Balder Ex-Libris

Author : Nuenke Matthew T.
Title : Shattering the Myth of Racism Volume 1
Year : 2002

Link download : Nuenke_Matthew_T_-_Shattering_the_Myth_of_Racism_Volume_1.zip

Chapter One: Introduction. While surfing the web I came across the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. Under its purpose was stated: "To serve as a resource for people interested in monitoring the intellectual trends in academic racism, biological determinism and eugenics." I was also pleased to see that they had my Mission Statement listed from my NeoEugenics' Web Site, though the URL address was over a year out of date. They also had only a few academics listed, so it seems they are having a very hard time finding so called academic racists. But the site did get me to focus on the term racism, how it is used as a political weapon, but has never been empirically defined to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, the Left's numerous definitions of racism are made up of social constructs to intimidate and harass Whites. The purpose of my undertaking then is twofold: to try and understand how and why it is used as a tool for propaganda on the one hand, and to show what racism really is within a scientific perspective that relies on empirical data rather than hysterical ad hominem attacks against anyone that does not agree with the Left. Institutions that use the charge of racism to silence those who they disagree with are themselves intolerant of the other. And then there is the problem of diversity. If diversity means inclusion of different ways of thinking or different types of temperaments, then clearly however one defines the other as something to be eliminated is an act of genocide. To declare war on racists, like declaring war on peaceniks, is an act of aggression. Whether racism is really just another word for ethnocentrism and is part of our innate genetic heritage, or if it is part of our culture alone, in either case to declare it as an unacceptable set of beliefs that do not result in unacceptable actions such as murder or assault makes attacks on racists as ominous as McCarthyism's attack on communists. It is censorship of ideas and is intolerant. It is hatred of the other; it is in itself racism if racism is merely intolerance of those not like you. In essence, to be an anti-racist is to be a racist because you are being intolerant of a group that you have defined as abhorrent. I was raised in a medium sized city in Minnesota that was a mixture of German, Dutch and Norwegian farmers as the original settlers. Most of the people are now a mixture of the three cultures and race was never discussed or even recognized to the best of my recollection. I was also raised in a very liberal, protestant home, and was free to do pretty much whatever I wanted to do. I was not encouraged to do well in school or to have any high ambitions. Just live and let live. As luck had it, I went into the Navy before I knew what I wanted to do in life. By the time I got out, I was sure I didn't want to return to my roots and just get a job and be an average mope like the rest of my kin. So with the help of the GI bill, I went to the University of Minnesota and got my degree in Chemical Engineering with a minor in petrochemicals. This opened up an opportunity to travel and work in many different places until settling down finally in Chicago, twenty-five years later. While at the university during the late sixties, I loved to debate the current political issues of the day from Vietnam to discrimination. It was an exciting time, one filled with conflict but also purpose. There seemed to be more freedom on the one hand, but it occurred to me that the new Left was as intolerant as the bigots we were seeing on television from the Deep South. They both seemed equally caught up in their own agendas, and communication could not progress past yelling and demonstrations. But what influenced me more than any other single event, was the outright thrashing the Left bestowed upon Arthur Jensen in 1969 with his publication of "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement" in the Harvard Educational Review. It was apparent to me then that the very movement that was pushing for free speech at the time would not tolerate freedom of speech and ideas from others. So what was free speech to be if not for everyone? After graduation, and disillusioned with any hope for a truly rational approach to solving political problems, I left my philosophy behind and focused on my career, having fun, and traveling. During those years I found myself working in many different places, including overseas in multicultural environments. I never had a problem acclimating to new environments or working conditions. And I worked with people from many different racial groups and cultures. And the one thing that I learned or came to accept naturally because I was never really aware of any other pattern: people were always treated as individuals. Not as part of some race or cultural category. Of course, different groups were categorized and classified by generalizations. This is what humans do best; we place things into categories because it is mentally efficient for future use. But these categories or assigning certain behavioral and cultural traits to groups did not transfer to individuals. Once we started dealing with individuals, they were accepted and treated according to their own merits—not those of the group. I worked for six years in Saudi Arabia in the oil fields. As Americans we had our own compound where Southern Whites familiar with Jim Crow laws worked and played along side of Blacks, in close quarters. I don't remember seeing any racism or squabbles. We had enough to keep us occupied brewing our own moonshine, and knowing the consequences if we got caught—prison was not a very hospitable place in Saudi Arabia. I did not even think about racism at the time—it was not present. Besides, no one had any more power or influence than anyone else. We were all hired by a large and transparent bureaucracy, so we were all treated the same—small cogs in a big oil company controlled by the Saudi government. It wasn't until years later that I once again became aware of the racial conflicts and the agenda behind calling people and institutions racist. After taking some night courses at a local university, one class's assignment was to compare equal opportunity to equal outcomes for minorities. For that assignment I read the recently published book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by the late Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in the fall of 1994. The fallout from the publication of that book shocked me, especially the level of hate expressed by commentators who felt that no one had the right to bring up an issue like the differences in intelligence between races. At that point I started discussing race issues on the Internet, and the same pattern emerged. Anyone who brought up racial differences was labeled a racist. I then started reading primarily academic books on evolution, intelligence, behavior genetics, genetic engineering, etc. and it rekindled an interest in eugenics that I had dabbled with many years earlier. And now that eugenics has been labeled as racist, I find it necessary to not only defend my views from that criticism, but to lay open what the purpose is for calling others racist and to discuss just whether such a charge has any basis or real meaning. What I will show is that the term is used for several political reasons: To try and stop any academic discussion about racial differences; to promote an egalitarian/Marxist agenda; to try and curtail freedom of speech; to use it as a tool for extortion, reparations and income redistribution based on race rather than merit; and to subjugate primarily White males to a new form of oppression. And, in addition, the one thing that I became aware of only after reading Kevin MacDonald's book The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, was that a large Jewish influence—in the continuing struggle between Whites and Jews for power and control as an evolutionary strategy—was painting the West, and especially White Anglo-Saxons, as racists for political advantage. Keeping Whites on the defensive allowed Jews to pursue their own political agendas unimpeded. It is anti-Western gentile- or Anglo-phobia. Now often in academia it is charged that if you have a bias or animus towards your subject matter you should refrain from writing or speaking on that subject. Well, like every other human being that was born with a psychology that includes ethnic conflict, I am of course biased in many ways towards my kin. But why should I desist from writing about racism any more than Jews should desist writing about anti-Semitism? In addition, if Jews are using charges of racism against Whites because of their animosity towards us, then they should refrain from all academic research and writing with regards to racism (Hoffman II 2000). I bring this point up front because from my experience, charges of anti-Semitism will be made against me for discussing the Jewish role in attacking Whites. Also unlike other ethnic groups, the Jews are predominant in academia, the media and politics because of their extraordinary high average intelligence, so they are formidable foes against Whites. Blacks, on the other hand, along with having a low average intelligence, will also call this book just more racism. But unlike Jews, they have very little real influence, and in addition, there are some Blacks who are willing to stand up and agree that the charge of racism as an excuse for Black failure is just plain nonsense, as are many other individuals in the rainbow coalition. On the other hand, Jews seem to be rather unique in these battles in that even extremely right wing Jews, who for example oppose immigration, are phenomenally silent when it comes to Jewish manipulation of government policy in favor of Israel for example. Virtually all are deafeningly silent on the Jewish influence that pervades the Anti-White agenda. A few notable exceptions are Michael Levin (Levin 1997), Noam Chomsky, and Israel Shahak (Shahak 1999). If just a few scholarly Jews would stand up and state unequivocally for example that Jewish organizations were the predominant forces behind the 1965 immigration act because they wanted to dilute the dominant Anglo-Saxon hegemony in the United States, then I would be less suspicious of the extent of Jewish ethnic cohesiveness. I therefore must assume that Jews and Anglos can agree on many things except one—we are never to be allowed to discuss Jewish animus against us while they can use the charge of anti-Semitism to deflect any criticism of their agenda—either individually or collectively. I do not believe that Jews act conspiratorially or collectively in any way. In fact I just don't believe in conspiracy theories in general. What I do observe is a brilliant people who are unwilling to allow others to examine their motives as they examine ours—and this genetic cohesiveness I believe comes from their practice of eugenics for thousands of years that not only gave them superior intelligence, but also an insatiable insecurity along with ethnocentrism. But I did not always feel as I do now. When I first began my independent research into racial issues after reading The Bell Curve, my animus was directed almost entirely at minorities and their demands for more and more handouts. As I started researching the evolutionary basis of intelligence, I stumbled across a book review of MacDonald's 1994 book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy that includes Jewish eugenic practices. I found it fascinating because I was interested in eugenics as well as race and intelligence issues. I ended up purchasing all three books by MacDonald on group evolutionary strategies and Judaism and I felt shocked, duped and betrayed. I wasn't aware of the Jewish influence touching upon the very issues that I was most concerned with. Since then, I have been acutely aware of Jewish influence, as well as another evolutionary phenomena—that the ruling elite will usually bail on their own kind (this will be discussed later). So in all fairness, I now have an equal amount of animus for my own kin who have turned on their own as well as for those Jews who have behaved in ways that harm my kin and me. Is any of this right or wrong? Of course not, nature knows not of these things. They are purely emotional within our ancient human nature, machinery laid down over millions of years. This animus must be expected and understood if possible, not condemned. So in defense of my kin, I will show that there is no such thing as racism. That is, I will show that it lacks empirical validity, and should be replaced with such terms as xenophobia, ethnocentrism, revenge, paranoia, etc. That is, if academics want to claim that either individuals, groups or institutions are racist, they must be willing to develop the concept of what racism is in relation to actual actions or beliefs in a systematic manner. They must show that there is such a thing as racism in the same manner as other behavioral traits are analyzed and studied. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of modern science. In the past we have persecuted scientists for believing the earth was not the center of the universe, we have burned witches at the stake, and we have used eugenics in a simplistic Mendelian manner that ascribed a lack of morality to "bad seed." Now we are seeing a renewed inquisition by the Left that is the mirror image of the above politically motivated purges, and its only purpose is to suppress science itself now that we are closer than ever in unlocking the genetic code. But the most important reason for not submitting to this new oppression is not science but fairness. Science will progress regardless of these politically motivated purges, it will happen just later on rather than sooner. What is really so devastating about the charge of racism against groups of people and institutions is that it has one fundamental purpose, to put shackles on free speech. If you look at who is being shouted down and not allowed to talk or to hold meetings you will notice that it is the Left that has become intolerant. Everywhere one looks there are efforts to curtail freedom of speech. There are riots and protests against universities who have ended racial quotas. There are riots and protests against a meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. Any professor or intellectual that the Left does not like is prevented from speaking at universities. The list goes on an on. Virtually every effort to suppress free speech in Western countries is carried out by the Left—and the charge of racism is used often as the reason. Racial justice cannot be discussed unless the authoritarian Left controls the dialog and the agenda. This same suppression of what we take to be the basic freedom of expression is now spreading globally as the United Nations and the European Economic Union undertakes serious proposals to curtail free Internet access because they don't like so-called "hate" sites. But on the other hand, the Left is free to attack "capitalists" as if they were something other than people. ...