What
have we got to show for the Ice Age?
Why, the white man's toys.
Adolf
Hitler pays the price of his ideological errors, his mind wrecked due to the
strain of singlehandedly masterminding a world war, as allied
forces close in on all sides.
As
we all know, generally to our horror, white supremacy did not collapse in the
smoking rubble of the Third Reich. White supremacists, who tend in the main to
be (a) young and (b) male, still march and rally in the cities of the world,
while the rest of us look on with some apprehension. They argue that their race,
the white Cacuasian race, is absolutely superior to all other variations on the
human genetic theme and that it is their unquestionable destiny to rule.
Here
I would like to again do what we boys do best; to take this idiom apart and see,
once and for all, and as much for my own curiosity as for any other purpose,
just how valid-- or invalid-- it is.
The
human race is a species of hominid ape known to have first evolved in East
Africa and then to have migrated outwards from there in successive waves, first
to Asia and Europe, and then later into North America. Like most species it both
speciated and sub-speciated, and quite naturally different branches of the human
family began to take on different external appearances, governed by the laws of
evolution by means of natural selection, in order to best adapt to and survive
in the various environments in which they found themselves.
But
is it realistic to suppose that this external appearance is all that changed?
Surely, after all, there is more to the test of natural selection than merely
the merits of external appearance.
There
can be no realistic doubt that in the specific area of technology the white
race has become absolutely superior to all other races. But why is this? Has
this happened by mere accident? After all, in a varied world somebody has to be
"best" at this or at that, and so maybe the whites are the best
technologists just by accident. Or is there some reason for it? The black
race (Africans) are undeniably superior in other areas, away from technology.
Have you noticed, for example, when you watch a 100 metre sprint on television,
that regardless of where in the world the event is taking place, almost every
competitor is black? Have you noticed, that black runners gradually become more
and more absent from the starting line the longer the event (race) becomes, and
whites again begin to appear, until curiously the only blacks left in the
longest races are Kenyans and Ethiopians? (1) And have you noticed how, in the
western world where blacks are in a small minority, that it has been a very long
time indeed since the last white heavyweight boxing champion?
But...
why? These are not temporary phenomena, and nor are they coincidental. They have
persisted for as long as we have been running these events and competitions.
They are hard and fast practical rules-- and therefore there must be some reason
for them.
These
are just some of the phenomena that I have noticed and pondered upon. But as
with all things, it rattles me if I can't find some underlying, unifying
explanation for what I am seeing. And it was in my search for this
explanation that, for better or for worse, I began to first notice something
rather limiting about the black race.
If
I may be so bold as to invent here the term "primeval functions", then
those of the black Africans back in their own ancestral homeland would be
fighting, dancing, medicine, making music, and during the hunting of animals,
sprinting flat out upon an animal, short distances only, (having first stalked
the animal through long grass), prior to shooting or spearing the creature. If
the man chases the animal over a longer distance, the animal is bound to win,
and the man will starve.
I
think it is remarkable, and by no means coincidental, that these areas --and no
others-- are the very areas in which blacks excel in the modern world, the
latter skill of sprinting in short bursts showing itself to impressive effect on
the 100 metre running track, and the fighting skill in their world class boxing
record. Would you believe that for many years the disco dancing champion of
blond haired, blue eyed Sweden was black; their medics are as evident in
hospitals as any other race's, and their musical talents allow them to rise to
the very top despite having less opportunity in this subject in school than they
do physics or math where they perform far less well. You don't have to go to the
Rio or even the Notting Hill carnivals to notice that when the music starts, the
blacks start jumping up and down first, quite unable to help themselves -- and I
for one love and envy them for it.
By
contrast however, outside of their "primeval functions" we have a very
different story. Despite education being not only free but also compulsory there
are very few black inventors, very few black writers, the percentage of
scientists who are black is disproportionally small and the number of successful
black businesses is negligible (I challenge the reader to cast his mind's eye
around his local town and think of one).
A
popular defence here is that black people are underprivileged in our western
societies and cannot therefore be expected to do any better than they do. But
this defence is not valid, especially as education in the West is not only free
but also compulsory, and in this system blacks receive far more hours of school
tuition in math and science than they do in music (2) --yet nothing seems to be
able to stop them duly appearing on "Top of the Pops". Clearly there
is more beneath this than just underprivilege: there are simply some things they
can do and some things they can't, and from the foregoing underprivilege seems
to have nothing to do with it, in a world where if you have the talent, you will
rise despite Fate’s best efforts to the contrary.
The
plain truth is that black people seem to be trapped inside their primeval
functions and despite having all the opportunity in the world, especially in
countries like this where again education is not only free but also compulsory,
they do not seem to be able to break out of that mould. Something is clearly
missing in their genetic makeup which might enable them to do this. (We know
that it must be their genes which are responsible for this inability, as they
have migrated to every environment in the world, and nowhere have they succeeded
in breaking this particular mould. The explanation cannot therefore be
environmental).
There
have been a few cases of black invention, (notably traffic lights; blood
transfusions should be more properly classed as an idea rather than an
invention), which cases have perhaps inevitably led to claims by white
supremacists that these talents must be due to the black inventor having had
some white colonial ancestor. This seems very intolerant, but upon reflection,
having regard for just the facts, I rather feel it must actually be true.
We
know white people to be very inventive. This is because unlike blacks they
migrated into a harsh climate where one needed tools to survive, and therefore
natural selection quickly established a mechanism which favoured inventive
toolmakers, of all things, to anything else. In a harsh land such as ice age
Europe, with limited food supplies, only the most inventive, rather than the
most "anything else" therefore survived and passed on their genes of
inventiveness to their white descendants, who now predictably possess rockets,
computers, lasers and nuclear bombs (3).
But
the point is, that if the modern black inventor gets his genes form an ancestral
black source, rather than an ancestral white one, then centuries ago those black
inventor ancestors would have prevailed over their tribal rivals back in
their own ancestral land, for we know inventiveness to be a powerful
selective advantage in any situation, and they would have dominated, and passed
on their inventive genes to their black descendants, so that when the first
white slavers arrived in Africa they would have been repelled by a powerful
black technology every bit the equal of their own.
But
this did not happen, and we can only therefore conclude that these inventive
black ancestors never existed, and therefore the few modern black inventors do
indeed derive their abilities from white ancestors, and not from black ones.
Unfortunately, the white supremacists do appear to have scored a valid goal
here.
Having
reasoned this far, we do however at least begin to see some of Adolf Hitler's
more glaring errors. For example, at the 1936 Berlin Olympics he
actually expected his white Aryan supermen to go legging it down the track as
fast as the black Africans. Idiot. But at least we can see now why it actually
is, that they could not deliver for him. His supermen were the wrong race to
sprint to Olympic standards.
By
"black" people I have of course meant Africans. Asian people by
contrast appear to have evolved between quite different parameters. Being
exposed to very unusually high population density levels for long periods has
skilled many of them into cutting corners and being shrewd in order to survive
in a society of high demand and short supply, to the extent that many of them
are now capable of great deceit; some of the world's best conmen are Asian.
Others
have survived the same problems by developing a large capacity for hard work
over long hours. Their medics are of course as good as anyone's,
particularly as disease thrives where populations are dense as people are
closely confined, and those with medical abilities have helped themselves and
their families first, and passed on their genes which reflect these abilities,
while others without medical abilities, being unable to help themselves in a
crowded society where the doctor could not reach them, have died and their genes
with them. Consequently an evolutionary mechanism has established itself where
the percentage of people with medical abilities has become elevated over the
norm, so that now we all know at least one Asian doctor. Population density, and
not a harsh and cold climate, seems to have been the driver here.
Until
now I have covered only racial superiorities
and inferiorities. But of course we can also divide the human race along other
lines, notably sexual gender. The west is of course a world of sexual
equality, or at least it is supposed to be, and it is considered
"politically correct" (I hate that term; it sounds as though people
are trying to regulate our thoughts. Has it not occurred to these people,
especially after the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, that this is a greater
evil than even the crudest of free speech? Now how "correct" is a
mistake like that?) to consider the sexes as equal. But is it as simple as
that? Are men and woman really the same inside their heads? Well, in
common with many if not most men, I'm pretty certain that they are not.
If
we go back to the caves in which we spent 99.99% of our human existence, and
over which time we have become all that we are, we see that men became
genetically programmed to go out each day, and hunt, and kill, focusing their
brains and funneling their thinking narrowly and convergingly onto a single
animal target, such as a deer or a mammoth, and then getting the distance right,
the angle right, the timing right...before unleashing an invented arrow or
spear, and all the time communicating very little, for natural selection will
not favour those who literally scare away their food supply by emitting
noise. Consequently they have become very bad communicators, and very good
at landing planes and parking cars in tight spaces.
Women,
by contrast, have become genetically programmed to remain at the cave, look
after the young, and widen out, not funnel in, their attention in order to keep
an eye on the antics of many children at once, remembering who's doing what and
who's wandered off, whilst at the same time preparing food, making clothes, and
communicating out loud without any fear of scaring animals away. Consequently
they have become very good at communicating, remembering things (and
consequently doing better at school) and at not being able to resist showing
their mothering genes even in adult arguments with men, where they frequently
call the men childish and urge them to grow up. For to
come from such an angle is all that they know, because that's how they're
programmed.
Now
how can we possibly equate these two critters? Their functions, and therefore
their wavelengths, have become so very different!
And
this is also the nature of the problem which we face in the matter of the
overall assessment of just which races are superior and which are not. Because
so many functions are so very different, they cannot be equated nor even
compared.
The
best that we can do is to say that in terms of fighting, dancing, running fast
over short distances and making music the blacks are superior (4). But in terms
of rockets, television, weapons of mass destruction and vaccines, the whites are
superior. Asians are hardworking and the best deceivers (is it a coincidence
that I hadn't grown very old before I first got short-changed in an Asian corner
shop that was always open?), although for some reason which still eludes me they
do produce wizard mathematicians, and across all racial boundaries women
communicate better and produce better school results than men, while the men,
with their deadly estimation of distances and angles, really had better park the
car and land the plane.
However
I would have to admit, albeit with some reluctance, that if I had to adopt
nature's criteria and define true overall superiority in terms of who would
prevail if the races had to go to war, (perhaps over a limited food supply) (5),
in a world where there was room only for the victor and not for the vanquished,
then of course the whites would prevail due to their technology, and be the ones
to pass on their genes. In that uncompromising, "the winner defines
himself" evolutionary sense, in all fairness the whites are superior.
But
at least we can now trace a logical, rhythmic thread, of just why all this is!
And in that, at the very least, I would like to think that in the way I ponder
all this, I must, unlike Adolf Hitler (6), be doing something right.
I
would like to end with a note about marriages and personal relationships of an
interracial nature. White supremacists of course rage that such relationships
are not natural. Are they right? Well, from an analytical viewpoint, I'm afraid
they are. We know that life on earth began with bacterial forms, and then
speciated in order to produce more varied forms, not one of which is any
"better", or any "worse" than any other, for they are all
superbly evolved to fulfill their own particular biological functions. And every
single species which exists today in our wonderfully varied world owes that
existence to speciation. No-one seriously denies that the different races of
humanity have been evolving upon divergent lines for many tens of thousands of
years, to the extent that both their appearance and their abilities have now
become noticeably different, as the above analysis has shown. In other words,
speciation is clearly underway, and no-one with an understanding of evolution
would deny that the races, if kept separate, would inevitably evolve in
different directions, and continue to diverge. Of course, to maintain that
speciation process the different subspecies, or races of the same species, must
not interbreed, otherwise their genes will again become mixed, and the
speciation process will be neutralised.
But
the point of principle is, that we owe our very existence to speciation, and if
we had always done what interracial marriages do, and remixed our genes,
starting at the earliest bacterial stage in our evolution, then we would never
have risen above the bacteria in the first place. Interracial marriage partners
are therefore going against the very mechanism which brought them to be. And
that defines them as unnatural.
I
hate it when these white supremacists are correct, because I can't help getting
the impression that they are wretched, violent creatures who would still persist
even if they knew they were wrong. And when analysts like me then reach the same
conclusions as they, but for different reasons, we appear to less intelligent,
less analytical people as being white supremacists ourselves, which we are not.
Instead ,we are logistical, reasoning beings who will not allow political
correctness to prevent us from rooting out the truth, even from those unpleasant
corners which the politically correct would rather ditch science than enter.
--- Michael Alan Marshall
1.) This is because Kenya and Ethiopia are both very high altitude places, and the people there have evolved more efficient lungs and muscles which can hold oxygen which of course is rarer at such heights. When these people then come down to run at lower altitudes, they can excel as their muscles retain very large amounts of oxygen.
2)
A teacher friend of mine once told me that blacks in his classes don’t do as
well as whites, “and we don’t know why that is”. To which I answered,
“Now don’t shoot the messenger here, I’m not a racist but neither will I
allow political correctness to silence science….. have you measured their
IQ?” The average white European IQ is 100 but the
indigenous African average is 70.
3) As illustrated rather disturbingly in the movie "Dr. Strangelove" which also featured snow and ice-covered backdrops reminiscent of the ice age which precipitated their invention. The other race which experienced harsh ice age conditions were the Chinese/Japanese "Orientals", who have also therefore developed inventive abilities. However they could communicate with verdant tropical lands to the south, whereas Europe was cut off from tropical Africa by the Mediterranean and the Sahara. European conditions were therefore harsher for the inhabitants, meaning that whites have had to become more inventive than Orientals to survive. This is reflected in the modern contrast in technological levels between the two races. (The current Japanese technological phenomenon is somewhat misleading as along with the Russians they are great ones for copying western inventions). Nevertheless, for these ancestral reasons Orientals should be fairly classed as "the other technological, inventive race".
4) In the case of music the matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that the white man's inventive characteristic can also create excellent music. It follows from the theory, of course, that the traditional roots of black music and white are totally alien to each other.
5) Or if a super-volcano such as Toba or Yellowstone were to erupt and ruin world harvests for years.
6)
Within the white European race, I have long suspected that the Germanics are a
bit "short", when it comes to true inventive capacity. They appear too
hardcore-technical and seem to lack the necessary ingredient of artistic
creativity which threshes with hardcore technicality to generate inventiveness.
A classic albeit rather stereotyped example of this might be the comparison
between the German Messerschmitt-109 and the British Spitfire aircraft in the
Second World War. The 109 was a very straight-edged product of a hard technical
mind, whereas the Spitfire was a cursive piece of work which mirrored not only a
scientific but also artistic understanding of air flows, eddies and sworls,
thereby betraying itself as the work of the Anglo-Celt, himself a mixture of the
artistic Celt and the technical Teuton. The Spitfire prevailed.