Why the “Whites as Cancer” Myth?
By • 4/10/07 |
John Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. |
So far I have written many articles describing the “whites as cancer” myth, but I have not yet put forth any theory to explain why it has been so attractive to Westerners. It is one of history’s great riddles, perhaps its greatest: why has our race turned against itself? Why do whites, contrary to reason and the natural inclination to racial pride, slander their own culture and history, and glorify those of other races?
There are certainly many reasons for this, but there is, I believe, one primary reason. It is because whites who slander their own people have managed to convince the world that they are smarter, more courageous, and more sophisticated than the rest of us. Slandering your own people indicates that you have managed to overcome your ethnocentric prejudice, or the natural bias in favor of your own people and nation.
Ethnocentric prejudice had become a prominent topic in American cultural life by the time of the Vietnam War. The social theory of the 1950s and 60s blamed the rise of the Nazis on ethnocentric prejudice and also detected much potential for fascism in American culture.
What better way for whites to prove themselves free of such fascist impulses than to constantly harp on the evils America had committed, real or imaginary? By doing so, they proved they had liberated themselves from the prejudices in which the American majority was mired. The critical spirit that enabled you to realize the evils of your own people made you smarter and more sophisticated than others. Furthermore, you demonstrated moral courage by recognizing that you yourself, as part of your culture, had committed evil.
Such is the liberal myth. Liberals’ image of themselves as heroic non-conformists depends on the contrast between themselves and the fascists, so they are quick to believe any evil of the American majority. It is for this reason that the leftist radicalism of the 1960s proved so popular to a large segment of the American population.
No episode better illustrates the attraction of the liberal myth, and its enormous power to distort Americans’ perception of reality, than the early political career of John Kerry. On returning from his stint in Vietnam, the young veteran became a public figure by joining and speaking for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the leftist group among whom the tradition of Vietnam atrocity hoaxes originated. Despite the total fraudulence of his claims, Kerry created an image of himself as a heroic rebel that would become the basis of an immensely successful political career. The young man who, on no evidence whatsoever, accused his country of creating and encouraging racist psychopaths always found people who called him courageous, intelligent, and authentic. Douglas Brinkley’s 2004 book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, from which my account of Kerry’s activism is largely derived, is itself a piece of liberal mythology in that Brinkley accepts the heroic image of his subject without mentioning the evidence that proves Kerry a charlatan.
Kerry came into the public eye in April 1971 when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the war and participated in demonstrations in Washington organized by the VVAW. In his congressional testimony, Kerry took the standard VVAW line: American soldiers were behaving like crazed animals. According to the 27-year-old Kerry, they had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,” and so forth.1 Such crimes were not isolated incidents but “committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”2 However, just as was the case with the other members of the VVAW, Kerry never made any attempt to substantiate his outrageous accusations.
Kerry blamed the alleged atrocities on American racism: they had been committed because “America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.”3 Such murderous behavior was a natural outcome of American culture: “I think [the responsibility] lies in large part with this country which allows a young child before he reaches the age of fourteen to see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting-man comic books on the stands.”4
Just as unbalanced as Kerry’s testimony were the activities of the VVAW in the days surrounding it. Earlier, members of the group had stood in front of the Justice Department giving the Nazi salute and shouting “Sieg, heil!” The day after Kerry’s testimony, he took part in a ceremony before the Capitol in which vets threw their medals over a fence into a bin marked “trash.” One of them said before doing so, “I symbolically return all Vietnam medals and service medals given me by the power structure that has genocidal policies against non-white peoples of the world.”5
The VVAW protests were controversial, and most of the American public rejected the veterans’ claims; conservative writers like William Buckley and the Nixon White House itself took steps to discredit the protesters. Although subsequent scholarship has proved this rejection to be well-founded, Brinkley attributes it to American fear and jingoism. He sides with the VVAW members who stated that Americans simply could not bear to hear the truth about their country.6 He also quotes approvingly a writer who bleated, “Winter Soldiers was a small stone thrown hard and far out into the large pond—America’s perennially overconfident, jingoistic consciousness—and it would take a long time for all the ripples to reach the shore.”7
The fearful and bigoted public is supported in Brinkley’s mind by a powerful conservative “establishment” that launches a “disinformation campaign”8 managed by Nixon’s “dirty-tricks squad”9 to discredit the VVAW. However, evidence for such disinformation and dirty tricks is lacking. Certainly, the Nixon administration did state that a number of VVAW members were impostors, but, as we saw in our last article, this was true. For anyone who knows the facts, the conservative attack on Kerry is a welcome injection of sanity into Brinkley’s biography. Conservative pundit William Buckley, for example, said Kerry “had delivered the most irresponsible speech in recent Congressional history.”10
On the other hand, Brinkley never loses an opportunity to quote a contemporary who found Kerry’s campaign of fraud courageous and authentic. One of the soldiers who served with Kerry said he was “proud” of Kerry’s “boldness.”11 Novelist Armistead Maupin, who supported the war at the time, now says he respects John Kerry’s courage in speaking out.12 In 1978, an interviewer for a Boston newspaper summed up the liberal view of Kerry’s testimony before the Senate: “Even if you live to be a hundred years old, you will never see that moment of glory again… You stood Congress on its ear. You were a hero, then.”13 Additionally, Kerry was praised for being intelligent and authentic. Television host Dick Cavett, who interviewed Kerry, called him “intellectual and sensitive.”14 Young people regarded Kerry and the members of the VVAW as “hip.”15
In the early 1970s then, accusing American soldiers of war crimes without proof made you courageous, intelligent, and hip among a large segment of the population, and this is why the “whites as cancer” myth has proved so attractive. In the years since, the myth has entrenched itself in the American mind—Kerry’s subsequent career testifies to this fact. At any other time and place, a man who had so slandered his country and his race would have been the object of universal scorn. But in today’s America, he nearly became president! There is no better proof of the inverted nature of the contemporary world.
- John E. O’Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004), p. 103. ↑
- Ibid., p. 103. ↑
- Ibid., p. 106. ↑
- Ibid., p. 115. ↑
- Ibid., pp. 143-44. ↑
- Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War (New York: Harper Collins, 2004), p. 354. ↑
- Quoted in Brinkley, p. 357. ↑
- Brinkley, p. 358. ↑
- Ibid., p. 392. ↑
- Ibid., p. 420. ↑
- Ibid., p. 373. ↑
- Ibid., p. 398. ↑
- Quoted in Brinkley, p. 432. ↑
- Ibid., p. 403. ↑
- Ibid., p. 379. ↑
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.
dssdfgds—
I’ve never denied that the West has been violent in the past and committed its share of genuine atrocities. However, all races have committed atrocities, so it is unfair to portray whites as a uniquely violent race, as our culture does. It is much worse than unfair to accuse whites of committing atrocities that never happened, as Kerry did. What really makes whites unique is their ability to rise above the universal human norm of slaughter and slavery by creating free societies based on the rule of law. It is absurd to accuse whites of causing the majority of the world’s suffering. Whites have consistently worked to spread respect for human life and freedom around the globe; one example among many is Britain’s campaign in the 19th century to abolish slavery not only in its own territories, but in the Arab world. See The Inverted World (http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/theinvertedworld/).
Alright, I’ll use a real name this time.
“I’ve never denied that the West has been violent in the past and committed its share of genuine atrocities. However, all races have committed atrocities, so it is unfair to portray whites as a uniquely violent race, as our culture does. ”
I agree, but I think it’s just as unfair, voracious, and inane, as is commonly seen among racialist circles, to uphold the doings of non-white groups as so exemplerary. Like I’ve said, Europe has been just as bad. As an example, (from my searches) I’d like to point out the murder rates of old Europe, being as high in a number of countries as they are today in Columbia and South Africa- these persisting for whole centuries: http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2041
Or, for just one of the many examples of petty and brutal warfare and corruption in Europe, look up the War of the Oaken Bucket.
“It is much worse than unfair to accuse whites of committing atrocities that never happened, as Kerry did. What really makes whites unique is their ability to rise above the universal human norm of slaughter and slavery by creating free societies based on the rule of law. It is absurd to accuse whites of causing the majority of the world’s suffering. Whites have consistently worked to spread respect for human life and freedom around the globe; one example among many is Britain’s campaign in the 19th century to abolish slavery not only in its own territories, but in the Arab world. See The Inverted World (http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/theinvertedworld/). ”
But this all a recent development, with much of it having it’s roots in the Romans, who got this from the ramblings of a few dozen greek philosophers, who got this from the Phonecians, who overwhelmingly likely had atleast some cultural influence from their trading partners, like Egypt, Phonecia, etc.
And then you have to consider how Christianity has so heavily guided the west, despite being resultant of a non-white philosopher in Egypt. I mean is this really something of so heavily innate qualities? I don’t see much equiavlent to what you speak of in northern europe prior to the fall of the roman empire. No, I see the Celts and their loads of casual incest and other freakish sexual practicies, their cannibalism of their dead fathers, their nastly little habit of frequently beheading their enemies and decorating their homes and villages, all over, with them, or the frequent human sacrifice of the gauls, and the consant tribal warfare of the scots and scandinavians.
As for slavery, well sure, sympathy did play a role, but this was precipitated by innumerable slave insurrections and rebellions, and how the slavery of africans became extremely economically unviable. That’s well-known- it’s exactly what hampered the south from achieving anything resembling the north’s prosperity.
Your goals are good, but this topic is pretty old now IMO. I think anybody who does actual research on the subject will realize that whites aren’t so special when it comes to global suffering.
ALSO- I was reading your “race differences” article, and while it is true that blacks are more sexually promiscous- this being due to transisting in a hot environment for so long, leading to their overt metabolisms and thus higher testosterone levels- you’re wrong to say that sexual promiscuity really has anything to do AIDS infection rates.
Scroll down to the bottom on this article, it explains it in-depth. I was surprised too that AIDS was almost entirely unrelated to it: http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2002-12/20wise-taylor.cfm
I really don’t care for Tim Wise, though this should also give you an idea of the extremist and anti-semetic element in AR.
I’ve grown weary of attempting to refute claims of white evil and “racism” by showing the voluminous evidence of our uniquely strong extraneously oriented altruism. Such an argument puts us forever in a position of wheedling supplicant to skeptical if not implacably hostile nonwhite judges interested in no larger principle than the benefit of their own group at our expense, for whom our efforts will never be enough, and who are never under any obligation to reciprocate our generosity. Rather, I am increasingly preferring a simple and flat assertion of our own right, based on universal principles but more importantly based on our own say-so, to exist, prosper, to defend and advance our interests, and to be the absolute masters of our own destiny, way of life, and future in our own homelands, which means that we should be and indefinitely remain a decisive majority with dominant political, economic, and cultural power where we live.
“Although subsequent scholarship has proved this rejection to be well-founded, Brinkley attributes it to American fear and jingoism. He sides with the VVAW members who stated that Americans simply could not bear to hear the truth about their country.6 He also quotes approvingly a writer who bleated, ‘Winter Soldiers was a small stone thrown hard and far out into the large pond—America’s perennially overconfident, jingoistic consciousness—and it would take a long time for all the ripples to reach the shore.‘7”
Indeed Realist and all, here is a hard truth!
“…it would take a long time for all the ripples to reach the shore.”
I was born in 1972, I am but 34 years old; in a sense, I am one of the so-called “ripples.” But what does my making it to the shores portend, victory for the left or the right?
Within me pounds a total hatred for the left and everything it stands for! In fact, so hate-filled for the white Marxist establishment am I, that if it even looks moderately close between Adolf Hillary and Comrade Obama, I will do the “unthinkable” and vote for Comrade Obama in the Democratic primaries. Why commit that act of “insanity” you might ask?
Here is why, and it is twofold in explanation:
First, is the fact that Obama is everything this scum has hoped and dreamed for as “reality.” His ascendancy to the Rainbow House, will be an affirmation of those hallow and idiotic hopes and dreams into the void of their witlessness. Comrade Obama is and always will be, the very example of the Marxist left’s utterly vapid and cosmetic “courage” and “cosmopolitan” sophistication. After all, why have a vanilla gorgon, when a mocha gargoyle is on hand? This is particularly true when that mocha gargoyle is all too likely to prove the limits of the “glorious” multicultural revolution, rather than safeguard them!
Second, is the fact that this treasonous white scum which is personified by the Kerry and Clinton models, is to be demoralized and degraded at all costs. This holds doubly true for the mindless excrement on the “right” like John-NoBrains-McCain, or Comrades Rudi and Mitt; if the Republicans can do no better than these Red swine, why not go all the way and support the real “ideal” of the revolution in a general election for the same reasons? Why not prove our “racist” and “jingoistic” overconfidence dead and gone to those who hold it must be so?
Or put another way, why not hasten the “inevitable” for reevaluation; this being the absurd frolics and follies of the “boomer” generation and the “brave new world” they would have a white American minority enjoy in the coming nonwhite “utopia” they dream of, that could never be reversed in our children’s future? Comrade Obama, for all his underachievement and fecklessness, does represent the very ideals of affirmative action in action and white racial altruism in zenith, does he not?
Thus can the “glorious revolution” be experimented with at the expense of the “revolutionaries” who want it, and then fully rejected and reacted to at our people’s discretions while still a majority of about 64% to 62%.
Then, let the real games begin for real and keeps—LOL
Got to agree with your point about advancing and defending interests, Irish. We humans are warring, violent, self-aware animals. These traits are, along with the capability to be altruistic, universal and alternately moderated or encouraged by the culture that different groups have the created over time. Just as some groups are more athletic or smarter than others at various tasks, certain groups will be more adept at creating a culture with values that lead to order and stability. Western (writ, white European) culture has been the most adept at this over time due to a confluence of greco-roman thought, Christianity, white temperment, intelligence, etc. Hence, I will NEVER apologize for any particular atrocity unless I perpertrate it. What was done in the past doesn’t really bother me. I might not like it and might not condone it, but it has no immediate relevance to me in the sense of how I live my life and raise my children. It’s their future I’m most concerned about, and their future will be bleak if whites continue to ignore or buy into the evil whites as cancer myth.
I’ll tell you why whites have come to believe as they do. Because Jews run the Government, the media and the universities. They do the research, they print the textbooks. And, they hate white Christians so they made sure they delivered the cultural poison to kill them.
Being happy with being white equates with wanting to kill Jews. If you are a proud white person you are a Nazi. You will be labeled as such and you will be ridiculed and ostracized. Nobody, and I mean nobody wants to carry that Cross. It’s an awful, brutal road.
Sorry, I know it sounds simplistic but it was simply a matter of brainwashing, er, education. We have been educated, by the Jews (who control 95% of what we see, hear and read culturally from the time we are born), to hate ourselves.
So don’t be a freaking Nazi, okay?
Irish,
Liberals are “implacably hostile” to any argument in favor of whites no matter what it is. Arguing that we have a right to exist is one thing we should be doing and establishing the truth about our history is another.
Norris,
You said in your entry at the link you posted, “Homicide rates in England in the 1300’s were typically in the range of 12 murders/100K people. However, in some years, the murder rate in London and Oxford got as high as 50-100 murders/100K people, which would be comparable to modern-day South Africa and Columbia.”
This is your argument for the equality of the races? Occassionally the murder rate in 14th century London was as high as it is in South Africa today? LOL! So despite all the advances in technology in the past six centuries, and the concomitant improvements in social control and the standard of living, the crime rate in Africa is still as high as it was in 14h century England?
Mark,
Yes, your view does sound simplistic. The people who run the government in America are the voters, and the people who run the media are consumers. We get the government that the majority of voters wants, and we get the newspapers that consumers want to buy. Nothing is imposed on us by Jews or anyone else. The policies of the government and the views expressed in newspapers reflect the broad consensus of the American people.
By the way, the most influential partisan of the “whites as cancer” myth today is Michael Moore, of Stupid White Men fame. No Jew. And there are millions of perfectly white liberals who agree with him.
Nothing is imposed on us by Jews or anyone else. The policies of the government and the views expressed in newspapers reflect the broad consensus of the American people.
Absolutely. Only a person who doesn’t understand how business works would disagree. Those who put out views America doesn’t like would be passed out by competitors in the <span style=”font-size:11px;”>FREE MARKET</span> of the media. I have no use for conspiracy theorists. Jews are liberal in America and Conservative in Israel because America demands liberalism and NOT the other way around. Period. Case closed.
By the way, the most influential partisan of the “whites as cancer” myth today is Michael Moore, of Stupid White Men fame. No Jew. And there are millions of perfectly white liberals who agree with him.
Yes. True again. But I’d warn you about trying to debate VNN types of people, their IQ is too low to understand this.
“This is your argument for the equality of the races? Occassionally the murder rate in 14th century London was as high as it is in South Africa today? LOL! So despite all the advances in technology in the past six centuries, and the concomitant improvements in social control and the standard of living, the crime rate in Africa is still as high as it was in 14h century England? ”
And of course you make only mention of the murder rates in London. You’ll have to contend with the murder rates of Scandinavia, Belgium, and Denmark being on a rate identical to SA for a century straight. And from this very same forum:
http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7233
These murder rates for african nations shouldn’t be hard to believe, when one considers that the US murder rate is 5/100k.
I am no race realist, nor racialist, though I’m simply sympatheitc to certain aspects of the ideologies.
I apologize for bringing too much of my own views here- I’m not trying to stir anything up. Just look at it as food for thought.
Good luck!
“I’ll tell you why whites have come to believe as they do. Because Jews run the Government, the media and the universities.
Being happy with being white equates with wanting to kill Jews.”
By Mark on 4/12/07 at 11:17 pm
Hey, mister Mark. You punched in the wrong url. You meant to go to Stormfront.org. There you’ll find more simple minded, knuckle dragging cretins such as yourself.
“Liberals are “implacably hostile” to any argument in favor of whites no matter what it is.”—The Realist
That’s as basic and true as it gets. Thank you, Realist, for stating what should be constantly repeated by ALL who are against the White-race being denigrated, demonized, and persecuted.
So jews are liberal at much higher rates than whites because America forces them to be? And jewish liberalism , depsite jews being an elite group with vast influence in media, government, law, finance and academia, has no liberalizing influence on America at large? That’s a pretty far fetched claim.
Realist,
The arguments presented on your site imply that America would be better as a white ethno-state. Correct? Are you in favor of racial separatism? And if so, what sort of policies would you recommend? A return to segregation? Repatriation of the millions of non-white immigrants in America?
DG,
It is useless to talk about things like a return to segregation and repatriation of immigrants while they are practical impossibilities given the current state of opinion. Before any such projects become politically feasible, an immense work of education needs to take place: people need to grasp that race is real and that the “whites as cancer” myth is evil and wrong. Mike and I are undertaking that work on this site.
Ok. I too am disillusioned with multiculturalism and am repulsed by the demonization of whites. From observations, I have included that Islam is a supremacist religion. I know that whites have higher IQs on average than blacks. I am against government services for immigrants, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that practically bans private discrimination, the Voting Rights Act, against illegal immigration, bilingual education, foreign aid, nation building and government affirmative action.
Does all this make me a white nationalist? No. I haven’t even said I was white.
I understand the campaign for racial realism. What I can’t understand is what is the point of white nationalism: namely, why do you view yourself, an American, as being a part of the white nation? One problem is there simply is no definition of white other than skin color. Are biracials with light skin white? Are only Anglo-Saxons white? Or maybe all British peoples? Can you include Scandinavians, Germans or Dutch? What about white Spanish people? Would you consider white Italians or Slavs? Are Jews white? Would Magyars be white since they have been living in Europe for centuries even though they originated in Central Asia? What about Semites, or North African peoples such as the Vandals and even Egyptians/Libyans and certainly Phoenecian traders? Even Turks, and even some Aryans in the Indian subcontinent? How about that many white Europeans have trickles of non-European blood? Why can’t Japanese people be white, if they can learn white values and have greater intelligence than whites?
Another question is that white nationalism is plain old identity politics, similar to the NAACP and ADL. Shouldn’t whites show their supremacy by rising above these peoples’ antics. The fact is that separating whites from everyone else, as our current socialists do, further Balkanizes the country.
Also, 100 years ago, only Nordics were considered white, but non-Nordics today are also white. If, and it’s a big if, intelligent non whites immigrate to the US and learn English and accept the US rule of law and American identity, why does it matter that they are not white? Isn’t this pure tribalism? This isn’t an endorsement of our current disastrous immigration policies.
One last question: western civilization’s center has passed from ethnicity to ethnicity. At 1st it was the Greeks and then Romans, later the Germans, and then the French and English, and finally today’s American whites. If the dominant ethnicity of the US were to become let’s say Asian, Indian and white instead of white alone, why does that indicate that western civilization can’t continue in the US if Indians and Asians are also industrious beings?
You haven’t exactly addressed these important issues on this site.
To ajo, regarding:
“Another question is that white nationalism is plain old identity politics, similar to the NAACP and ADL. Shouldn’t whites show their supremacy by rising above these peoples’ antics. The fact is that separating whites from everyone else, as our current socialists do, further Balkanizes the country.”
While I cannot speak for The Realist, I have had enough exchanges with him on this website to know that in general his definition of whites would be quite similar to mine. This being that whites are those peoples who are of European descent or so primarily of it as to make no difference, this would include Jews, Slavs, and Mediterranean peoples such as Greeks or Italians. To use an American example, an individual who is part German, Irish, Jewish and part Italian with a smattering of Cherokee who is generally accepted as being white and considers himself to be white also, is white. The whole purpose of the website as best as I can discern, is to confront and logically dispel or deconstruct the multicultural dogmas and myths that hold every white man, woman, and child to be “evil” and deserving of displacement and marginalization in their own countries. It is not a forum where one plays the “Aryan versus non-Aryan” game, or engages in other Nazi gobbledygook such as Nordic paganism and rune reading!
And yes, the USA is a white country as it has had a white majority of 80% or better, since the revolution in 1776. Moreover, for most of this county’s history whites did see themselves as a distinct and even superior people; a people worthy of majority status and dominating the sociopolitical process.
As to “rising above” the “antics” of nonwhites, that would be all well and good if these “antics” did not have as an end result, the rape, murder, mutilation, and pillaging of whites by them. In a large part, this is due to the fact that our group solidarity and sense of nationhood has been eroded by the “Whites As Cancer” and other myths of the “tolerance” and “diversity” industries. Restoring our sense group solidarity and even re-infusing our sociopolitical process with racial identity politics such as was held by our grandparents, is likely the only way to put multiculturalism onto the ash heap of history!
If you can think of another way to do this, I am all eyes!!!
Realist,
I agree massive conversion of liberals from their beliefs needs to take place before any progress can be made, but my question is perhaps more philosophical: What is your ideal republic? I think this is significant because the liberals have their ideals (e.g. a republic filled with diverse ethnic groups), and we should have some fundamental goals, however unrealistic for the time being, to counter them. Would your ideal be to maintain an 80% white majority in America? Or 90%?
ajo asserted that “there simply is no definition of white other than skin color.” This is incorrect.
Race is much, much more than skin color alone. Race encompasses a constellation of features (seminal article on race here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html), only one of which is skin color. Hair and eye color are other obvious physical traits, but height and cranial shape are two more that are often overlooked. Less obvious but equally genetic are tooth shape, torso length, and body fat percentage. The list goes on and on.
Beyond the mere externals, there are also a host of genetic and behavioral characteristics. Whites are more susceptible to, for example, heart disease and cystic fibrosis than other groups. Similarly, Ashkenazi Jews have their signature diseases (most famously Tay-Sachs), and blacks have theirs (like sickle-cell anemia). Intelligence, considered by experts to be up to 80% heritable, also varies by race.
As for behavioral characteristics, see The Realist’s articles on the topic, such as “Ice People and Sun People.”
Finally, consider the achievements of different groups. Contrary to Jared Diamond’s claims, different groups achieved different outcomes for reasons far deeper than geography alone. Whites uniquely produced peerless geniuses like Bach, Newton, Mozart, Einstein, Fuller, Washington, Jefferson, Da Vinci, Descartes, Euler, Huygens, Sagan, Beethoven, Fermat, Socrates, Aristotle, Friedman, Pythagoras, Chopin—the list goes on and on.
Two questions: how many other Westerners did I leave off this list that could rightfully take a place on it? How many non-Europeans can you find who have affected the world the way these giants among men have?
Culture is not some ethereal thing that can mystically pass to anyone. When the people who created a culture are extinct, that culture is extinct, too. What’s more, it’s our culture. What could possibly be the matter with wanting to preserve it, and the vessels it travels in: white people?
“Furthermore, you demonstrated moral courage by recognizing that you yourself, as part of your culture, had committed evil.”
This dovetails nicely with a major aspect of western culture, Christianity, a fundemental tenet of which is original sin committed in Eden. All people born from Adam and Eve to the remotest generation come out as sinners and must spend their entire lives trying to repent.
>>
So far I have written many articles describing the “whites as cancer” myth, but I have not yet put forth any theory to explain why it has been so attractive to Westerners. It is one of history’s great riddles, perhaps its greatest: why has our race turned against itself? Why do whites, contrary to reason and the natural inclination to racial pride, slander their own culture and history, and glorify those of other races?
<<
There’s the crux. There is no natural inclination to racial pride.
Granted, there can be practical utility to identity politics, if you are inevitably yoked to a group identity by the larger society, as probably most blacks feel they are. In that case, legislation favouring blacks will appear to each black individual as offering him a leg up, and he will support such politics.
Not many individual whites have a strong enough sense that they are discriminated against for being white, or even significantly typecast as white.
In the absence of this it is pretty much each man for himself. Any “natural” inclination to race pride is no stronger than loyalty to a local sports team or to those who graduated from your school etc., in fact maybe even less so because there is probably less utility in race (except in the case above about identity politics) and race is a much bigger group. It seems too big and unspecific to offer pride. Black pride etc. is not real pride, it is just a defence mechanism. In fact the emphasise on having black pride has probably done incalculable harm to black people as a whole.
I just wanted make a comment telling you your debunking “Whites as a cancer myth” hits the target dead on. Keep hammering that point.
What really woke me up about the anti-White Left was affirmative action. I recall back when the concept was introduced back in the late sixties (I was in grade school), it was ‘sold’ as a program to give a helping hand to Blacks who were the descendants of slaves, only! Well, that in itself didn’t seem so bad. But when the Left expanded the parameters to include every group as an oppressed minority except White-males, I then knew—at an early age—White-males, and Whites in general, were going to be denigrated, slandered, defamed and discriminated against in public life. My concerns back then proved to be correct.
It’s evident that just about all—if not all—the “progressive civil rights and immigration laws” are based on the underlying premise that all who are not White-males need to be protected from White-males through the Government’s Judicial system. Where does this underlying premise stem from? Whites as a cancer myth, of course!
John Kerry said that «America placed a chaepness on the lives of orientals».
Well, I’m not sure about that, but did he know that the Japanese saw just about no value at all in the lives of non-Japanese, during WWII? I mean, stories about the Nan King massacre, describing the cruelty of Japanese soldiers, are almost unbelievable- but true!
If I’m not mistaken, the expression comparing White people to cancer, is the creation of Jewish American feminist writer Gloria Steinem. But I ask you, what kind of credibility does that limousine liberal have?
May I ask: are you intent on debunking the idea that whites are the cause of the majority of the world’s suffering, or anything beyond this, such as the idea europeans have always been as prosperous, altruistic, and non-violent as they are today, despite untold amounts of historical evidence showing to the contrary? That, y’know, Europe has seen just as much petty bloodshed and freakishly high crime rates, destitution, etc. as any other third world netion?