The Case Against “Assimilation”: The French Connection

The Case Against “Assimilation”

1,465 words

Translated by Guillaume Durocher

Translator’s Note:julien-rochedy-le-directeur-national-du-front-260x298

Julien Rochedy is the former director of the Front National’s youth organization (FNJ). He wrote this article after he left the FNJ’s leadership, remaining on good terms with the party, which he felt allowed him to speak more freely and critique the FN’s official assimilationist stance. The text gives some idea, beyond Marine Le Pen’s electorally necessary but potentially dangerous formal compromises with political correctness, as to what brighter people in the party are thinking. The title is editorial.

March 22, 2015

Continue reading “The Case Against “Assimilation”: The French Connection”


Frank L. DeSilva: The Metaphysics of Blood & The Future Folk State

The Metaphysics of Blood & The Future Folk State

Frank L. DeSilva - Radio 3Fourteen - The Metaphysics of Blood and the Folk-State
Frank L. DeSilva – Radio 3Fourteen – The Metaphysics of Blood and the Folk-State

Metaphysics of Blood 

Interview with Robert Klark Graham

Interview with Robert Klark Graham

2,835 words

Editor’s Note:GrahamRobert-218x300

Robert K. Graham (1906–1997) was co-founder and director of The Repository for Germinal Choice, a California-based sperm bank which stored and distributed the sperm of Nobel Prize winners and other men of exceptional ability. He invented and manufactured the plastic used for shatter-proof eye glasses and was author of The Future of Man. The following interview was conducted by Marian Van Court on January 20, 1983 in Austin, Texas and was first published in The Eugenics Bulletin, Winter, 1983.

Approximately how many applications have you received so far?

Over 1000.

Continue reading “Interview with Robert Klark Graham”

Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, & Human History

Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, & Human History

4,498 wordsa-troublesome-inheritance-genes-race-and-human-history-199x300

Nicholas Wade
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History
New York: Penguin Press, 2014

Anti-Darwin, — As regards the celebrated ‘struggle for life’, it seems to me for the present to have been rather asserted than proved. If does occur, but as the exception; the general aspect of life is not hunger and distress, but rather wealth, luxury, even absurd prodigality —where there is a struggle it is a struggle forpower. . . One should not mistake Malthus for nature.”– Friedrich Nietzsche [1]

 Hello! Have you heard the good news . . . about race? 

It’s real, you know. Yes, it is. Race is real. And powerful.

Science tells us that race it real. Race is another name for recent human evolution because we are still evolving and adapting in order to survive just as our ancestors did as they earned their race by survival when they journeyed around the world for so many generations. Race comes from deep down within us, deeper down that even our bones and blood. It comes from our genes. It is the digital river of information [2] flowing from our ancestors through us to the future. And these genes affect our behavior. All our social behaviors shape the institutions that our race has created so you can say that our genes and culture are interlocked. 

So what do we do now, you ask? 

Continue reading “Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, & Human History”

The Cowardice of “Conservatives”

The Cowardice of “Conservatives”

by Jared Taylor

 Word Count 796

In yet another act of cowardice, a “conservative” institution has fired someone from saying something that is not only true, but that everyone knows to be true. This time the Heritage Foundation joined the ranks of the lickspittles by forcing out a senior researcher, Jason Richwine. Mr. Richwine, who co-authored the Heritage’s recently released report on the costs of amnesty, had written his Harvard PhD thesis on the implications of racial differences in IQ for immigration policy—and racial differences in IQ have such obvious policy implications that a “think tank” dare not think about them.

Continue reading “The Cowardice of “Conservatives””

The Scientific Revolution: A Reappraisal

Historiographical Refutation of Patrick O’Brien’s

Global Perspective on the Scientific Revolution

Domitius Corbulo

The current issue of The Journal of Global History (March 2013) has an opening article by Patrick O’Brien, Professor of Global History at the London School of Economics and Political Science,  with a long title, “Historical foundations for a global perspective on the emergence of a western European regime for the discovery, development, and diffusion of useful and reliable knowledge,” which concludes, rather diffidently, that “historians of global economic development might wish to retain the ‘older’ view of the ‘Scientific Revolution’” (15). The global historians O’Brien has in mind are Ken Pomeranz, Bin Wong, Jack Goldstone, Prasannan Parthasarathi, Ian Morris, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, A. Gunder Frank, Patrick Manning, David Christian, and indeed almost the entire world and global history professoriate and the multiculturalists who dominate our educational institutions.  The research of these historians has been invariably about the so-called “similarities” — economic and institutional — between Europe and Asia before the Industrial Revolution, not the Scientific Revolution.

Nevertheless, altogether they have generally insisted that the rise of modern science was a global phenomenon. For example, Frank has written that Newtonian science was not peculiar to Europe but “existed and continued to develop elsewhere as well” (1998: 188–89).  Armesto has shown no hesitation stating that the science and philosophy of Copernicus, Kepler, Laplace, Descartes and Bacon was no more original than the neo-Confucian “scientific” revival of the seventeenth century — both were “comparable in kind” (2007: 630). Morris has also said that an intellectual movement in 17th to 18th century China known as Kaozheng “paralleled western Europe’s scientific revolution in every way – except one: it did not develop a mechanical model of nature” (2010: 473)—a rather large difference  given that nature can’t be understood scientifically without such models. Parthasarathi, in his recent book, Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600-1850 (2011) has rejected the ‘older’ claim that Europe possessed superior markets, rationality, science or institutions, tracing the divergence instead to different competitive and ecological pressures structured by global dynamics.

Now, while O’Brien thinks that these historians have been “successful” in their “assault upon a triumphalist tradition of European global economic history” (2), he questions, guardedly, their claim that the rise of modern science was a global phenomenon. The Scientific Revolution, he writes, was “something less than a short, sharp discontinuity in the accumulation of scientific knowledge, and more a profound conjuncture locatable for its time in the history of western Europe” (23). Yet, O’Brien accepts the idea that world history should be the study of “connections in the human community,” the story of humanity’s “common experience” (Manning, 2003), an idea which precludes seeing historical transformation in terms of the “internal logics” of nations or particular civilizations. The result is one of the most convoluted, awkward, befuddling, and unscholarly papers I have read. This paper is part of a “project funded by the European Research Council”. In an earlier “Proposal to the European Research Council” (2009),

Continue reading “The Scientific Revolution: A Reappraisal”

Foundations: Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession

Psychological Mechanisms of White DispossessionKM3

by Kevin MacDonald

Word count: 2,897

I discuss three mechanisms basic to the psychology of White dispossession — runaway displays of White guilt and abasement, social learning, and being a member of a moral ingroup. Self-interest is often front and center, or at least in the background. For example, it’s pretty clear that many if not most Whites who make effusive declarations of allegiance to the multicultural reign of terror are acting out of self-interest. Such people are plugging into the contemporary structure of rewards and punishments created by our hostile elites. Even White heterosexual males have much to gain by making such displays; simply attending a job talk at a university, especially for an administrative position, makes it clear that explicit affirmations of allegiance to multiculturalism, White guilt, and acquiescence to White dispossession are de rigueur.

Runaway Displays of White Guilt and Abasement

So part of the psychology of displacement among Whites is simply self-interest. Anthony Hilton’s article (“Giving away the farm: Why?”)  adds the suggestion that there can be a runaway process resulting from competition among displayers to the point that their declarations become more and more grotesque and removed from rationality. Just as peahens select for more and more cumbersome, costly tail feathers in peacocks, we can expect that the bar for successful displays of White self-deprecation and guilt to be continuously raised.

Continue reading “Foundations: Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession”

Profiting from Eugenics: The case of Shabazz Muhammad

Profiting from Eugenics: The case of Shabazz Muhammad

Eugenics has always verged on common sense for evolutionists. Recently evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller commented on China’s policy of taking eugenics seriously by “creating the world’s highest-quality human capital in terms of the Chinese population’s genes, health, and education.” As a result, the Chinese now have invested in cutting edge genetic research and are moving to create smarter babies. By understanding the genetics of IQ and allowing couples to select which of their fertilized eggs to rear, they will be able to raise the IQ of their offspring. As Miller notes in an interview, “Even if [this process] only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is.”

Count on the West to continue to import millions of low-IQ immigrants and to go into a moral panic at the very thought that genetic differences could influence IQ and that IQ is important for competitiveness.

However, that doesn’t mean that enterprising people in the West cannot use a basic grasp of eugenics to strike it rich. The LA Times reports that Ron Holmes used a basic knowledge of eugenics to enrich himself and his family (“NCAA to NBA millions: UCLA star’s father mapped out a dream; Ron Holmes has spent two decades guiding his son Shabazz Muhammad toward a pro basketball career. The payoff is near, with the UCLA star projected as a top draft pick“).

Shabazz Muhammad with his parents, Ron Holmes and Faye Muhammad.

 Holmes plotted out his life 20 years ago:

Continue reading “Profiting from Eugenics: The case of Shabazz Muhammad”

Foundations: Thomas Huxley and Racial Imperatives

January 7, 201355 Comments

Brenton Sanderson


The nineteenth century English biologist Thomas Huxley is today best known as a leading early supporter of Darwin’s theory of evolution. His eloquent defense of Darwin during his famous 1860 debate with Samuel Wilberforce led to the wider acceptance of evolution. Huxley’s polemical support for Darwin’s theory (which earned him the title of “Darwin’s Bulldog”) has, however, overshadowed his status as a man who was an acute thinker in his own right. Particularly worthy of greater attention is his essay “Evolution and Ethics” (1894) where he argues that ethics are a by-product of natural selection, and particularly of the struggle for existence between groups.

Huxley starts his essay by distinguishing between what he calls the “cosmic process” and the “ethical process.” The cosmic process is, for Huxley, the process that governs the universe (or more specifically and to the purpose of Huxley’s essay, all of the “forms of life which tenant the world”).[i] He notes that “one of the most salient features of this cosmic process is the struggle for existence, the competition of each with all, the result of which is selection, that is to say, the survival of those forms which, on the whole, are best adapted to the conditions which at any period obtain; and which are, therefore, in that respect, and only in that respect, the fittest.”[ii] Like Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin before him, Huxley saw all living things as locked in a life and death struggle for existence – and human beings, like other living things, are fully implicated in this struggle which “tends to eliminate those less fitted to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their existence.”[iii] In “Evolution and Ethics,” Huxley observes that:

With all their enormous differences in natural endowment, men agree in one thing, and that is their desire… to do nothing but that which pleases them to do, without the least reference to the welfare of the society in which they are born. That is their inheritance (the reality at the bottom of the doctrine of original sin) from the long series of ancestors, human and semi-human and brutal, in whom the strength of this innate tendency to self-assertion was the condition of victory in the struggle for existence. (Emphasis added.)[iv]

Here Huxley, the man who gave us the term ‘agnostic’, offers us a thoroughly scientific and Darwinian interpretation of St. Augustine’s doctrine of “original sin.” Our original sin, according to Huxley, is not that we are born as humans, but rather that we are born (at least psychologically) as primates for whom self-interest — even accompanied by brutality — was paramount. Unlike the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin which requires us to believe in a fable about talking serpents and forbidden fruit, Huxley’s version of the doctrine rests on a simple acceptance of the law of natural selection, the characteristic feature of which “is the intense and unceasing competition of the struggle for existence.”[v]

Continue reading “Foundations: Thomas Huxley and Racial Imperatives”

No Balls? You Don’t Say

by Jim Goad

Brothers, gents, countrymen, and assorted randy lads and bucks galloping like centaurs through fields of feminine flowers and wantonly squirting their seed the world over, I regret to inform you that the worm has turned on the world’s sperm. Our gonads face a crisis of historic proportions. A Spermocaust is unfolding a mere three feet beneath our very eyes.

French men not producing as much sperm,” trumpets the headline to a Reuters article written by—haw!—Andrew M. Seaman and citing a study released last Wednesday by the journal Human Reproduction. The study, thought to be the most comprehensive of its kind ever, scrutinized the jizz-production of 26,609 Frenchmen from 1989 to 2005 and found that the number of insouciant, beret-wearing tadpoles in their semen decreased by nearly a third during that time period. The study also found a “significant” decrease in the quality of the sperm, which I presume was achieved through rigorous taste-testing.

Continue reading “No Balls? You Don’t Say”