By Nick Grifford:
I am not a racist. I am not just saying that to appear clever or coy, given the following definition of the ubiquitous word I simply am not: racist: noun; a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Superiority is, much like beautify and, in many respects, wisdom, subjective. What through the lens of one man or tribe could be viewed as “superior”, may well be considered as valueless or base by another; a universal yardstick or divine adjudicator does not exist. In order for any notion of superiority to carry weight it must be entirely exclusive, it then reorientates to give rise to healthy competition and meaningful development among similar peoples rather than persisting as a self-congratulatory sense of temporal achievement.
In this respect, Englishmen should not be pitted against West Indians in the one hundred metre sprint; East African architecture should not be compared with Austrian; North America must not be forced to compete with China in the production of vast quantities of cheap consumer goods, etc. In the context of human beings, there is no superior or inferior there is only difference, and these prodigious differences must be clearly identified and widely accepted rather than – as they are today – either ignored and concealed or put into service as a rod to beat us with.
And these differences hinge on DNA; they are racial differences. China, for instance, does not possess mechanically superior machinery bestowing upon it the technological edge over the USA (in fact, much of the blueprint of industrial China comes from the US), China has the Chinese. In terms of the products both countries fabricate, it could be argued that the American-made goods are superior as they generally tend to endure far beyond the life span of their ‘made in China’ equivalents. However, in terms of initial purchase cost, the Chinese-made goods are usually far less expensive and therefore, in the opinion of many cash-strapped consumers, they are superior. Again, this concept is totally subjective.
But by far the most damaging consequence of the superiority principle was – and is – the importation of fundamentally dissimilar peoples into formerly all-white countries and their colonies for the purposes of utilising said immigrants (or natives in much of the colonial world) for manual labour. Provided that one ethnic group regards itself superior to another, it is inevitable that, in some instances, the former will subjugate the latter; enslaving them and retaining them to undertake work and services considered beneath the “superior” breed. Now this is not a moral point, there must be no ‘sins of the father’ outpouring of compunction, it is a matter of survival, proliferation and development – the three key propositions that absolutely must be employed to estimate and establish every aspect of our existence and endeavours.
In the first instance, a nation catered for by slaves is not inclined to struggle and without constant pressure there can be no serious development. Secondly, a society that becomes decadent begins to venerate the individual above the group or the whole and imbues within each citizen spurious but emphatic “rights,” a process which often impairs the proper functioning of a nation. Evolutionary mavericks tend not to reproduce in any significant numbers and this detrimentally affects our proliferation – an awareness that was more ably expressed by Oswald Spengler in his Decline of the West: “When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard ‘having children’ as a question of pro’s and con’s, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro’s and con’s.”
Lastly, it is frequently the case that even a vociferous belief in the racial superiority theory gives rise to the arrogant assumption that generations of the “superior” people would never stoop so low as the interbreed with the “inferior” castes, tribes or races. This conviction is not enough to prevent it from occurring and any study of the Indo-Aryan influence on hinduism (specifically the Rigveda) and the ancient Indus Valley region of modern-day India is tantamount to this. Sadly, one only need to go so far as the local town centre to experience the results of only a few decades of race-mixing and dysgenic mating.
Because superiority is, in essence, a vague dogmatic sensation, it does not provide the necessary safeguards required to occlude large-scale miscegenation, but which the proper study of anthropology and racial difference could deliver. Because the emotive assertion of superiority has been so easily challenged in recent years, it now has long-term consequences for our survival as a race.
As in all things, it is incumbent upon us to take the scientific approach and demonstrate rather than opinionate. With this in mind, I am not a Racist or a White Supremacist, but I am racially-conscious and, most certainly, I am a White Separatist.”
By Nick Grifford © 2014
# # # #
