The Race Is On

The Race Is On

You’ve been told that this is a “subprime” mortgage crisis.

Do you understand the difference between a “subprime” and a “prime” mortgage crisis?  You’d better bone up on the difference:

At this point there is a race on between the deviant global financial elites posing as “investment houses” who are borrowing trillions of dollars basically for free and the rest of us who are paying usurious rates on a relentlessly growing debt load which we cannot service.  The race is simple:  Who gets to buy up all the bankruptcy assets?  Right now, the enemy is buying them up for pennies on the dollar and more are coming on the market all the time as money is withheld from the citizenry, causing a continuing cascade of bankruptcies.

Compare the above graph to this graph of the subprime foreclosure history and you’ll notice prime loan foreclosures are now where subprime foreclosures were just prior to 2005:

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, August 27, 2009

What it is to be human, part 1

What it is to be human, part 1

OK, I said I wouldn’t do this.  But, well … you know.  This is the first of two posts on an alternative to the politics of spiritual regeneration – always assuming that the reader understands (a) that some systemic replacement for liberalism is necessary, and (b) that the current American empirical offerings lack motive power.

The second part will carry forward some of the arguments here and sketch out a model of Mind as a contribution, I hope, to the search for a new and syncretic founding theory.

Instead of the old metaphor of individuals as discrete entities like billiard balls, we need to think instead of them as nodes in a relationship network.

With these words Madeleine Bunting, the occasionally sensible but mostly Moslem-mad Guardian Woman, signposts the left’s remaining recourse in a world made hostile by neuroscience.

Moslem Maddie’s problem, you see, is that she has heard the rumours that the eponymous self of liberal self-authorship fame does not, in fact, exist.  “This”, she says, “is the kind of stuff which challenges almost everything you’re used to thinking about yourself.” And about your politics, if you are a radical individualist as she is.

She writes:

… the point about this new explosion of interest in research into our brains is that it exposes as illusions much of these guiding principles of what it is to be a mature adult. They are a profound misunderstanding of how we think, and how our brains work. They are fairytales, about as fanciful and as implausible as goblins.

That’s a rather dramatic way of putting it, of course.  The constant flow of affirmations of self are wholly legitimate from an evolutionary standpoint.  The illusion of self exists even if self does not, and it is no less a product of evolution for that.  Genes for “self-ishness” and self-preservation are privileged for the fitness gain they offer.

So, what now for the left?  Cue the decampment, perhaps, from the half of the liberal project that pursues the unfettered will into the egalitarian and social democratic half?  Well, that may not be necessary.  A strange and unnerving synthesis of the two halves, of a self-authorship and a state-mandated compassion that were never entirely reconciled in the past, may just be coming down the turnpike:

The second area of astonishing discoveries is in the plasticity of the brain. We talk of “hardwiring” (computers have generated many misleading metaphors for the brain) but in fact, the brain can be changed. Parts of the brain can learn entirely new tricks. Neural pathways are not fixed, and even much of the damage done by deprivation in childhood can be repaired with the right circumstances of example, support and determination. We can shape our own brains to create new habits that we might have thought we were not capable of – it’s a long, hard process but it is possible.

… Jon Cruddas has a habit of startling audiences by arguing that the regeneration of the left requires a convincing new account of what it is to be human. Are human beings self-interested creatures or are they collaborative? … Put crudely, we are social creatures with an inbuilt tendency to co-operate and seek out each other’s approval and that is probably more important in determining day-to-day behaviours than narrowly conceived self-interest.

This struggle for ideological survival is entirely characteristic of the thinking left, and rather brave given its visceral rejection of sociobiology and its uneasiness with human bio-diversity.  But I find it impressive in a way.  You understand, I am talking about the struggle, not any theories it may incubate.  These guys are only concerned to preserve their own Weltanschauung, which is in error.  But give them this: they are facing the empirical enemy’s gun positions and maneuvering to advance on them and capture them.  They haven’t worked out their line of attack yet, and doubtless there are many conflicting voices about that.  But it won’t be long before someone whose name ends in witz or berg or ski comes forward with a neurologically valid, post-postmodern account of “what it means to be human”.  Something about the New Sociological Ego, perhaps.  And then we shall see whether such syncretism is doable on the left.

Meanwhile, what are we doing?

Well, beyond MR not many are contemplating a synthesis of our divide: the empirical and the mythic … truth and beauty … being and becoming, and so on.  That is certain.  A large majority of those who think at all take one look at evolution <> creationism and conclude that synthesis is superfluous and downright unlawful in the naturalistic sense.  Some of the most influential commentators have persuasive critiques of the empirical and do not connect its contributions to “what it is to be human” with revolutionary nationalism.  On the contrary, they tell us that our way, forward is to dream totemic dreams of the European spirit and the European destiny.  These will stir our brothers from their torpor, they say, whereas debating race-realism, the JQ and IQ, and human bio-diversity in general most assuredly never shall.

Now, I have not rejected the construction of a racial-national myth.  I’ve argued two things.  First, that myth – real myth – has not moved the European expansions of the past century and a half.  Self-interest has.  Second, that if you’re going to have a myth, it’s gotta be b-i-g … big enough, perhaps, to move not just white America but the entire English-speaking half of the European world.  Politics do universalise, after all.

But here’s the bottom line.  A political myth is not a thing in isolation.  It is not merely a strategy for a one-time limited goal.  That’s not how it works.  Ideas hang together.  Even in America, where so few seem to understand what sweeping away postmodernity really entails, a partial revolution cannot sustain.  If it comes at all the political package must come complete, or it will not be coherent.

Mythicisation, when done properly and not messed about with in an ineffectual way, firmly belongs to the continental philosophical tradition.  That, in an extreme reactionary form, generally expresses as neo-religious Traditionalism or, secularly, as palingenetic nationalism.  The lines of argument which lead to mythicisation have, at their foundation, the same assumptions that underpinned the entire 20th century European revolt against liberal democracy.

We are entitled to ask if that is what, as an end-game, we really want.  Perhaps it’s only because I lack the power of words to make myth myself, or perhaps it’s because, as CC succinctly puts it, Germans (and Celts) yearn while the English turn to the practicalities, but my answer is that I don’t.  Myth-wise and life-wise, I do not want to see nationalists in the English-speaking world binding my people’s fate to the long-shot of a spiritual regeneration … a recycled Fuerher strategy for the 21st century.

Of course, the truly holistic – and, therefore, truly revolutionary – alternative is also a long-shot.  As with Maddie’s leftist model of a syncretic long-run intellectual regeneration, it does not exist.  Yet.  If we at MR fail to distill some basics for a wider take-up it probably never will.

But even in its absence, I can still remind myself that an ontological politics has as much primal power as any other.  I can believe in the ground beneath my feet and the world my senses, feelings and thought reveal.  I can believe in my English blood and English soil because they are real … they are self-evident to me.  They are me and they are mine.  No totem, no dream is necessary to model or mediate them for me.  I know them and love them.  I will fight for them, kill for them, die for them, or just be useful to them if that is all that is needed of me.

It’s all rock-solid to me, and not that far off a political proposition for a nationalist party.  Here are its 14 words:

* To re-Europeanise our blood

* To reclaim our lands

* To take custody of our future

It is ironic, given her liberal ambitions, that the new realism of Madeleine Bunting stands in closer proximity to radicalism of this magnitude than Michael O’Meara’s misty and idealistic totemism.  That is to say, we really are here to change the neural pathways of the liberalised mind … to re-shape brains … to create mental habits that some might have thought would never be seen again.  It will be a long, hard process but it is possible, by God!

The next post will venture in that direction.

Race: Reality and Denial

Race: Reality and Denial

Richard McCulloch

(A shorter version of this article was published in the Winter, 2002 issue of The Occidental Quarterly at

In July of 2001 I went to see the movie Cats and Dogs. I arrived early enough to see the advertisements that are shown before the previews, and was surprised by one that boldly stated, “Wake up. Race is a myth. Racism is real.; The effect was surreal. How could this Orwellian falsehood be on the screen? I had encountered examples of racial denial for almost a decade, but mostly on the fringes, in places not noticed by the masses, in obscure publications and websites. But seeing it on the silver screen made it seem so mainstream, so acceptable, so normal.

As an American of Northern European (Nordish) ancestry who loves my race and wants it to be preserved, I have long been concerned by its declining prospects. But sitting in that theater the continued existence of my race seemed more uncertain than ever, for nothing is more certain than that the political purpose of race denial is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the end, if not of every race, most certainly of my race. How can it be that the existence of that which I love and wish to preserve is being denied in this mainstream setting? How can it be possible that this mid-American audience is being given a powerful message that the object of my love and devotion does not exist, is not real, and that it is not acceptable to believe that it does exist?

If this message is now appearing on the screen of a movie theater, what is the message in the education system? The current “politically correct” teaching on the subject of racial reality is represented by the highly acclaimed 2003 PBS documentary series Race: The Power of an Illusion, and its matching website at, produced by Larry Adelman and widely distributed and used throughout the education system. The essential message of this series is found in its ten points, or “quick facts,” which are discussed in order below. The title of the series reveals its conclusion and message, that race is an illusion, not real, and a harmful illusion at that. In its December, 2003 issue Scientific American had an article on the subject which essentially supported the now “politically correct” position. The deceptive nature of this semi-orchestrated campaign is symbolized by the cover illustration. Of the six female faces supposedly representing individuals from different races only one face is real, a real person, the one of the Nordish blue-eyed blonde in the upper right corner. The other five faces are computer-generated modifications of the real face and not real examples of any race, although they are represented as such. The deceptive effect is to minimize the real differences of race by “nordicizing” all the races, making them appear to be much more similar to the Nordish race than they actually are.

How did all this come to pass? The denial of racial realities is nothing new. It has been around at least since the time of Franz Boas. It is the degree of denial that is new. Denying racial reality has taken many forms over the last century, escalating in degree as the cultural dominance and control of its promoters has grown. There has been denial of many racial differences, especially the mental differences that cannot be seen. There has been denial of the scope and magnitude of racial differences in an attempt to minimize them. There has been denial of the consequences of multiracial conditions, particularly racial intermixture and its racially destructive effects. Now it is the very reality and existence of the different races, of tangible things that can be seen, that is denied.

Given the history of escalating race denial over the preceding century, we should have expected this development. We should have seen it coming. Perhaps when we each first came across a claim that races were not real we dismissed it as incredulous nonsense not worthy of concern or response, as something no one would take seriously. But we should have taken it seriously. Now it is approaching a position of politically correct dominance in the media and academia, with all that this means. The very belief in the existence of different races is now in some quarters being equated with racism, and from there reductionist logic and causation link it ultimately with genocide. In such quarters they beg their argument by explicitly stating that the reality of race must be denied in order to end racism and prevent genocide. [Note #1]

It is a sad commentary on our worsening situation that the reality of race is even doubted, much less increasingly denied by the dominant culture. The denial of race is actually just the latest escalation in the efforts by the currently dominant multiracialist power structure to preempt, block and prevent consideration of Nordish racial interests and the real issues that confront the Nordish race, including the ultimate issue of racial preservation or survival. We have long been familiar with other tactics used for the same purpose which include, but are not limited to:
1. The minimization or trivialization of racial differences to portray them, and race itself, as having no meaning, importance or value, and thus as not worth preserving. The claim that race does not exist, or is not real, is the ultimate form of this tactic.
2. The claim that the Nordish race is already mixed. This is asserted both for the Nordish race as a whole and for specific individuals who do not appear to be mixed, although these claims are usually not specific or substantiated by evidence. These claims are presented as proof that racial mixture does not harm the Nordish race or its existence in any way, so it is not a threat and opposition to it is unjustified.

These tactics are really a cover or smokescreen to evade the real issues of Nordish racial interests, especially racial preservation. I have found that, when pressed, those who claim the Nordish race is mixed are those who want it to be mixed, and those who deny race are those who do not want race to exist, or at least do not want the Nordish race to exist. For it is the Nordish race, the race and racial type and traits of the peoples of Northern Europe, that they are specifically concerned with, and that is the central focus of their promotion of racial denial and mixture. The Nordish race is the race that the race deniers really do not want to exist, whose existence they want to destroy, and whose existence they therefore deny, even to the extent of denying the existence of race in general.

But these assertions are more than just wishful thinking by those who wish the Nordish race did not exist. They are also a means of wish fulfillment, a self-fulfilling prophecy, by preventing consideration of ultimate Nordish racial interests, for the traits that are minimized, trivialized, demeaned and denied, and by these tactics threatened with destruction, are the traits of the Nordish race. It is really the existence of the Nordish race that is being minimized, trivialized, demeaned, and denied, and the purpose of all these tactics is to prevent, evade and avoid consideration of the fact that the Nordish race is threatened with destruction. Denying the reality or existence of a race, or a people, greatly facilitates their destruction and reduction to non-existence.

I have been involved in many discussions, debates or arguments concerning the reality of race since my website ( went on the internet in early 1998. Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European extinction. [Note #2] More recently my involvement in these arguments has tended to be indirect, as visitors to my site who have used the material they found there in their own exchanges with race deniers have sought my advice and assistance.

These arguments usually follow a similar pattern. The race denier begins with attempts to discredit the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of all one’s physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of classification. The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from their argument, either because they do not know how to define it, or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity has been created, they deny the reality of race. But if you press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of races — the apparent focus of their argument — but the issue of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue for them is the same as it is for me, the preservation of the Northern European peoples and their racial types. The difference is that they are against Northern European preservation and I am for it.

A common tactic of the race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of race, without setting a standard of what would constitute sufficient proof. This is related to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race. Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an effective refutation of the race denial argument.

So, what is this thing called race? To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical appearance or phenotype. Race thus refers both to populations and to the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply, those populations and phenotypes to which it refers. This is, admittedly, circular logic, like Gertrude Stein’s “a rose is a rose is a rose.” But the existence and reality of things that are tangible, material, physical, and visible, that are clearly obvious to operable senses, is normally accepted as self-evident and not requiring external proof, as the proof is self-contained, in themselves. Reasonable people do not question their existence, or require proof of their reality based on some arbitrary standard. If the existence of something is denied, and the object is presented, its existence must be admitted. To deny the existence of something that is visibly present is unreasonable. The object that is denied by race deniers, race, is visibly present in abundance, both as individuals and as populations, far beyond any reasonable requirement.

The Evidence for Racial Reality

But if more proof is asked for, what kind of proof is required for the reality of race? What standard of proof is reasonable? If concrete proof is not enough, and the proof of abstract logic is required, the best proof is a convergence of proofs — proof from different and independent lines of evidence that converge in mutual and consistent support for the same conclusion. Among the convergent lines of evidence that are consistent in mutually supporting the reality of race are geography, history, phenotype, evolutionary theory, forensic science and, most recently, genetic studies.

Races are geographically real. They are geographical populations, with a geographic distribution. They are, or were until recent times, geographically separated from other races. Their origin and existence is connected to a specific geographic region they have historically inhabited. The connection of geography and race is seen in the strong correlation between the degree of racial difference and the geographic distance separating the original habitats of the different races. The geographic connection occurs because races are breeding populations forming a common gene pool and stable racial environment over many generations, and before modern transportation advances this required that the native homeland of the race be geographically limited and compact. The continuation or preservation of the race also required geographic separation from other racial elements to prevent intermixture or replacement that would alter or destroy the race. This meant that other races had to be excluded from its geographic range, that its possession of its native homeland had to be racially exclusive. This exclusivity did not have to be total or absolute, but sufficient to create and preserve the race. Although migrations of racial elements outside of their original homelands have occurred, especially in the last five centuries, often intermixing with other races to create intermediate forms, the populations that remain in the original homelands act as control groups or standards of reference for racial classification and study. Emigrant populations that expanded the geographic range of their race into new habitats, and restricted their reproduction within their own race, continued to be of the same race as those in the native homelands, and in their racial heritage and origins they remained identified with those homelands. These geographic populations are facts on the ground, existing in the real world, in their own part of the world exactly where one would expect to find them, there for all to see. They are facts that can be observed and measured as part of objective reality, marked by their distinguishing physical characteristics or racial phenotype. National Geographic magazine, in its long history of publication, has published countless articles that irrefutably document the geographic connection, distribution, and reality, of race.

Races are historically real. The major races of Europe, Asia and Africa that we know today, as well as many of their subraces, are documented in the written historical record from its beginning over three thousand years ago, and in the artistic record over a thousand years earlier. The races of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific enter the historical record from the moment when the first Western explorers found them. From the dawn of history to our own time the existence, geographic location, distinguishing physical features and movements of these races have been a recognizable part of the historical record. Races are also prehistorically real. Modern pre-historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have pushed our knowledge of the modern races back thousands of years before the beginnings of written history. It is clear that the races we know today have existed, in a continuum of generations, for many thousands of years.

Read the rest at:



posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 9:57 PM
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

President Hussein Hopenchange and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton don’t like to lose. When they do, they are sore sports. What they do like, however, is communist thugs in Latin America…namely Honduras and Venezuela. Ousted President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya is an amigo of Venezuela’s thug dictator Hugo Chavez and was thrown out of office for trying to change the Honduran constitution. Like any commie thug, he wanted expanded powers and the right to stay in office for life. The entire Honduran congress voted to expel Zelaya. The Supreme Court concurred. Zelaya was put on a plane in the middle of the night to neighboring Costa Rica.

Good for Honduras, right? Not so fast says Hussein. In keeping with his love of communists, Obama demanded that Honduras reinstate the would-be dictator. Honduras has stood it’s ground. Recently, the anti-American Organization of American States came up with a plan to reinstate Zelaya but would protect constitutional powers. Again Honduras said no. So today the US State Department cut off visas to Honduras. Heaven forbid Obama allowing Hondurans to protect their laws and select their own leaders!

The obvious question is why would an American President and State Department support a communist dictator breaking his country’s rule of law? Why wouldn’t a President and State Department side with democracy and the will of the Honduran people? Would anyone dream an American President would side with Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s idiot communist President Evo Morales and Ecudor’s terrorist supporting thug Rafael Correa? AWD is still shaking his head over this administration’s embracing of America’s enemies. Bravo to Honduras! I hope you will continue to stand your ground…even as Uncle Sam…err..Stalin puts pressure on you. I am so ashamed of my government.



posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 10:51 PM
Thursday, August 27, 2009

The newspaper China Daily is reporting the People’s Republic of China’s flag will fly over the South Lawn of the White House on September 20th to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the PRC. In an article dated July 13th, reporter Long Duk Dong reported:

Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President’s residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC.

Chen Ronghua, chairman of Fujian Association of the United States, told reporters that their application was approved not only because of the sound Sino-US relations but also because China is a responsible country.

“Many Americans admire China due to the success of last year’s Beijing Olympics,” said Chen.

More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.

This has a strong odor of bullsh*t around it. I disagree with about 100% of what Obama is doing but I don’t think he’s stupid enough to allow something like flying the ChiCom’s flag on the White House lawn to take place! As for their Olympics, they can shove it sideways because they have proven to be a cheating bunch of little yellow bug-f*ckers. China’s athletes are a over-trained group of yellow robots who are so brainwashed and tortured to perform that they cannot even smile when they win….often through cheating! As for China being a “responsible country,” I again have to call big-time BS. The world’s biggest polluter has most of it’s citizens living like dogs while they continue to build a monster military with heavy offensive capability. Not to mention anyone who tries to voice an opinion over there gets a 9mm headache or a few decades in prison!

If this story of the PRC flag is true, I wish they’d move it to September 12th when a half million American patriots take to the streets of Washington! Like I said, I have severe doubt about this story. If it is true, Obama better start packing his bags…he won’t last out the year.

Here’s the article..what do you think?



posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 1:06 PM
Saturday, August 29, 2009

The race that once pined for a colorblind society sure has a hard time focusing on anything other than pigment these days. In this post-racial period in America, we now are bombarded daily with news stories having to do solely with race and charges of racism. Those who dreamed of never again hearing about race if a black president was elected have awakened to a nightmare of more issues of race than ever! Why is Angry White Dude not surprised?

In Atlanta’s mayoral race, a black advocacy group has sent out a memo calling for the city’s blacks to vote for a black person. Go figure! A group known as the Black Leadership Forum called for blacks to consolidate their support around Lisa Borders, president of the Atlanta City Council and one of several black candidates. The group believes Borders has the best chance to beat Mary Norwood, a white devil who could become the first white devil to be mayor of Atlanta in decades. The memo says:

“For the last 25 years Atlanta has represented the breakthrough for black political empowerment in the South,” read the memo. “In order to defeat a Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout.”

For the last 25 years, corruption has been a common theme under the various black mayors. So has race baiting. The current black mayor said before her election “voting for the white guy would be like going back to being hosed down with water hoses.” So it is no surprise black leaders encourage blacks to vote for blacks….it is what they do. It keeps blacks in office and keeps Atlanta blacks suffering at the hands of high crime, weak economic opportunities and corrupt government.

Ever notice that the mainstream media doesn’t criticize black racism? Kind of like how Hamas and other Muslim terrorist groups are not criticized for hating and killing Israelis or Americans. Maybe it is because the MSM believes blacks and Muslims cannot rise above their monolithic view of the world in terms of race or religion. Whites are held to a much higher standard. We must love, appreciate and honor cultures that often create the majority of the world’s problems. Angry White Dude detests the ghetto culture of many black people. I hate the ignorance, crime and overall problems it creates in the United States. Yet I can support a black man (conservative Michael Williams) to replace Kay Bailout Hutchinson as US Senator if she steps down to run for Governor. Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society was naive. It is impossible to overlook a small percentage of US population creating the majority of violent crimes if their skin color is the same. However, white people as a whole have succeeded in judging a person on their character than any other race. Think not? Did 96% of white voters vote for the white man?

Liberal black leadership has proven to be a disaster in nearly every American city it has occurred. From Detroit to Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham, and Washington, DC, these cities have been rife with corruption under black mayors. A good argument could be made concerning President Obama after his 8 months of bending the Constitution at his will. We cannot even disagree with his 10 year deficit of $14.4 trillion without being labeled racists!

White Americans are tired of the double standard that political correctness imposes on us. We are tired of being painted into a corner while other races and cultures can openly do or say anything without criticism. Just read the memo sent out by the black advocacy group in Atlanta and change “black” to “white.” Any white advocacy group (that would be racist) would be condemned publicly by the MSM and any white politician in reach of a microphone. But this black group? Hah, just another day in the life.

Here’s a great article written about the corruption in Atlanta over the years. It’s a few years old but you’ll get the picture: