The Inverted World
By • 12/10/06 |
Susan Sontag |
“The white race is the cancer of human history.”1 Susan Sontag’s words of 1967 express the central idea of the age that we live in. In the contemporary view, which I will dub the “whites as cancer” myth in honor of Sontag, whites are a destructive and malign force that is the major source of the world’s suffering. Fifty years ago, the West saw its history as the gradual ascent from barbarism to civilization and from dogmatism to Enlightenment. Today, the West sees its history as the gradual, but still imperfect, conquest of racism. Racism has, in sum, become the defining feature of the West.
This website is dedicated to the proposition that what the “whites as cancer” myth turns reality on its head, or is a sort of lens that shows us an inverted world. In reality, whites are the great benefactors of humanity, and have shown throughout their history a charity, generosity, and capacity for accomplishment that do not have any parallel among the other races of man. The “whites as cancer” myth causes a pervasive distortion of reality that prevents us from understanding and dealing with the problems the West faces.
To be more precise, the myth posits that:
- Whites are the only “racist” race. That is, they are the only race that has believed itself superior to other races, and this belief has led them to treat other races in a uniquely cruel manner.
- White racism and imperialism are the primary explanation for the failings of non-whites.
- Whites deserve no credit for their superior cultural achievement. Indeed, they deserve to be blamed for it, as whites only achieved cultural superiority by keeping non-whites down and by stealing cultural innovations from them.
The “whites as cancer” myth does not affect merely how we view whites. Since it posits that whites are uniquely evil, the myth causes us not only to exaggerate the evil of whites, but also minimize, hide, and apologize for evil committed by other races.
When stated as flatly as this, the myth looks like an absurdity that could never compel any credence whatsoever. Anyone who pays attention to world news knows that races other than whites do show enormous cruelty to people of other races: think of the genocide committed by Arabs on blacks in Sudan, for example. And yet, the myth persists because we so rarely bring ourselves to reflect on it: our belief in the evil of whites is so powerful that it does not occur to us to defend them from slander. Defending the white race seems like defending pure evil.
White America will be devoted to explaining the nature, causes, and consequences of this myth and to inculcating a more accurate understanding of the nature of the races, which we will call race realism. Following thinkers like J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Arthur Jensen, we believe that most of the differences in cultural achievement among the races are rooted in innate differences in intelligence and psychology. We also believe, with Tatu Vanhanen, that racial diversity leads to conflict because the races normally seek to achieve dominance over each other. Race realism has political consequences. Since many non-white groups are not suited for the type of society whites have created, and since non-whites will naturally try to achieve dominance over whites, we believe we should work to maintain white majorities in nations that currently have them. As such, we are white activists.
History Textbooks as an Example of the Myth
 |
| According to this, whites are a cancer. |
To understand how pervasive and fundamental to our age the “whites as cancer” myth is, consider the vision of history taught in American schools. Nothing is a better indicator of the bedrock worldview of a society than what it teaches its children in school. Just like their counterparts in other societies throughout the ages, schoolchildren in America are taught an official view of history that is carefully vetted by the authorities.
In The Language Police, historian of education Diane Ravitch reveals the profound anti-white bias in American history textbooks. One prominent publisher’s guidelines for textbooks on American history, she writes, display “a barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry.”
They deride European Americans for exploiting slaves, migrant workers, and factory labor; they excoriate the land rapacity of the pioneers and mock their so-called courage in fighting Native Americans: “Bigots and bigotry,” say the guidelines, referring to European Americans, “must be identified and discussed.” European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history.2
One subject in which textbooks show particularly egregious bias against whites is slavery. Certainly, slavery was an abhorrent practice and deserves to be condemned. However, textbooks assign the guilt for slavery solely to whites. Most textbooks imply whites brought the slave trade to Africa, hiding the fact that whites were merely taking advantage of a slave trade that was long established there3 and that it was Africans themselves who captured the slaves and sold them to slave traders. Furthermore, textbooks present the Western slave trade in grisly detail, but whitewash the slave trade practiced by non-whites. For example, the 2000 edition of Prentice-Hall’s The American Nation states of the Atlantic slave trade:
Below the decks of the slave ships, slaves were crammed tightly together on shelves. One observer noted that they were “rammed like [fish] in a barrel.” They were “chained to each other hand and foot, and stowed so close, that they were not allowed above a foot and a half for each in breadth.”
Records of slave ships show that about 10 percent of Africans loaded aboard ship for passage to the Americas died during the voyage. Many died of illnesses that spread rapidly in the filthy, crowded conditions inside a ship’s hold.4
However, according to Gilbert T. Sewall of the American Textbook Council, in American textbooks, “Islamic slavery does not exist or is presented as benign.”5 One textbook called Patterns of Interaction has this to say about black slaves in the Islamic world between 650 and 1600:
In most African and Muslim societies, slaves had some legal rights and opportunity for social mobility. In the Muslim world, slaves even occupied positions of influence and power. Some served as generals in the army. Others bought large estates and even owned slaves of their own.6
This statement is, while not inaccurate, certainly misleading. Slaves who achieved prosperity and positions of power were very much the exception, not the rule in Islamic society; most were employed in menial positions, just as black slaves in the Americas were. Moreover, the textbook fails to present the downside of Islamic slavery.
 |
| Arabs driving black slaves. |
One look at the Arab slave trade reveals the bias. First of all, historians believe Arabs took more Africans as slaves than whites did—from the 10th to the 19th centuries, Arabs took 14 million Africans as slaves; whites only took 11 million.7 While it is true that slaves did have certain rights in Islamic countries that they did not have in the Americas, the Muslim slave trade was just as brutal as that practiced by whites, and could also be portrayed in lurid terms. Muslims captured slaves in raids against African tribes during which captives were brutally treated. If the slave-traders decided they couldn’t use the Africans they had captured because of age or infirmity, they were put to death. So intense was the Muslim need for slaves that it frequently resulted in full-scale warfare against African tribes, with all the death and destruction that is in the nature of war.8 After being captured, the slaves were chained together and taken on long marches across the Sahara desert to markets. Due to thirst, malnutrition, disease, exhaustion, and the attacks of bandits, most of the captives did not survive the march. Indeed, for every slave who finished the march, three or four died along the way. The route the slave-drivers took was strewn with skeletons.9 Once they reached the markets, the traders practiced a form of cruelty against many male slaves unknown in the West: castrating them to make them eunuchs.
Nor is it less certain that Arabs had as strong a belief in their superiority to blacks as whites did and used this belief to rationalize enslavement. Historian Bernard Lewis cites many examples of racist beliefs among Arabs. A tenth century Arab writer attributes to the black man “a long penis and great merriment. Galen says that merriment dominates the Black man because of his defective brain, whence also arises the weakness of his intelligence.”10 Arab writers frequently compared blacks to animals and stated their subhuman status made them fit only for menial occupations.
A similar double standard applies to the depiction of World War II. In his review of textbooks used in Wisconsin schools, Paul Kengor of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute found they generally dwelt upon the American incarceration of Japanese, and emphasized the hate and cruelty shown to Japanese during this time. Yet the much worse treatment that white American POW’s received at the hands of the Japanese, including the Bataan Death March, goes entirely unmentioned in most textbooks. Furthermore, most of the texts make no mention of the Rape of Nanking, in which the Japanese gratuitously slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Chinese.11
 |
The same double standard applies to the portrayal of Southern Africa. Students learn plenty about apartheid12 but little or nothing about Robert Mugabe’s dispossession of white farmers in Zimbabwe. As most of us know, the African dictator sent out thugs to take over white-owned farms in 2000; attacks on the farmers and their families were common, and many died or were injured. As a result of this and other persecutions, virtually all of the white farmers of Zimbabwe have now abandoned their farms and left the country. Mugabe gave the farms to party hangers-on who did not know how to use the sophisticated agricultural machinery. As a result, the country, which had been a food exporter before the beginning of black rule, plunged into famine and now relies on UN food handouts. What do textbooks have to say about this? Typical is Prentice-Hall’s World History: Connections to Today. In a section called “Zimbabwe’s Road to Majority Rule,” the textbook blames international sanctions for the country’s disaster and remarks “tensions over land ownership led to renewed violence” in 2000 without mentioning the cause and parties to the violence.13
The textbooks also present white racism and imperialism as the main reason for the suffering of non-whites around the world and hide non-whites’ own responsibility for their woes. Sewall writes,
European colonialism, according to world history textbook orthodoxy, is the source of all African woes. Patterns of Interaction states, for example: “The main reason for Africa’s difficulties was the negative impact of colonial rule. European powers did little to prepare African colonies for independence. In fact, the lingering effects of colonialism undermined efforts to build stable, democratic states.” Blasted African economies, ethnic warfare, genocide, and developmental barriers … may be mentioned in a brief and cryptic way; these conditions are neither explained nor cast in dire language.14
Textbooks also fail to give whites credit for their unique cultural achievements. First, as we have already seen, they state that it is colonialism and racism that have prevented non-whites from achieving economic and social parity with whites. Another way of minimizing white achievement is simply ignoring it. While giving glowing, and often fallacious, accounts of the achievements of non-whites, textbooks simply do not discuss what whites have accomplished. Reviewing a world history textbook, William J. Bennetta of the Textbook League, an organization that criticizes bias in textbooks, asks,
What do you suppose the Europeans were doing while those Indians and Africans were erecting temples, instituting “complex” societies, controlling fire, taking courses at Timbuktu U., and making sculptures? … There is not a single photo to depict European art or architecture. There is not a word about Dante, Erasmus, Brunelleschi, Bramante, or Leonardo… . All of these people, and the cultures they represented, have been erased.15
Also, textbooks imply that Western preeminence in civilizational achievement is a lie: Westerners actually stole their achievements from other peoples. Ravitch summarizes one textbook publisher’s guidelines thus:
Although the [Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley] document emphasizes the importance of racial and ethnic pride, it suggests that children of European-American descent need to have their pride reduced. European-Americans, it says, have received too much credit for achievements that really belonged to other cultures. Pasta did not originate in Italy, but in Asia, where Marco Polo learned about it; this is surely not a controversy many people knew about or worried about. During the Middle Ages, Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley’s guidelines say, European medicine was based on superstition, while Muslim physicians practiced real medicine.16
 |
| Textbooks have forgotten him. |
Finally, textbooks hide the uniqueness of white cultural achievement by exaggerating the achievements of other races. Ravitch gives as an example a passage from the American history textbook American Odyssey on the Anasazi Indians of the Southwest. The book presents the tribe as a Utopian society of egalitarianism and technological genius. Without kings, chiefs, or other authority figures, these Indians built not only four hundred miles of “roads and broad avenues,” but also multistoried “apartment complexes,” which were the tallest buildings in the world until larger apartment buildings went up in New York City in 1882. These claims are not sourced, and Ravitch found them impossible to confirm. She points out their improbability, however. The Anasazi left no historic records: how do the authors of the textbook know they had no chiefs? If the buildings really were taller than any others in the world, why can you find no mention of that fact anywhere outside the textbook? Ravitch found one fact that the textbook leaves out, however: many scholars have found evidence that the Anasazi practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism.17
Although the teachings of American textbooks are a particularly striking example of the “whites as cancer” myth, I could have used many other examples. As White America will document, the entertainment industry and news media focus obsessively on slavery, racial discrimination, and imperialism in the West, and, with a few exceptions, the message is the same: whites are the only racist race and are responsible for the sufferings of non-whites.
What Really Makes Whites Unique
As my title implies, the “whites as cancer” myth turns reality upside-down. Whites are indeed unique, but they are unique for their accomplishments and compassion, not for their cruelty.
To grasp the enormity of the textbooks’ distortions, we turn to Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment, which measures the contribution of various cultures to science and art empirically. A full 97 percent of significant scientific figures between 800BC and 1950 have come from the West.18 Murray’s list of major discoveries in astronomy, for example, starts with Pythagoras’s discovery that the morning and evening stars are the same, continues through Copernicus’s statement of the heliocentric theory and Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding in 1918, and concludes with Fred Whipple’s work on the composition of comets in 1949. Not a single non-Western figure is included in this glorious parade. The list of central events in the history of technology shows us that the equipment of modern life is almost wholly Western in origin as well. In fact, between the 11th century and 1950, all major technological innovations, from the watch to the steam engine to the computer, came from Europe and the United States.19
Perhaps even more striking is Murray’s list of what he calls “meta-inventions” in the sciences and arts, that is, the basic ideas without which the modern nations would have been impossible. Europeans are responsible for almost all of these. Logic, the systematic study of human reasoning, is a Greek invention. The Greeks also invented the mathematical proof, upon which the whole of mathematics is founded. These two Greek inventions gave rise to the scientific method in the European Middle Ages and Enlightenment. It was Europeans who created the very concept of science: they were the first to clearly articulate the method of hypothesis and experiment and to grasp that the world had a structure that was comprehensible by mathematics. It was Europeans who first mathematically formalized the idea of probability, resulting in the science of statistics. In the arts, Europeans were responsible for the invention of artistic realism. It was the Greeks who first thought of depicting the human form as it actually appeared rather than according to stylized conventions, and Europeans of the Renaissance and Enlightenment first created the realist novel. Perspective, which adds a third dimension to painting, was a creation of the European Middle Ages. Musical polyphony, or music that has two or more melodic lines, is another; before this invention, music consisted simply of a single melody without harmony.20
 |
| Buy this book from Amazon |
Murray does not deal extensively with political philosophy, but he does mention some meta-inventions in that field as well. Among them is the Enlightenment idea that humans have certain inalienable rights, among them the right to dispose of their own persons and labor.21
Murray’s book reveals in startling clarity how high the achievements of whites tower over those of the other races of man. Certainly, other races played a role, but enlightened, modern, scientifically and technologically advanced societies are almost entirely the creation of whites. Anyone who can read Murray’s book without concluding that whites are a race with special gifts that set them apart from the rest of mankind simply isn’t being reasonable. Science, artistic realism, and polyphonic music are priceless gifts that the white race has given to the rest of the world, but when do textbooks or the movies ever make this point?
Murray’s list of meta-inventions shows whites are unique not merely in their scientific and cultural accomplishment, but also in their compassion and respect for human life and freedom. Through their creation of the concept of human rights, whites brought the world into moral modernity, just as they brought it into technological modernity through their scientific inventions.
Of course, it is true whites have engaged in their share of cruelty and slaughter. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the genocide of Indians in the New World—whites were responsible for all of these, and much else besides. And yet these atrocities hardly make whites unique—slavery and slaughter are human universals, and for every atrocity whites have committed, one can point to one just as bad in the non-white world. Was the Holocaust really worse than the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Was the slaughter of Indians in the New World really morally worse than the slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda or that of the inhabitants of the Darfur region of the Sudan?
What is really unique about whites is the extent of their efforts to stop such atrocities by creating a moral philosophy that sets limits to the acceptable use of power and institutions that actualize that philosophy in the real world. Pre-modern texts like the Koran, the Old Testament, and the Homeric epics discuss slavery and slaughter in a tone that seems grotesquely matter-of-fact to us moderns, as though these were normal and unremarkable facts of human existence. Thanks to the work of white thinkers, activists, and politicians, the world can never see atrocities in this light again.
As we have seen above, textbooks portray the Western slave trade as a key mark of whites’ unique evil. We have also seen that they can only do this by whitewashing Islamic slavery. But another point needs to be made as well: whites are responsible for the abolition of slavery around the world. The Enlightenment doctrine of inalienable human rights convinced whites that they were morally obligated to eradicate slavery, and they have pursued this goal with remarkable dedication for the past two centuries.
The 17th-century English philosopher John Locke is generally deemed the originator of the modern concept of human rights. As Locke said, “[E]very man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”22 Although Locke himself defended slavery, his ideas led European intellectuals to oppose the practice. Thus the French Encyclopedia of 1765 declared in its article on slavery:
There is not a single one of these hapless souls … who does not have the right to be declared free, since he has never lost his freedom… . [T]he sale of this person is null and void in itself: this Negro does not himself, indeed cannot under any condition divest himself of his natural rights; he carries them everywhere with him, and he has the right to demand that others allow him to enjoy those rights.23
Popularized in the English-speaking world by Thomas Paine, who argued in The Rights of Man that humans naturally have the right to liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression, the idea of the rights of man became central to abolitionism in Britain and America. For example, early 19th century Abolitionists in Britain declared slavery to be “utterly inconsistent with the inalienable rights of men.”24
Under this pressure, Britain abolished the slave trade in its territories in 1807, and the Americans, French, and Dutch soon followed suit. By 1842, all the maritime powers of Europe had outlawed the slave trade. In 1834, Britain freed all of the slaves within its territories. Not only that, but Britain took it upon itself to stop the slave trade in the rest of the world as well. British law declared all slaving ships, no matter what flag they flew under, guilty of piracy, and the British navy regularly captured them. Britain maintained a fleet of ships off the Western coast of Africa for the sole purpose of stopping the slave trade, and spent the enormous sum of £10 million between 1807 and 1837 to exterminate the traffic. Between 1810 and 1846, more than 100,000 slaves on ships captured by the British were set free.25
The British also worked to end the Arab slave trade in Africa in the 19th century. Arab governments greatly desired the support of British military and diplomatic power, and, starting in 1840, Britain made the abolition of the slave trade a condition for getting it. During the rest of the century, Britain induced Tunis, Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and Oman to ban the slave trade. Britain used its military to end the practice: between 1875 and 1880, the British General Charles George Gordon led a campaign to suppress the slave trade along the Nile, and the British navy stopped slave ships in the region. By the early 20th century, the British, by then working in cooperation with other Western powers, had managed to cripple the Arab trade in African slaves, although slavery continued long after in some Arab countries.26 Most of the organizations devoted to combating the slave trade today, including the United Nations, were founded and are sustained by whites, and this goal is still a part of the foreign policies of Western governments.
The invention of abolitionism is as uniquely Western as the invention of astronomy or polyphonic music. While compassion towards members of your own ethnic group is a moral universal, abolitionism was rooted a compassion for the human race as a whole that had no parallel in any non-Western society.
Putting the World Right-Side-Up Again
 |
| Outside an American Renaissance conference. |
The “whites as cancer” myth has had disastrous consequences. So successful has the demonization of whites been that anyone who speaks of advancing white interests immediately summons up images of Hitler, slave-drivers, and the KKK. Take, for example, the public perception of American Renaissance, a magazine devoted to promoting white interests. The articles it publishes summarize scientific research on race differences that are respected among specialist scholars. It also argues that whites ought to take steps to remain a majority in the West by restricting immigration. Although we do think that AR ought to condemn anti-Semitism among its readers, the views expressed in the magazine and at the conferences it holds bear no resemblance to those of neo-Nazis or the Klan. And yet, at American Renaissance conferences, crowds of protestors gather outside holding signs saying, “Change your name. You’re still the KKK,” and other such things. And people in positions of responsibility take these accusations seriously. While he was at the 2006 American Renaissance conference, Michael Regan, an Assistant District Attorney from Alleghany County, NY, stated, “You can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species” in an interview with the Washington Post.27 He was fired from his job for attending the conference and for his comment.
Since the “whites as cancer” myth prevents whites from speaking in their own interests, it requires that they approach issues that are vital to their well-being in indirect ways. Nothing is more essential to whites’ interests than maintaining a majority in their homelands, for, in democracies, it is the majority that dictates public policy. The example of Zimbabwe shows what can happen to whites when they are a racial minority in a democratic country: Robert Mugabe was put into power by democratic elections. Mass immigration, both legal and illegal of non-whites, will make whites a minority in America by 2050 according to the US Census Bureau. Yet you never hear any American politician arguing against amnesty for illegal aliens because mass immigration threatens to make whites a despised and persecuted people in their own country. While their own people face imminent demographic eclipse, all that mainstream white immigration reformers can say against mass immigration is that it might raise taxes, or allow a few Islamic terrorists into the country, or even increase unemployment among blacks! It is not certain that a cause that is deprived of its strongest argument can prevail. The same point applies to any number of political and cultural causes, from the campaign against affirmative action to the battle to maintain traditional American culture.
 |
| The world right-side-up again. |
Although the “whites as cancer” myth is the fundamental belief of our time, there is no publication that makes this myth its central subject. White America will remedy this glaring gap. We will explore the many consequences of the myth; we will root out its causes; and we will show how it can be effectively combated. In furtherance of the last goal, we will show why previous attempts to express white racial interests have failed. Some of our harshest words will be reserved for white activists who have made a mockery of their cause by seeking to advance it through lies and scapegoating. White America will not spare any group just and well-founded criticism. But white activists who demonize Jews or any other group are the worst enemies of the race realist cause, and we will treat them as such.
We ask for a revolution in ideas, followed by a revolution in politics. Our ambitions are vast, but the truth requires no less. The forces arrayed against us are mighty, and the road ahead of us is terrifying, but we have reason on our side, and we can win!
- Susan Sontag, “What’s Happening in America (1966),” Partisan Review 44 (Winter 1967): 57. ↑
- Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003), 44. ↑
- Ibid., p. 153. ↑
- Quoted in William J. Bennetta, “A History Book It Isn’t,” The Textbook Letter 11 (September-October 2000). Link ↑
- Gilbert T. Sewall, Islam and the Textbooks (New York: American Textbook Council, 2003), 16 ↑
- Quoted in Sewall, Islam, p. 16. ↑
- Ibid., p.16 ↑
- Murray Gordon. Slavery in the Arab World (New York: New Amsterdam Books, 1987), 131. ↑
- Ibid., 160. ↑
- Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 52. ↑
- Paul Kengor, Evaluating World History Texts in Wisconsin Public Schools (Thiensville, Wi.: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, 2002) 10. ↑
- Ibid., 12. ↑
- Sewall, “World History Textbooks: A Review” (New York: American Textbook Council, 2004), 27-8. ↑
- Ibid., 27. ↑
- William J. Bennetta, “A Book of Far-Left Propaganda that Fosters Anti-Intellectualism,” The Textbook Letter (January-February 1997). Link. Quoted in Ravitch, 154. ↑
- Ravitch, 37. ↑
- Ibid., 153-54. ↑
- Charles Murray. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts, 800 B.C. to 1950 (New York: Harper Collins, 2003), 252. ↑
- Ibid., 163-66, 198-204. ↑
- Ibid., 209-44. ↑
- Ibid., 229. ↑
- John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 27. ↑
- Quoted in Davis Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Western World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1966), 416. ↑
- James Walvin. “The Public Campaign in England against Slavery, 1787-1834” in The Abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade, ed. Eltis, David and James Walvin. (Madison, Wi.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.), 73. ↑
- C. M. MacInnes. England and Slavery (Bristol, UK: Arrowsmith, 1934), 182-83. ↑
- Gordon, 161-207. ↑
- Michael Laris, “Promoting ‘Preservation’ of Whites in Suit and Tie,” Washington Post, 26 February 2006. ↑
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
“think of the genocide committed by Arabs on blacks “
It is often said that Africa was destroyed by the western Draft and colonization. The truth is that the Black Africans had already been put on their knees by the Arabs between the VIIe and the XVIe century! Africa was, if one wants, “finished” by the West, because the draft that has destroyed it during six centuries was first of all, and especially, the Arabic draft, which was never strongly denounced. Alas, the draft and Arabic colonizations still continues in certain States, such as the Soudan, the Saudi Arabia and the Mauritanie. The Westerners arrived well after the Arabs. Besides, the Transatlantic draft was well different of the Arabic one, that consisted in a true destruction. The Arabs occupied North Africa and literally pushed the Blacks ever more towards the South.
Killings and Arabic invasions have been extremely destructive. The Arabic slavery announced the beginning of the real fall of the culture and black civilization. The Arabic draft has been put under silence in an abusive manner, but at a given moment in time it will be necessary to come back to this history, not to judge or revenge, but just to reestablish the historic truth. Until today the same events still continue in Mauritanie - recently 1000 black officers were killed -, in Soudan. In the Arabic countries, Black people suffer from a tormenting racism and the issue remains a taboo subject. Right now, just as in the past, “ethnic purification” of the Blacks by the Arabs is still going on.
cf.http://alexandredelvalle.com/Entretien avec Calixthe Beyala
Thank you for a great article!
It raises a question in my mind, one which is pressed upon me by some of my friends who are libertarians (and I admit I tend towards libertarianism on the issues of taxes and property rights, etc.)
How do we reconcile a race realist movement, that obviously wants to see a reduction in non-European immigration for example, with the libertarian view that all people, no matter where they are in the world, should be allowed to exchange freely their labor and goods? The libertarian doesn’t care for borders. All he cares about is transactions: he wants to tear down borders that prevent free trade. He says, “If the mexican wants to come to America to trade his labor freely, let him.“ I wholeheartedly disagree with this libertarian mindset, and I want to build up a wall on the border. But I must confess that there seems to be some logical tension here: if, as Locke and the Enlightenment thinkers posited, all people have the inalienable right to dispose of their labor and property, can we set up borders to prevent them from doing that? Must we retreat to some extent from that Enlightenment position?
I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts about this issue, perhaps in a separate forum?
Now, this revealing report puts the “racism” thing into a new perspective. Ms. Sontag and many others of the feather have been obviously agitating non-white masses to raise and overthrow predominantly white government in the U.S., just like Lenin and his followers agitated masses in Russia to overthrow their government. The latter resulted in Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the former is clearly headed in the same direction. The only difference is that in Russia the disgruntled masses were 100% domestic while in the U.S. they have been mostly imported in order to give manic revolutionaries (which denomination has all appearances of a genetic disease), that Ms. Sontag is a classic example of, any credibility with their push to turn the once well-functioning American society upside down.
The bad news here is that Ms. Sontag alikes rooted themselves in the American society and blended into it so well that it’s virtually impossible to even identify them, never mind isolating them. And they will never stop their deconstructionist efforts, just like termites never stop eating a house once they establish themselves in it. So, the only way for us, whites, to survive and avoid fallout similar to the Bolshevik revolution, is to reverse all multiculturalism and diversity trends that were imposed on our country since mid 1960-ties and the so-called “civil rights” laws (which includes the most disastrous of all, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act). We must unashamedly demand our right to an ethno-state and, like Teflon-coated cookware, ignore all the “racism” and “xenophobia” mud that surely will be thrown on us. If China, Philippines, and Congo (just to name a few) are allowed to maintain their ethnic character then so should the U.S. And those who would call us “white supremacists” because of our demands of the ethno-state should call the Chinese “yellow supremacists”, the Filipinos “brown supremacists”, and the Congolese “black supremacists”, or call themselves what they are – the hypocrites, that is.
No matter how the above suggestion may look unrealistic or inhumane to you (it did look like both to me, and for many years), either Ms. Sontag alikes or the non-white ethnic minorities must be rendered irrelevant, and I don’t care if these minorities are better or worse or the same as we are, or else we will become the oppressed, the exploited, and the displaced in the country that we and our ancestors built from scratch in the middle of wilderness that was once America. The distrust is already there and will only grow stronger as the anti-white activists and agitators are gaining control of the masses. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it except for seeking the protection of last resort from what America once was: an ethno-state.
In reply to TJ who posted on 12/12/06 at 7:14 pm:
How do we reconcile a race realist movement, that obviously wants to see a reduction in non-European immigration for example, with the libertarian view that all people, no matter where they are in the world, should be allowed to exchange freely their labor and goods?
Well, lately more and more libertarians are changing their minds in this respect. Here is a very promising example:
Brownshirts are marching toward a Brown America
by Vox Day
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53314
Oh, but for Sonntag, writing about white people of European descent as cancer was only natural. She didn’t consider herself one of those - she was Jewish and wrote about Gentiles.
TJ,
The main shortcoming of libertarianism is the same as the main shortcoming of liberalism: the denial of the transcendent. What is the transcendent? It is that which goes beyond the surface or the sum of the parts. It is the higher good or calling. It goes beyond the individual to greater truths. It is invisible, yet exists nonetheless as part of the human experience.
Yes, in some contexts, the transcendent is God, but there is transcendence in non-religious contexts as well. Categories such as “white,” “male,” “teacher,” “family,” and more, are all transcendent, in that they go beyond the bounds of the individual to something greater than him alone. By denying these higher truths, libertarianism and liberalism decontextualize and ultimately dehumanize us.
Economists often make libertarian-like arguments; such arguments are based on the demonstrably-false liberal ideal that “everyone is the same.” Once we break free of this ideology, we can see the differences between an unskilled Mexican laborer and a highly-skilled Indian professional, and again the difference between the Indian professional and a European one. Furthermore, with the context provided by traditionalism and belief in transcedence, and their attendant race realism, we can see the qualitative difference between the two professionals.
The liberalism of the Enlightenment is only sustainable within a traditionalist culture that gives greater weight to its traditions and transcendent truths than to the liberal ethos that every individual is free to pursue his own happiness. The rights of the individual to do so can only be viable when the needs of the society at large contain the extremes of individuals’ desires.
I realize that this may be hard to grasp, especially when presented as a summary like this. I hope you will read a fuller, more complete work-up of these ideas (and more) here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004328.html
EW’s post of 12/13 seems clearly true. Susan Sontag’s comment was an attack on a group she viewed as a two-thousand-year mortal enemy of her tribe. She was counterattacking Eurochristians for what she instinctively viewed as two millennia of unremitting oppression and crimes committed against her tribe.
She was not attacking whites: Jews are white and she certainly didn’t see herself as attacking Jews. She was using “white” the way certain “WNs” use it, meaning “European,” and most politically-oriented Jews reading her words understood the word “white” the way she meant it — which is why her Eurochristian-hating comment got promoted for decades. Her attack was leveled at Eurochristians in a Jewish spirit of anti-Eurochristian righteous indignation and bitter resentment. It wasn’t leveled at “whites” other than Eurochristians. It wasn’t leveled at Jews.
Why did her anti-Eurochristian statement become so famous? Why wasn’t it simply ignored and forgotten? Indeed, why was it even noticed? As a writer and thinker she wasn’t exactly a personage we had to pay attention to: she was essentially a superficial no-talent non-entity, a nobody who had her fifteen minutes of fame as sort of a regional New-York-City-Jewish lightweight “literary” pop-star none of whose writing will be remembered in twenty or thirty years. That comment of hers was noticed, dragged into the spotlight, and hyped for decades by her co-tribalists as their way of joining battle alongside her against the hated tribal enemy, Eurochristians.
Water has different forms. When frozen water—ice—melts it returns to water. It didn’t forget its nature. Jewishness has different forms. When frozen Jewishness—non-“Jewish” internationalist Marxism—melts it returns to Jewish/pro-Israel nationalism (the transformation undergone by David Horowitz). It didn’t forget its nature. Jews will claim Susan Sontag wasn’t religious, therefore her leftism wasn’t part of her Jewishness. But it was part of it the way Horowitz’s was before he thawed. She didn’t thaw.
I must say I’m appalled by this article’s conclusion. Well, not for attacking the “whites as a cancer” myth, but for bespeaking of how whites somehow gave birth to the crowning achievements of humanity.
What’s hilarious is that what makes Western Civilization the way it is came from places that had NOTHINGT to do with “white genetic” endowments.
What are those? The Greco-Roman tradition and Christianity.
…The greco-roman tradition finding it’s roots over a slow culmination, from the primitive cycladic peoples, the precursors of the Minoans, to a handful of philosophers and mystics that gave birth to Greek Philosophy.
….And Christianity coming from a jewish non-white. In Egypt. Wholly seperate from Europe.
I see little connecting the greco-roman era northern europeans to the Italians and Greeks at the time beyond genetic similarity and some vague indo-european cultural continuum. Likewise were their levels of development differing by profound levels- the Greeks and Romans with… well, we know what they had. The best the northern europeans had was Stonehenge. Celtic and Norse mythology bore little to no resemblance to Greek philosophic thought.
And likewise is this even ignoring that China could have easily given birth to the modern world as Europe did. Read up on it sometime, a vastly debated subject in history- why didn’t China industrialize? They had many chances to really- the mongol invasions cut them short at one point, Zheng He’s isolationist policies did as well, and let’s not forget the mass agricultural collapse, the mass internal strife, and the invasion by the Manchus in the late Ming Dynasty.
I’m just saying that human cultural and civilizational progress are dependent on far more than genetics. Which is obvious to anyone, except you people.
….Really. This is disgusting. It’s cheap, thinly veiled white supremacist garbage that utterly devalues the whole of humanity. Don’t do this again.
Gee whiz. I just now read this article again after almost a year. I wish I saw Brent Paul’s comment sooner. He obviously didn’t really read the article. His rant is typical of what Realist spends the entire article dismissing as irrational and anti-white.
The stuff he goes into with the Greeks and Romans isn’t even worth responding to because most of the time I can’t really tell what it is he is trying to say or prove and in the end it seems that he disproves his own original thesis (that Greco-Roman civilization had nothing to do with white genetic endowments).
Furthermore, I am getting sick and tired of these constant apologies for the Chinese not progressing like the West did. It is not as if the Chinese are responsible for half of history’s accomplishments. No, they are responsible for less than 3% according to Charles Murray and many other notable authors on the history of science. Is Brent trying to have us believe that despite all this it is just an accident that the West produced more than the East?
It is this constant apologizing for the Chinese that really gets to me and it disgusts me how even many white people who are on the side of websites like Inverted World fall for this garbage. The Chinese didn’t become what the West became because they would have never been able to. It is time for people like our friend Brent to accept this and move on.
Lastly, I want to respond to his last sentence….“Don’t do this again”. Brent, we are going to keep doing it…and keep doing it…more and more. You want to know why? Because we have no reason not to. We have facts on our side. You don’t.
The Inverted World may be the only place a man like me can express the shock and horror of coming face to face with the whites as a cancer myth. Most of my family and friends intrinsically share many of the same feelings I do with race relations in our country; however, they don’t frequent the websites I do nor do they advocate openly for whites. Indeed, they can’t understand how difficult it is for someone like me to sit at a bar and hear a friend actually say, “I don’t identify with being white because whites are the cancer of human history.” Has anyone actually had a conversation with a friend or family member when they used the words, “whites are the cancer of human history”? I did – and it was disheartening to hear it come from the mouth of a friend whom I admire.
In the end, I made good use of the arsenal of information I have amassed over the years from American Renaissance and The Inverted World while rebutting his statement. However, his words seem to inhabit the back of my mind these last few days; a frequent reminder of the impact that anti-white ideology has had on my generation. It has taught too many white men and women to literally despise who they are; a maddening reality for me to digest.
Fear the Engine of American Democracy There is no way to peace except to gain the enemy’s respect. Bernard Lewis relates a legend about an Arab ruler who said, “Among my people, I aroused respect untainted with fear and love untainted with disrespect.” Perhaps possible in an enlightened monarchy, democracy’s policy swings preclude such politics. Israelis, hated European aliens among Middle Eastern peoples, cannot arouse such feelings and might hope at best for respect engendered by force and fear. Arabs, who equate strength with arrogance and hauteur, understand that and would take any other policy for weakness. While few Arabs hated Jews a century ago, they despise them now, because the Israelis combine weakness with anti-Arab ambitions, the worst mix possible. Arabs interpret America’s attempts to build up the infrastructure of Islamic enemies as weakness. They are correct, because only the weak try to buy appeasement by sacrificing the hard earned economic assets of its most productive core.Why is the US government appeasing towards Islamic Imperialism? Because Islam is allied with American oil companies and the government stooges of those oil companies. When considering the enemies of white America they line up into two cooperating tiers, like this: 1. Africans-Muslims-Big Oil-FBI-CIA-State Department, Academia 2.White Leftist race traitors to include: the media, marxist corporations, the government andwhites with no sense of racial identity. Fear is the standard—in fact, the only—instrument that lets states exist. Even people who believe in “state by consent” agree that government’s most important functions, such as taxation, law enforcement, and defense, ride on the fear of reprisal for non-compliance. In America, white people fear both the blacks and the government. So far that fear has been one inhibitor of white resistance. At any time fear of the two major white nemesis will erupt in a growing, protracted struggle. It needs, as Lenin said, a series of Iskras or sparks. Force and the fear of force undergird the balance of power, to which the United States subscribed after Wilson’s homilies failed. The most we can hope for ininternational relations is the judicious and adequate use of power or the threat of it. The most we can hope for domestically is a complete transformation of the USA from being on an africanized white-suppressive marxist police state track to progressive nation that will never again allow minority parasites or subversives to secure power.
The comments re the late Sontag’s statement neglect context:
She said it at the height of the Vietnam War, in which several million Asian peasant civilians in a ancient Buddhist civilization were being slaughtered by US troops using advanced technology, and for reasons as murky as those justifying the cataclysm of the Iraq war, in which there are also many losers, but no real winners.
Both conflicts reduced the prestige of white and Euro-American society more effectively than any leftist propaganda ever could have.
Vietnam, combined with the still recent horrors of the Holocaust (which so many white nationalists celebrate), and the race problem at home, led to a revulsion against European civilizaion as a whole.
This kind of rhetoric was provocative at the time, but has now hardered into dogma and been institutionalized, and that is the problem.
It would be dishonest to imply that Sontag’s thinking never evolved in the subsequent 50 years or so during which she was active as a public intellectual.
She was, for example, a passionate devotee and propagator of classical European culture.
The core issue is: when does a healthy does of self-criticism become pathological?
It becomes a mental sickness, I would argue, when it is codified into dogma & spoonfed to young people in an unbalanced way.
Students capable of logic & of comparing competing arguments would not take the “whites as cancer” argument seriously, and the remedy for all this lunacy is for whites to know their own culture, which offers the tools to critique all varieties of chauvinism and irrationality.
Self-congratulation and trumpeting one’s superiority are poor substitutes for the self-critical and disciplined attitude that made Europe the most advanced civilization in the first place.
elitist,
Do you think any such trumpeting and self-congratulation is going on at this site? Have I said anything about the West that isn’t true? Surely, you don’t a judicious appreciation of Western accomplishment.
I agree with you that the West is a self-critical culture. I’ve written on that subject here.
I disagree with you about the Vietnam War. It was important to US national interest to show the Soviets that we were willing to devote serious effort to fighting the expansion of communism. Furthermore, we were protecting a regime, which, while far from perfect, was still much more humane than the totalitarian regime that succeeded it.
Also, wherever America intervenes in conflicts, the birth of a free society is possible—this applies to Iraq as well as to Vietnam. While most peoples are probably incapable of forming free societies, the ones that America has been able to bring into being through warfare or military pressure—Japan, South Korea, Germany, the Eastern European countries—are so precious that they are worth many failures and much toll in blood and treasure.
The real failure in the white race is in how they presented Christianity to the world. Their version of Christianity was spread throughout Europe and the New World with violence and torture. Whites may have invented many things and did many great things…but no matter how you add it in all the centuries …they are also the race that cause the most deaths in other races ( even in other white races) more then any other race…even in the name of their god………
If we support Africa monetarily then they shall continue to breed in horrendous conditions. A conscientious person, you’d think, will only breed when they have some means of supporting new lives. On the other hand a desperately poor couple will breed and bear fruit because they don’t see themselves surviving in any other way; the instinct is for the long walk of the blood in the abscence of any other prospect. Another thing they’re doing is taking their more abundant natural resources (of Africa) for Granted because unlike say, Norway, they don’t have 8 months of snow and no fruit on the trees all year. This is the primary reason that places like Norway have incredible contingency plans (not because they steal off ex-colonies) whereas no country that exists Anywhere along the Equator have anything comparable in place because they simply don’t feel the need to Not breed irresponsibly and without any foresight. Its Their choice. Its Our choice. Its an Individual choice.
I think it should be put simply. If you are producing offspring consciously or unconsciously Because you can’t even feed yourself then you should be abandoned to perish totally because you are creating suffering in perpetuity without foresight. Yet, because one Isn’t altogether completely abandoned for breeding in this utmost of irresponsible fashion then one will continue because survival is still a possiblity. Poor motherfuckers ? Yes & we Good christians say prayers for them at grace before every meal.
Yes, but if people are to progress to a frankly sustainable or responsible state then they should be left to be responsible for their actions. Obviously the liberal argument is that we ex-colonialists are to blame for all of this, following their theory that Nobody is to blame for anything they do because its always some else’s fault originally (sins of the Father?). Other than marking out arbitrary borders on our previous colonies in Africa, confusing tribal boundaries, theres not much we have left there to be blamed. Some people sell guns. Some people are mining oil, diamonds & gold. But they are just as often Chinese, Russian or Jewish as they are German, British & American individuals/companies. Its a field day, lets face it. Everyone’s game. Its called “industry”.
note: U2 had a good song called “Diamonds & Gold”. The reason that Irish musicians are so prominently involved in the aid for Africa is because they have the liberal view; that all problems can be laid at the foot of the imperial doorway, this natural sympathy they have is because Ireland was also a subjugated colony. Being properly half-Irish myself I still think this is a bullcrap, tossy way of self-promoting your self-righteous ego by pushing the world’s ignorant-sentimental button.
If Bono et al were sincere, they wouldn’t be dining in Europe’s finest imperial-era hotels and buying spare Chateau’s in beau Francais. Think about it.
After hearing an argument Against Aid for Africa which put forward the theory that perhaps aid to countries which are unstable, poor, corrupt, war ridden and indeed war-driven, will, Rather than help the situation in the long run, actually ultimately cripple them further.
(as if we don’t all already know, Aid has often been taken by armed groups and used as in power games or sold for weapons). Giving Africa money is like giving 13 year olds the keys to the house and the car. Its dumb.
We have been throwing billions at countries like Ethiopia for years and it quite simply doesn’t help. It exacerbates the problem. Handouts keep people down. Or to put it another way, if you’re going to do anything, “teach a man to fish, don’t just give him fish”. Which we sort of have done from the beginning anywhere. Just leave them to it and let them work that out instead of throwing grain at them every time theres a drought, or a war. Droughts and wars happen. Make contingency, accept any losses. If you don’t want to, then thats your choice, your style. Not anyone else’s right to interfere. Possibly this intervention/debt business is a way certain companies (who do have their lobbyists) gain a foothold in your country in order to nick your resources! Whoa ! knowwhat i mean?
I don’t think you actually read this Patterns of Interaction textbook. On the other hand, I did. And I assure you, it and my teacher both clearly said, multiple times, that “whites were merely taking advantage of a slave trade that was long established there and that it was Africans themselves who captured the slaves and sold them to slave traders.”
Secondly, you know why it “fails to present the downside of Islamic slavery?” It only has one unit on the Muslim countries. Certainly the Muslim countries came into play in other units, but they were only the core of one. While Europe had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Exploration period, the Atlantic World bit, European Absolute Monarchy, etc. We never even finished the textbook, and still, five out of the seven unit homework folders sitting on my computer are centered on Europe. Have I mentioned that I deleted all my unite homework folders up until November of that school year? If the textbook only gives one unit to the Muslims, how could it go into detail?
Furthermore, the reason that the American rounding-up of Japanese during WWII is made a big deal about is because the people who got incarcerated were citizens. People, children, who never saw Japan before, who were born on American soil. Why should these innocents be imprisoned? And actually, both the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March also got hefty passages. Sorry to disappoint you.
There’s this other paragraph in which you claim that it was Greek ideas which led to the rise of scientific method. I’m just saying, but the scientific method has barely anything to do with logic. Oh yes, the Greeks were big on logic and reasoning, but that’s the point: they preferred to reason their way through rather than actually experiment to see what would happen. Please don’t tell me that you believe that a heavier object falls faster than a light one. That’s Greek reasoning for you. Fortunately, the mistake was caught by simple experimentation (yes, by a white), but I hope you take from this the idea that the Greeks were not always amazing. Next time you want to enjoy the white technology of bloodletting to treat disease, I’m sure that your white doctor will firmly discourage you.
And then I think it’s weird that you claim that due to the work of whites, the world can no longer accept human rights abuses such as discussed in the Old Testament and the Homeric epics. You do realize that the Old Testament is part of Christianity, a traditionally white religion, right? And that the Homeric epics were written by…whites, right? All you’re saying is that whites have corrected the mistakes that whites made. And if you can seriously say that we “moderns” can’t take these atrocities, I see that you’ve never stepped inside your typical Christian church. Old Testament is fact there, man.
I’d also like to point out that the Mayans have made incredible contributions to astronomy, while living half a world away from all whites. The “invention of astronomy” by whites is even more ridiculous if you remember that even the Egyptians (who rose quite a long time before whites) had astronomy.
And you know, I’m kind of tired and I still have to do my math homework, so I’m just going to say a bit more. It’s kind of stupid for people, regardless of race, to wave around achievements that their ancestors reached as a valid reason for their keeping up a majority in any land. Are you really going to fall back on what your predecessors did? If you’re no help now, you’re no better than anyone else just because you had an amazing great-grandfather. I mean, it’s stupid for people to blame modern whites for things that their ancestors did, but it’s equally stupid for modern whites to take credit for what their ancestors did. Also, America is not the whites’ homeland, Europe is. America is the Native Americans’ homeland. Lastly, South Korea is also a good example of what can happen to whites when they’re a racial minority in a democratic country: nothing in particular, good or bad.
I always thought that it was ridiculous for people to hate current whites for what previous whites did, but that’s no excuse for you to strike back.
For hating the white race as much as she said she did, Sontag had no problem using chemotherapy to treat her cancer. Incidentially, chemo and the attendant treatments for cancer were invented by whites and European medical technology. All of those out there who despise white culture, claim whites are bigots and the worst people on the earth, etc… have no problem using European/American (white) technology when it suits their needs. I used the same kind of arguement to shut up my girlfriend’s lefty gal pal. She complained her neighborhood was “too white.“ I asked if she was moving. Of course she wasn’t. She then commented that the US was a racist nation. That may be so, but why are so many hispanics, blacks and other non-whites risking their lives in many cases to get here? Why don’t all the non-whites living here pack up and leave? We all know the answer. Living in the “racist” US is vastly preferable to living under the rule of their black or hispanic brothers in Mexico or God forbid, Africa (I’ve been there, and I can’t really blame Africans too much for trying to leave. What an eye-opener.) All of the things that non-whites use like technology, philosophy (ideas like freedom, equality before the law, etc…) are “white” invention. Like it or not, that is the case. Does anybody really want to live in a world without whites? I think not. The place would be too bleak and brutal. Asian nations don’t donate to Africa, do they?