3,478 words

Part 2 (Read Part 1 here)

The left dismisses such considerations of race as “social constructs,” while resorting to other such pseudo-intellectual sleight of hand. A particularly dubious assertion is that Germany, Britain, or any other European nation or people are not homogenous. Scots, English, Welsh are different groups, although one could rarely if ever pick out one from the other in a crowd of all three. The same is true for Germany, which is just as varied with different dialects, customs, and even culinary delicacies. The German speaking world is bifurcated by the Weißwurstäquator. On the basis of such regional differences which, in certain instances, could arguably be described as ethnic differences, such Welsh or Scottish, some (quite stupidly) contend that Britain and Germany have always been multicultural. After all, the Scottish and Welsh are different cultures, as are the Bavarians, Swabians, Plattdeutsch, Hessians, and so on.

Of course, preposterous musings suffer from the continuum fallacy; it is akin to the absurd suggestion that because there are different shades of red and because, at some point, if one mixes enough yellow into red it ceases to be red and becomes orange, and, more importantly, because there is no precise, universal consensus as to when red becomes orange when mixed with yellow, red as a concept is therefore either a “social construct” or otherwise somehow an elusive or otherwise inconsequential concept to grasp or embrace. A similar continuum fallacy would to be to suggest crimson and a reddish-pink color are different colors (actually different shades of the same color), and, on the basis of these assertions advance the even more preposterous argument that there is therefore, on that basis, no principle by which green or brown can be excluded, distinguished, or categorized separately from these different shades of red. That sort of continuum fallacy runs rampant in the leftist claptrap that diminishes, trivializes, or explains away The Great Replacement and so many of our other troubles, as they even have the gall to suggest that race itself is somehow a “social construct.”

In the video below, a Welsh teacher in Ireland accosts an Irish patriot, calling him racist. She claims that, being Welsh, she is just as much a foreigner as black Africans and others who have no right to be there. She exhibits the continuum fallacy par excellence.

Deranged Welsh 'Teacher' Lectures Irishman in Gweedore, Co. Donegal!

One example of such sophistry is equivocating the Norman invasion—which happened almost a thousand years ago and consisted of hostile Norman invaders who nonetheless had some racial and geographic affinity and proximity to the Anglo-Saxons and others who populated the British Isles—and using that as a vehicle to suggest that millions of black, Muslim, and other migrants that have arrived by boat, plane, or other conveyance are really no different. The multiculti musketeers also like to mention that there used to be a contingent of “Blackamoors” in London in the 16^th Century, until Queen Elizabeth rightly expelled them. The Golden Horde of Genghis Khan is another similar, equally absurd argument. Genghis Khan sacked Europe the better part of two millennia ago so there is no reason why Germans should not agree to be a minority in Germany! Even though “continuum fallacy” or other arguments are not something everyone is able to articulate fully, these sorts of statements are always befuddling, because people can sense intuitively, instinctively, viscerally that this sort of obfuscation is the worst sort of bunk. The Norman invasion was, of course, also a very bloody affair. So too were the conquests of Genghis Khan, as such demographic shifts tend to be in varying degrees, whether in the Middle Ages or not.

These reasons and others explain why the most pernicious phenomenon of race-swapping, both in fiction and in real life is so grating, as it contravenes the immutable axiom that race is culture and defines cultural identity. Examples of such racial subversion include AI scripts depicting soldiers of the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht as something other than German or depicting the Framers of the US Constitution as black or various others sorts of brown-skinned genetic party favors of unknown origins. That inversion has continued longer in the great race swap that Disney and other insidious elements in Hollywood and American popular culture have been perpetrating for some time.

The race swap perpetrated by Disney and other Hollywood conglomerates is of course realized through the Great Replacement itself, and there is no greater symbol for this than the recent phenomenon where national football (or soccer) teams are fielded with blacks and other individuals who are the antithesis of what it means to be French, English, German, or any other European nationality. This is devastating in terms of the psychological effect it has on the psyche. Not only does seeing a French or English team composed mostly or almost entirely of blacks condition the populace with the proposition that blacks are French or English, it is touted as a benefit of multiculturalism on the supposition that these teams would be less competitive without such a contingent of imposters who are in no way French or English. Such bread and circus distractions are of deep importance to many; winning a European Cup championship, even if one is challenged to find more than a couple actual English of French players on the national team in question, blinds many to the realities of the reverse colonization of Europe. Of course, if Europe were not subject to the Great Replacement, a bona fide English team comprised of actual Britons would compete against a bona fide French team, and so on.

The continuum fallacy is bolstered further with the lie that race is skin deep; the lie that should not fool a child. Indeed, despite the indoctrination in school that race was just skin deep, this author saw through the lie in elementary school by simply gazing at the visage of Bill Cosby, when The Cosby Show was a phenomenon in American “culture.” Physical differences in an African person like Bill Cosby that were apparent to me as a child include:

• difference in hair texture and thickness,


• difference in mouth, lips and teeth,


• wildly difference nose structure.

These are just the differences that a child can spot while observing a person of African descent on a television (an analog color television of the era, of course). Other racial differences not visible to a child of the 80s include differences in bone structure and mass, propensity for vitamin D deficiency in more temperate climates, complications in organ transplants with people of different races, among many others. Racial differences of course go well beyond mere physical differences. Despite decades and many trillions squandered in Great society and other programs, blacks are still two standard deviations below average white IQ. Civilization fails wherever they are in charge or present in sufficient numbers. Decades of wildly disproportionate rates in violent crime harken to a certain famous line about “racial commitment to crime.”

The cold hard reality regarding differences in race further explains why countries that entertain this absurd experiment only become more dysfunctional the longer these ideas are entertained. The longer a nation entertains this most dubious experiment of multiculturalism, the more fragmented and low-trust that society becomes. Despite all the media campaigns touting the advantages of multiculturalism and miscegenation, most people congregate among their own. The worst sort of white limousine liberal always lives in white affluent enclaves like Mercer Island or Martha’s Vineyard, insulated (at least in the short term) from the consequences of their luxury beliefs that they externalize on the less fortunate members of their race. This idea is hardly original, as Jared Taylor and others for have pointed out for decades, but to the extent a critical mass of people continues to delude themselves to the contrary, it must be repeated again, and again, and again.

Indeed, some developments in the field of evolutionary psychology indicate prejudice, involuntary or otherwise, evolved because prejudice and bias have been (and probably still are) conducive to survival and well-being. Some research indicates that infants demonstrate racial prejudice for those of their own race and against those of a different race.[1] Catherine Cottrell of the University of Florida and Steven Neuberg of Arizona State have posited a theory of human prejudice as something that evolved from living in groups, what John Locke regarded as the social contract. Banding together provides in-group members greater “access to resources necessary for survival including food, water, and shelter.” A collective in-group is also necessary for finding a mate, caring for children, as it also provides protection from others. Belonging to a tribe or other collective polity makes the individual and the group “wary of outsiders who could potentially harm the group by spreading disease, killing or hurting individuals, or stealing precious resources.” The Cottrell-Neuberg theory further posits that prejudice then has a protective, beneficiary function, as it allows humans to discern who belongs in an in-group and who does not. Over time, this process of quickly evaluating others might have become so streamlined that it became unconscious. The Cottrell and Nunberg theory of prejudice as an evolutionary adaptation simply reiterates the principles of Volksgemeinschaft and applies them to the field of evolutionary psychology.[2] Given wildly disproportionate rates of violent crimes in blacks and to a lesser extent mestizos, coupled with seemingly indelible deviations in average IQ, the necessity of this faculty of discrimination and bias—little more than pattern recognition, actually—does not seem to have lost its utility or necessity, despite decades of propaganda insisting the contrary.

The inherent right to any people to race, blood, and soil—as a defining characteristic of a people’s culture and society—is further demonstrated in various condemnations of genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on, especially as enunciated in so-called international law. As just one example, the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Persons (UNDRIP) is replete with passages recognizing the right of race, blood, and soil for those people. But as they are recognized for third world brown people, so they must also be recognized for the Sons and Daughters of Mother Europa. Some highlights of UNDRIP include:

• the right to a nationality (Article 6)


• the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence (Article 7)


• the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. (Article 8)


• prevention of, and redress for (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities (Article 8 2A).

One interesting but not all surprising admission by this document is the explicit recognition of the “historic injustices” suffered by indigenous peoples “as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources,” as this dispossession prevent[s] them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests.” Does this warning from history not implore the Sons and Daughters to take whatever measures necessary and available to prevent this happening to them?

The operative language of Article 2 (c) of the Genocide Convention, an international treaty signed and promulgated by most nations after World War II, unquestionably touches on The Great Replacement:

 Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Somewhat paradoxically, throughout history civilizations and peoples that have clashed with other hostile alien peoples in ways that necessitate violating this or other supposed human rights (such as freedom of religion). Spain could not have defended her progeny without expelling Moors that made incursions in Iberia, just as Native Americans would needed to have destroyed the descendants of Anglo colonial settlers to avoid their fate, a proposition that never had any real chance of success given the inferiority of their stone age technology. Toyotomi Hideyoshi saved the Japanese people through intolerance and brutality. History has demonstrated time again that very often, in order to avoid being vanquished, a people or civilization must resort to abject brutality in contravention to such modern sensibilities.

Of course, a fundamental precept of Locke’s philosophy is that a people is governed by consent and that trampling on whatever is imagined to be human rights justifies revolt and revolution. By discerning—correctly discerning—effective homogeneity as an inherent right, Europeans thus have justification for revolt and revolution if the ruling class persists in disastrous policies that are tantamount to racial suicide and civilizational ruin.[3] This epiphany further reveals how most European democracies are illegitimate in view of the prolonged, concerted effort to foil these first principles of blood, race, and soil. This framework also offers a more enlightened perspective on the race riots currently taking place in Great Britain. In addition, discerning racial homogeneity as an inherent or fundamental right—the inherent right to race, blood, and soil—provides an important limitation on the democratic process or any other, alternative form of government. Such an inherent right would have been included if only the drafters could foresee what was utterly unthinkable in their time.

Some more mainstream conservative types have postulated that if the people of Sweden, as just one example, want to vote themselves into racial and civilizational oblivion, that is their choice. Discerning this inherent right of race, blood, and soil overcomes that objection by the same mechanism that prevents the tyranny of mob rule in various ways in a democratic republic or some other, perhaps more desirable form of government. To whatever extent democratic republics or other forms of government limit the power of the state in ways that are presently of far less import or consequence than the existential perils that currently face Mother Europa and the West, there is no reason why the safeguarding of our posterity and the future of our race and varied phenotypes should not also be so anointed among rights deemed as inherent and sacrosanct. Similarly, discerning the preservation and continuation of race, of blood and soil, as an inherent right provides an important framework by which to reevaluate for example the right to free speech. If a new order is ever established, recognizing these rights of blood and soil provides a principled, structured mechanism to ban expressions that promote or condone miscegenation or to ban alien undesirable cultural expressions, such as how rap music or other elements of so-called black culture have negrified Western culture.

Because of the power of modern media, because indoctrination has run so deep for decades, right-wing populists may never be able to get above thirty-five to forty percent of the native populations that actually have any right to any say. But just as no sane person would suggest a referendum mandating the entire populace commit a Jonestown style mass suicide-murder by drinking cyanide laced kool-aid en masse, at some point Western man must realize that preventing national and civilization suicide is not negotiable, and it really does not matter whether a majority agrees or not once whatever means necessary and available can effectively and decisively enforce this most fundamental right of all as inherent and non-negotiable.

In reality, there are no inalienable rights. Such rights only exist to the extent that they are backed by state or other collective violence. In the brilliant Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein dismantles the myth of inalienable rights succinctly and in short order through this monologue, using Colonel DuBois as his mouthpiece:

“Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’?”

After repudiating the absurd notion that “life” is an inalienable right, Heinlein then dismantles liberty as an inalienable right:

“As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.”

Heinlein further reveals that whatever rights the populace deludes itself into thinking are inalienable are only good for as long as they are backed and guaranteed by violence.

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

What generations are taught as inalienable rights are, in the final analysis, only good as long as they are backed by force.[4]

[4] With perhaps one important qualification. As articulated further in “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident,” laws do “enunciate moral standards and social mores of that society, from theft to animal cruelty to sex crimes.” Platitudes about inalienable rights and other such tenets of American exceptionalism have been inculcated in the minds of many generations of Americans through the violence of the state. Thus, “if the Constitution and the federal states and local governments were to vanish overnight, the moral standards and social mores that the Constitution and our body of criminal law both enunciate and reinforce would, in all likelihood, greatly inform whatever order that would eventually be established in the midst of the chaos and mayhem that would ensue.

These and other considerations not addressed in this treatise all attest to race, blood, and soil as inherent rights to man and to European peoples above all. Because these principles are so essential and innate to man’s nature and particularly to the nature of European man, the position submitting that race, blood, and soil as inherent rights is just as valid–nay, far more valid–than any invented rights about life, liberty, property, or the “pursuit of happiness.” European peoples do have a right to kinship, to Volksgemeinschaft, to continued furtherance of their posterity as it existed in their ancestry, to high-trust, close knit societies thar are born from sharing common blood, ancestry, language, and history. A cursory review of both human nature and the history of civilization, as has been done in this essay, conclusively demonstrates this is so. But that will mean nothing if European peoples cannot safeguard their rights in actuality.

For just as “liberty is never inalienable,” so it is with this right of race, blood, and soil. The most arduous struggle lies ahead, and there is good reason to fear that the troubles facing Europe and the West may be intractable. But every problem, no matter how small or seemingly insurmountable, begins with an intellectual and philosophical understanding of the phenomenon in question. Discerning this right to race, blood, and soil is foundational to this understanding, as it is from this understand that European peoples can begin to liberate themselves from these existential perils that threaten racial suicide and civilizational ruin.

Please see Richard Parker’s new Substack page, The Raven’s Call, featuring essays and other writings with a unique, hard-right perspective.

Notes

[1] But see for example the study referenced here, which seeks to negate this theory by studying infants raised by caretakers of a different race. Since caretakers have invariably been the parents of a child or its close-knit, the degrees to which those in power want to push multiculturalism can only be regarded as unnatural and contrary to thousands of years of human experience.

[2] See also the theory posited by Phillippe Rushton, suggesting that racial prejudice and bias are adaptive functions in accordance with evolutionary psychology.

[3] Among the many problems with Locke and the Enlightenment is the notion that the masses consent to anything is preposterous. The masses are programmed to a larger degree, by the instruments of mass media and more recently social media, by the cultural media that envelops the individual.

[4] With perhaps one important qualification. As articulated further in “Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident,” laws do “enunciate moral standards and social mores of that society, from theft to animal cruelty to sex crimes.” Platitudes about inalienable rights and other such tenets of American exceptionalism have been inculcated in the minds of many generations of Americans through the violence of the state. Thus, “if the Constitution and the federal states and local governments were to vanish overnight, the moral standards and social mores that the Constitution and our body of criminal law both enunciate and reinforce would, in all likelihood, greatly inform whatever order that would eventually be established in the midst of the chaos and mayhem that would ensue.