanks for the well-written well-thought-out thought-provoking article. I particularly liked the inclusion of the fanciful taking-back of it’s venom by the serpent, upon reflection. I confess an admiration for snakes and anyone who will get up every morning and go out and try to beat the world even though he has no arms or legs and very few friends has my vote.
Whatever the source of the “venom” yes, we do need to deactivate it or turn it from a detriment into an asset.
Dawn Collins
- Edit
The corrupt gang of thugs called the Metropolitan Police are persecuting another dissident in their usual racially, one-sided way.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/woman-arrested-over-racist-abuse-on-london-bus/ar-AAfyevb?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignout