A Question From a Reader and My Answer
By • 2/28/08A college student sent in the letter below a few days ago. I’m publishing it here with minor edits, along with my reply, for a couple of reasons. First, the student asks a question that is likely to trouble many whites who are evaluating race realism. Also, I find that people who are just beginning to come to grips with race realism write with a freshness of perspective that is very effective in communicating our concerns to whites who remain racially unaware.
Hello, I am a college student in the Southwest. Let me first say that I am a person of mixed race. My father is Hispanic and of Spanish/Mexican/French/Indian ancestry while my mother is an Anglo of Norwegian/Austrian-Jewish ancestry. I have read your articles and find that I agree with much of what you say.
I am very much opposed to the “whites as cancer” myth that is being drilled into the minds of whites by the media to the schools.
Today, if any white person even goes so far as to question the state-sponsored religion of diversity and racial liberalism, they are immediately shouted down as racists, haters, and Nazis. Textbooks and media constantly bombard young whites with the message that their race is responsible for all the evils of the world. I seriously believe that this needs to stop.
I find it alarming that so many whites, especially younger ones, have allowed themselves to be convinced by racial liberalism and today accept, even celebrate, diversity when it is only a code word for their displacement in their own countries. At this point it seems like any effort to counter this crisis (which is what it truly is) is hopeless, given that anyone who tries to speak out on this taboo subject is blacklisted and ostracized.
Politicians, teachers, and scientists—anyone, in fact—can lose their jobs and have their lives ruined simply because they disagree with the prevailing view that the eventual displacement and extinction of peoples of European ancestry is a great and wonderful thing.
I am glad that people like you are speaking out on this subject and are trying to do something about it because it is one of the great moral emergencies of our time. European peoples are not a blight on human history, as leftists try to force us to believe; instead, they are one of the most innovative and creative races. White people and the Western Civilization they have created from the Greeks to the Romans to the Renaissance of Europe and finally the United States has given us everything from the scientific method to representative democracy to a multitude of scientific and technological innovations. This is not to say that other races have not also made contributions to civilization, but one can clearly see that we would lose something truly great and unique if we lost the white race.
Finally, I would like to know how you would address the possible implications of racial realism. Surely, blacks and Hispanics are not going to like being taught that they are intellectually or biologically inferior to whites. Teaching race realism in the schools would inevitably increase racial tension. Also, such a view would very likely lead to hurt feelings and a loss of self-esteem among black and Hispanic students. Indeed, my own feelings are at risk since I am half Hispanic. How would you address this issue?
Thanks for your letter. It gratifies me that you have taken my writings to heart.
Before I answer your questions, I have to point out that, judging from your description of your ancestry, you are mistaken in classifying yourself as non-white. All people of European, including Spanish, ancestry are white. You have a small amount of Indian blood in your veins, as do many non-Hispanic white Americans, but your ancestry is overwhelmingly European. Although the majority of the population of most Latin American countries is Indian, Mestizo, or black, there are white minorities in all of them. Even when they are in the minority, whites tend to be overrepresented in the ruling class of Latin American countries. For example, nine percent of the population of Mexico is white, including presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon. Most Hispanics in America are predominantly of Indian or black ancestry, but quite a few are white like yourself, including the majority of Cuban-Americans.
You ask me how I would respond to the hurt feelings and the increase in racial tension that would inevitably result if race realism came to be generally accepted, even taught in the schools. Blacks and non-white Hispanics would certainly, as you say, resent widespread recognition of the fact that whites have a higher average IQ than they do, as well as a distinct set of cultural values.
My answer is that whites aren’t morally obligated to sacrifice the truth and their own self-respect to the feelings of racial minorities. We have moral obligations to others, certainly; but we also have obligations to ourselves and to the truth. Consequently, one is morally justified, even obligated, to take actions that are injurious to others in some circumstances. If someone is bullying you, your self-respect obligates you to fight back, despite the fact that you may hurt the bully by doing so.
Besides, all of us must accept realities that are painful to us at some point. It is a simply a fact that others exceed us in certain desirable qualities, whether intelligence, attractiveness, athleticism, or what have you. The recognition that others are superior to oneself in some, and even all, respects is the essence of maturity. People who are unable to achieve this recognition are narcissists trapped in an eternal childhood.
It isn’t as though whites are entirely spared the pain that realism would cause blacks and Hispanics. White race realists know that Asians have a higher IQ and are less prone to crime than whites and that blacks are better athletes than whites are. Most of us accept these facts without complaint because we are adults.
By refusing to be honest about the reality of race, whites sacrifice their future to the narcissism of blacks and Hispanics. In doing so, we fail to respect not only ourselves, but minorities as well by judging them incapable of maturity.
That said, we race realists should always treat non-whites with tact in order to minimize resentment. We are justifiably angry about what is happening to their countries, so we suffer from a powerful temptation to avenge ourselves through cruelty to non-whites. This temptation, however, must be firmly resisted.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
I would say to the inquirer that we as whites should and will make every effort to get along with non-whites, we will work with them through mutual cooperation and we will help them to progress. What we will not do is bend over and let them run over us. There is a big difference.
Whites have every obligation to treat others with respect and to demand respect from others. This goes both ways. Unfortunately, very, very few people respect white people these days, and this has got to stop.
One of the things that race realists advocate, at least I do and most others that I know do, is separation of the races. We get along better when we are not constantly rubbing against each other. Friction causes wear, whether it be in physical systems or in interpersonal relationships. It works best when each racial group has its own place to live and lives there without trying to intermingle with the others. I realize that this precludes some economic opportunities for work, but it also precludes all manner of opportunities for trouble.
People of mixed races present a problem and I don’t have a really good solution for that. I’d like to say it should not happen, but of course it will. We need to work out a way to deal with this, but I’m not sure how it will be done. Mixed race people really do not fit in either society, and it is a shame to bring that on any child; adults should think more carefully before doing such a thing.
By on 2/28/08 at 11:06 pm
I would be one to disagree with blacks being better in sports than whites are. One only has to look at the world of Mixed Martial Arts. Here you have a very intelligent sport that has fighters from all over the world involved. This is one of the few sports that has competitors come together from all parts of the world to compete in a setting that measures what you can do. This is also a sport heavily dominated by white people from the very beginning and continues to today. Black people have fallen very short on the demands of the sport and have failed to excel in it. The sport demands the most physical and mental challenges that I believe any other sport demands. This sport is one of the most primitive forms of competition that you can have today that really made a difference back when fighting was for food and survival. Now the next question is what makes someone a better athlete than someone else? Are you measuring throwing a ball through a hoop? Running a football 100 yards? That is a entirely different article but the MMA measures the following: muscle endurance & stamina, cardiovascular endurance, intelligence -something people who do not follow the sport do not acknowledge
To me, these things above are what makes a good athlete and white people definately dominate in every one of these areas. Watch the UFC this weekend and see what types of people are winning on a regular basis.
By on 2/29/08 at 9:58 am
<html> <body>
Finally, I would like to know how you would address the possible implications of racial realism. Surely, blacks and Hispanics are not going to like being taught that they are intellectually or biologically inferior to whites. Teaching race realism in the schools would inevitably increase racial tension. Also, such a view would very likely lead to hurt feelings and a loss of self-esteem among black and Hispanic students.
</body> </html> The need is to STOP the anti-white Whites As Cancer agenda being crammed down the public’s throat, in schools, and via the media.
It does not necessarily need to be “taught” that non-white IQs are lower than whites. What needs to stop is the teaching and suggesting that groups will attain and achieve at equal levels.
Excellence should be the goal. Instead, excellence (if you are White or Asian) is punished and discriminated against in favor of “diversity”, as if achieving diversity in a workplace or school is inherently a better thing than having an excellent student body or workforce.
In short, it should be a meritocracy, and we should do away with trying to blame the “white racism” bogeyman for non-white failure. Excellence should be rewarded and applauded in whomever it exists.
People should strive to be the best they can be, and there is honor in that, even if they don’t achieve excellence; or perhaps they can enter a field in which they can be excellent.
What should never be is to champion mediocrity and use the state to discriminate against better qualified students/workers (in this day and age, it is state discrimination against whites and asians).
That said, when two different subspecies (races) inhabit the same territory, there will be friction, as noted in an earlier post. It has always been thus. There will always be a dominant tribe/group.
I can think of no other example than present day white westerners where their elites openly advocated their own replacement by other racial groups, and groups who, in terms of civilizational accomplishments, in the arts, sciences, government, economy, were from relatively failed civilations.
It is the people that make a civilization; not some arbitrary lines that designate states. So, to the exact extent that third world peoples, with their lower IQs, replace the native white stock, so the country becomes to that extent third world, with all the poverty and crime that you would expect in a third world country. The only difference is that in their home countries, they had not whitey readily available to blame for their woes. Here, their failure is automatically blamed on whites, and treasonous liberals encourage this thinking.
Immigration of non-whites is like a giant population ponzi scheme. There are only so many menial tasks available for uneducated people. And just because the immigrant will “do the work Americans won’t do”, does not mean that their savvy to the ways of the welfare state will do it. No, they adopt the same wealth as a “natural right” as their black predecessors have inculcated since the Great Society.
As the lower IQed, lower educated, percentage of non-whites increases, and there are fewer and fewer productive whites, upon whose backs the welfare state exists, the whole unsustainable and tragic utopian farce will implode, and probably violently.
That’s why, whatever it takes to wake whites out of their collective self-absorbed guilt trip sooner, the better.
That’s why, JohnPM, that I think Obama might well be better in the long run (obviously a disaster in the short term) than McCain. I suspect that Obama’s rob from the productive to give to the unproductive will be so egregious that it’ll hasten the white wakeup (if such is to occur), and that if the wakeup doesn’t happen within 20 years, America will be Third World with no possibility of doing anything about it (after demographic changes 20 years down the road). So, while I understand your endorsing the candidate best on national security (presumably you meant McCain in the other thread), he’s just as bad on the bigger threat to national security (immigration of non-whites), and he’d delay a white racial awakening.
By on 2/29/08 at 6:54 pm
I’m not offended by the fact that Mongoloids collectively score higher than Caucasoids. It would seem to be reverse racism if you are only offended when people outside your race score higher, and not offended when people within your race score higher. If you are a hispanic with an iq of 70, you should be offended that other hispanics score higher, and if you are a hispanic with an iq of 130, you should not be offended that whites score lower. I’m not sure why group averages should offend a person, unless that person is on the low end of those averages.
As for the “are they white question” I’ll reiterate my opinion that the white race is a diverse race and genetic divisions exist. Spaniards are technically Caucasoid, but they are not the same as Anglos. So that’s just a matter of where you draw the barrier.
By on 3/1/08 at 6:06 am
It’s all fine and good to say the Whites are not offended by the notion of having a lower average IQ than Asians, but the fact remains the Blacks are offended at the notion of having lower average IQ’s than Whites, very offended. I see no way around this. Even those blacks with high IQ’s are offended at the thought of belonging to a low IQ race. Either we placate them with political correctness and affirmative action, establish a system of firm white hegemony as in days of old, or separate the races. The second option is morally unthinkable for most whites and the third is similarly unthinkable. The best course of action would have been for Whites to “pick their own cotton” or repatriation after emancipation. Unfortunately, until someone invents a time machine, we’re left with the first option - the current P.C. nonsense. That said there is still work that can be accomplished in terms of keeping the non-White population at a reasonable percentage of the total population. That’s how I see the situation anyway.
By on 3/1/08 at 2:46 pm
I do not think Blacks would be offended if their community was not barraged with left-wing propaganda. I think even Blacks are capable of being race realists if left-wing identity politics would slow down in America. If blacks admitted their iq was low, they could actually do something to raise it, such as having less poor children and breeding only the smartest blacks. Blacks, essentially, in the long run only hurt themselves by refusing to accept reality.
By on 3/1/08 at 3:33 pm
To College Student and Dr. Jobling, regarding:
“Also, such a view would very likely lead to hurt feelings and a loss of self-esteem among black and Hispanic students. Indeed, my own feelings are at risk since I am half Hispanic. How would you address this issue?”
And,
“That said, we race realists should always treat non-whites with tact in order to minimize resentment. We are justifiably angry about what is happening to their countries, so we suffer from a powerful temptation to avenge ourselves through cruelty to non-whites. This temptation, however, must be firmly resisted.”
I will begin this by noting that like Dr. Jobling, I would classify the College Student as being white. If His father’s Hispanic ancestry is primarily Spanish, then that is not even a question. There are Spaniards that look more stereotypically white, then some Britons or Germans, simply because they are fairer in: complexion, hair, and eye coloring. A good example, would be an ethnically Cuban girl I dated in my last year of high school and her family. The parents had fled the country as teens with their families, when Castro took over; they were both very attractive people, with the mother resembling Sharon Stone and the father resembling a taller version of Al Pacino. Their children were all dark haired and blue eyed, including the daughter I dated. Needless to say, since I was virulently anti-Communist even at the age of 17 and college bound, her parents would have had us marry if it was their call alone.
With that said, the speculative topic of what a white dominated society, a post multicultural “utopian” USA, might ideally look like, is always fascinating to reflect on. College Student makes the point that maintaining a white majority and culturally focused country could be confrontational and possibly damaging to the self-esteem of nonwhites living here. While Dr. Jobling makes the cogent point that race realism, needs to avoid a sense of vengeance and the minimizing of nonwhite umbrage. Ultimately, the problem in achieving the delicate balance of returning this country to a greater white majority (75%+) and being reasonably respectful of nonwhites’ concerns, will be highly dependent on the size of the white population and the economic stability of the country as a whole, should white racial realism/preservationist priorities become a dominant force in American politics/socioeconomics.
Or put another way, as long as the country is reasonably prosperous and has a white majority of at least 59% to 57%, things could remain largely bloodless and manageable. Start sinking to a lower percentage of the population, allow nonwhite social pathologies to remain ignored or encouraged by treacherous elites, and allow the more marginalized whites remaining to suffer the expected effects of these two interacting variables, and the process will likely be much more unreserved.
Looking at the two ends of the spectrum, what might the process involve today (were it a reality) or in a USA only 48% white in say 2032.
In 2008, whites remain about at 65% of the population; moreover, our population of 18 to 25 year olds is at about 62% to 59% of the total for their demographic. Thus, even in the most questionable of scenarios, whites would have a militarily potential to conscript its youngest and most physically sturdy, into a sizable force of internal and border security services. With them would be a larger group of 26 to 50 year olds that could sustain the socioeconomic and political/administrative functions of the country in general. Within that hypothetical framework, would be the problem of encouraging fertility among the whites of childbearing capabilities beyond replacement levels.
For nonwhites, there would be a naturally reduced or even strictly segregated role in the country, that discourages criminal and reproductive activities. Here, nonwhites would likely be given preferable economic incentives to not reproduce at even replacement levels (one child per couple) and the criminal element, not be given much of a chance at “rehabilitation” for the more violent offenses/practices such as: rape, assault, murder, and organized criminal activity. For them as a group, if such situations were intolerable, emigration by their own choice would always be an option, unless violent crimes were being factored into their decision.
Put more simply, the option of emigration should be restricted to those who want to leave based on self-declared principles only, not documented criminal activity, mimed as “political” motivations to avoid punishment.
Fast forward to 2032 and a more desperate demographic situation for whites at all levels, and the new majority nonwhite population that expects to live as if it were still 1990 or even 1980, with regard to their “rightful” entitlements?
That, I will leave to all readers of this post to consider on their own, with only one qualifier.
It is this, I am in a good mood right now and don’t want to lapse into a depressed one!
By John PM on 2/28/08 at 10:41 pm