When an honest, intelligent research is undertook, one will find that race is not everything, but is NOT nothing.
This contravenes conventional wisdom that race goes only skin deep. And I certainly fell back on this cliche when first confronted with the difficult truth.
Nevertheless, upon the culmination of a truth- oriented research, I will proceed.
Race and IQ
One of the better ways of being red pilled on race, may be to consider the following.
We all acknowledge that contrasting races look different, and possess a variety of cultures. Races have biological differences, including those seen in ageing. We also understand that races have differing physical traits in the sporting arena. Ethiopians are the undisputed kings of marathon running, whereas Jamaicans dominate sprints. West Africans also possess superior genetics for producing muscle mass, which is supported by scientific study and in practice, as a remarkable 52 % of the best bodybuilders in the world are African American, despite them only constituting about 0.5 % of the global population. At home, Indigenous players of Australian Rules Football possess extraordinary, silky ball skills that Anglo Australians generally can’t emulate. This is reflected as 9 % of players at the top level are Aboriginal, despite the Australian population being just 2.5 % Indigenous, and Indigenous Australians experiencing unequal outcomes in many other areas.
So if we can acknowledge physical discrepancies between the races, what is holding us back from observing that different racial groups might have different levels of intelligence? For while open discussion extends to most questions, debate over race and intelligence is commonly repressed. Question: is this suppression done to further the truth, or censor it?
In any event, overwhelming evidence highlights significant racial IQ differences. For while studies have not drawn identical conclusions, Ashkenazi Jews are commonly considered to have the highest average IQ at around 110. Next is East Asians who average approximately 106 in IQ tests, and then Caucasians tend to measure around 100. After this, Latinos and African Americans possess IQ’s of around 85, while Sub- Saharan Africans measure at 70, and Australian Aboriginals have an IQ in the 60’s.
As IQ is the test for assessing intelligence, and that low IQ is strongly correlated with poor life outcomes, these numbers are not insignificant. Equally, I would note they are not everything. While IQ may be partially responsible for the lack of Indigenous development pre- European colonisation, it does not wholly explain how Indigenous issues with drugs, alcohol, and socio economic problems have worsened in the past 50 years, as Aboriginals have heavily mixed with Europeans during this period. Nevertheless, the incredible criminality of recent Sudanese immigrants compared to those from Vietnam, makes more sense when national IQ’s are taken into account. None of this is to claim individual Sub- Saharan African’s are inevitably less intelligent people, as exceptions exist in every race. But these are factually based averages and so Sub- Saharan Africans are likely to be less intelligent than Ashkenazi Jews and most other racial groups.
Likewise, some debate remains as to whether IQ differences are largely the result of cultural/ lifestyle/ education/ familial factors, or due to heritability. This is certainly a complex field to explore. Although, given the impact of lifestyle/ education factors on IQ wanes as people reach adulthood and they more resemble their parents, IQ does appear to be at least partially genetically driven. However, even if found that genetics were immaterial in causing racial IQ differences, this would not change, nor minimise average IQ’s they exist today.
It remains true that those who grow up in strong families and attend Ivy League schools will have better chances at success than abused, malnourished children. But IQ can be largely thought of as potential: with performance within this defined realm left to the individual. So while high IQ’s are beneficial, they do not automatically result in personal success. Contrastingly, a low IQ sets certain bars on personal performance, no matter the energy, resilience, or devotion exerted.
Not withstanding the above remarks, IQ statistics aren’t the most important lesson to be drawn about race. For if IQ and greater national GDP were all that mattered, the displacement of European Australians by East Asian immigration would be a desired trend. Regardless, society not discussing race and IQ delays the fulfilment of true solutions, especially when campaigns are led against ‘white supremacist’ structures which purportedly hinder minorities’ progress.
Likewise, racial consciousness remains a relevant driving force. As defined by Oxford Dictionary, racial consciousness is an “intuitive awareness of a common heritage shared by members of a race or culture; (emotional) awareness of one’s own race as a distinct ethnic group.” In the Australian context, this plays an implicit yet important role, as racial consciousness is inextricably linked with national identity. Having said this, it would be remiss to ignore noted exceptions.
Tim Cahill, Andrew Symonds, George Gregan and even Rita Panahi are among those who come from minority backgrounds, but are virtually as culturally, linguistically, and spiritually Australian as any ordinary Anglo- Australian. Further, if all migrants assimilated as well as these figures have done, immigration wouldn’t be the great issue it is today.
Exceptions aside, at the heart of the Australian psyche, is a European- derived people. For the first 70 years of our national existence, Australia was designed a majority white country through the now infamous White Australia policy. All of our Prime Ministers have been white, and the demographics remain majority European. While many different races today carry Australian citizenship, a mere passport on paper doesn’t reflect what exists in the heart. And truth be told, the patriotic tale of Australia is told from an inherently European perspective, and ethnic minorities tend to react accordingly.
This patriotic narrative especially appeals to White Australians, because they have often enjoyed longer histories in this continent, maintain deeper roots, and have played more integral roles in Australia’s creation. This is no indictment, nor endorsement of Australia’s standing or any particular people. Rather, that Australia has historically been understood as a European outpost, demonstrates that nations cannot be impartial, neutral settlements. And that a tacit racial consciousness drives White Australians more towards patriotism than other groups. For more on how nations will inevitably belong to certain groups over others, see:
More specifically, the two most patriotic days in our national calendar, reveal a European- oriented bent. Australia Day which celebrates when Europeans first settled this continent, has increasingly come under attack for representing ‘Invasion Day.’ While white Leftists are mostly behind attacks including that which removed the Triple J Top 100 Countdown, an anti- Australia Day narrative appeals to Aboriginals overwhelmingly more than any other racial group. As extensively stated previously, efforts to change Australia Day are foolish as when Captain Cook’s ‘invasion’ by starving, disarmed convicts first commenced, Aboriginals were a collection of disuinifed, often warring tribes. Nevertheless, moves to change Australia Day is being perceived as a way of standing up to the white man’s oppression, hence drawing support from a racially conscious, now unified Indigenous Australia, that defends perceived group interests over societal harmony.
Similarly, ANZAC day which commemorates fallen Australians in battle, is the most sacred day in our national calendar. But 72 years after World War Two’s end, Anzac Day is largely delivered from a European- centric perspective, with endearing images including battles across the European trenches of World War 1, and the Asian jungle warfare of World War 2. Generally, those with ancestors/ relatives who served in these defining conflicts show greater interest in remembering these events, and taking part in ANZAC Day. As such, those who attend ANZAC Day dawn services are overwhelmingly British- descended and white, much more so than the ordinary demographics of modern Australia. In fact, ANZAC Day dawn services look like more like pre- 1970’s Australia, than they do the ‘multicultural success’ our elites talk about.
Racial consciousness also governs how people perceive others. And while whites have comparatively low levels of racial consciousness, different races are highly racially conscious, and diagnose whites according to the permanent uniform worn on their face. This trend is observed with ethnic opponents to President Trump’s civic nationalism, who view his American nationalist platform as inescapably white. Further, no matter the self loathing undertook, race is often an unshakeable trait, to the extent that different races will never understand even Leftist whites as being their own. This has serious implications for so called ‘white allies,’ who find themselves increasingly pushed aside by the minorities they are indeed fighting for. For more on this subject, see the later section on in group preferences.
Although, groups’ differing racial consciousness may be overcome through shared goals (in specific circumstances). For example, while American blacks and hispanics often struggle for cultural supremacy in minority America, these groups both vote overwhelmingly Democratic as a unified, collective block. So whilst differences may persist, attaining common ground on particular issues can temporarily pause racial conflict.
However, just because different groups can come together, doesn’t legitimise those who claim racial consciousness and a sense of racial group identity is irrelevant altogether.
Among such voices, are those who exhaustively state Italians once weren’t considered white. So being white or claiming ownership to a European ancestry, isn’t a real thing anyway. There is some basic truth to this, as Italian immigrants weren’t regarded as white to some British Australians/ Americans at different stages. But this isn’t a sign that race is irrelevant altogether. Definitions of race as described by Nick Fuentes, can ‘reasonably change’ over time. Likewise, while Italian immigrants who first migrated to Australia or America were sometimes looked down upon, the definition of ‘white’ only changed once the generations progressed, and the original parent culture eroded. So the historical experience with Italian immigrants demonstrates that to some extent, cultural/ racial differences can be malleable. But this has only occurred when the 2 groups who came together were biologically similar enough. Therefore, historical experiences of integration between British- descended people and those of Italian descent, shouldn’t be confused with those who claim there is no differences between Western whites and ethnic Somalis. Likewise, those claiming a European heritage is ultimately meaningless, selectively use this standard. For when questions of Indigenous, African or Asian tribalism emerge, Leftists gleefully cheer them on via identity rooted arguments. But when white identity politics raises similar questions, Leftists often point to exceptional, rare circumstances as a tool of obfuscation. These absurdities were demonstrated in a recent stream when Styxhexenhammer666 suggested that in a future white ethno state, Richard Spencer may not be considered white. Overall, this denial of whiteness has more to do with mental gymnastics and manipulation, than it does intellectual honesty.
In Group Preferences
Besides from the implicit yet intimate bond tying ancestry, nationhood and racial consciousness, race often dictates powerful in group preferences. Moreover, evidence suggests that just as shared blood underpins familial relationships, the same may hold true for racial in group preferences.
Whether regarded as fair or not, strong in group preferences emerge among friendship groups: with individuals tending to prefer the company of those who have similar cultural and racial backgrounds. Similar divisions also arise in dating, much to the distaste of miscegenation advocates.
This tendency to in group preference is further reflected in ‘white flight’ patterns. While present across most of the Western world, ‘white flight’ has even occurred in New York, the supposed great melting pot. As despite government interference to the contrary, New York demonstrates that different ethnic groups patently prefer the company of their own. Sure, culture would be part of why affluent whites flee areas that become diversified. But as ancestry and peoples’ sense of identity contributes to culture (as explained in the above section on racial consciousness), race clearly governs where people live.
Racial in group preferences can also transcend culture in certain scenarios, as evidenced by the meteoric rise of Eminem in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Historically, hip hop was seen as an exclusively African- American genre, with the music inextricably linked to violence, thuggery and most notably, black culture. Throughout the 1990’s, white America generally snubbed 2Pac, Biggie Smalls and rap music more generally. That was all until Eminem burst onto the national scene, and made hip hop wildly popular amongst white Americans. Obviously, no one could deny Eminem’s unique rapping talents. But that he held extraordinary popularity amongst white Americans previously disinterested in hip hop, despite acting and talking black, showed the remarkable power of racial in group preferences.
This phenomenon for whites to preference Eminem on latent racial grounds, is addressed in his ‘White America’ hit:
Moreover, in group preferences are far from exclusive to whites, as evidenced in the OJ Simpson murder trial. After being presented with identical evidence, the white jurors held Simpson was guilty of murder, while black jurors reached the opposite conclusion. Given Simpson was wealthy, dated white women, and had little to do with the black community prior to being charged, the black jurors loyalty to Simpson was clearly directed by powerful in group preferences.
But perhaps the ultimate showcase of in group preferences, can be observed when conflict breaks out. For the Yugoslavia dream formulated in the ashes of World War One, ended bloodily after Serbs, Croats, Bosnians and Slovenians teamed up to to murder one another in the 1990’s. Likewise, modern African conflicts whether they be in Sudan, the Congo, or Rwanda, have all been driven by varying degrees of ethnic tension. And as Rwanda showed in 1994 after Tutsi’s moved to massacre Hutsis following the assassination of their President, battle divisions along racial lines emerge when war breaks out. As while the different Rwandans were fellow citizens by name, lasting allegiances were held to their own bloodline.
Similarly, in prisons where survival instincts are key and societal norms are immaterial, prisoners routinely self segregate along racial lines. So when left to their own devices different races can harshly divide, in far more meaningful ways to the artificial, civic unity present in multicultural societies.
Still, it remains that race is not everything in certain circumstances.
Race is not everything
For whether Islamists are black, brown, yellow or white, they remain capable of inflicting serious harm upon Western civilisation. And while racial in group preferences are generally paramount, Islam refocuses its followers towards giving unyielding loyalty to fellow Muslims, rather than race based kinship. Thus, Islam appears to have the capacity ease racial tensions, at least for a temporary time.
There are certain types of nationalism (and I stress certain types, because Europeans must move past this infighting), that can cross racial lines. For instance, during World War One and World War Two, racially similar German and British troops found themselves in brutal conflict with one another.
Regardless of race, individuals remain exactly that, and capable of making up their own minds on a variety of political and cultural matters. That someone is black or white does not exclusively predetermine their worldview, and it would be foolish to treat individuals as such. Nevertheless, when considered on a group level, race is significant in shaping the general views of this collective.
But overall race is not sufficiently considered by the politico- cultural mainstream, which includes rabid Leftists, and virtue- signalling, image obsessed cuckservatives.
As aptly put by Patrick J. Buchanan, “Race matters. Ethnicity matters. History matters. Faith matters. Nationality matters. While they are not everything, they are not nothing. Multiculturalism be damned, this is what history teaches us.”