maanantai 31. elokuuta 2009

Konservatiivien typeryys ja vallankumouksellisten barbarismi

Allaoleva 1920-luvulla kirjoitettu teksti kuvaa nykyaikaa yllättävän hyvin, kun sana bolshevismi korvataan sanalla monikulttuurisuus (ja vastaavasti sana bolshevikki sanalla mokuttaja).

Myös tässä esitetyt lyhyet huomautukset biologisista faktoista, geneettisistä älykkyyseroista ja rodullisesta degeneroitumisesta ovat erittäin relevantteja nykyään, kun alhaisen mediaani-ÄO:n omaavaa väestöainesta tulvii Afrikasta ja Lähi-idästä Eurooppaan.

Tässä kerrotaan bolshevikkien yrittäneen kiistää biologisia faktoja ja väittäneen ihmisten älyllisiä ominaisuuksia ym. persoonallisuusominaisuuksia vain kulttuurin ja yhteiskunnan tuotteeksi. Nykyajan bolshevikit eli multikultipropagandistit uskovat tähän samaan virheelliseen dogmiin fanaattisella vimmalla. Multikultiuskovaiset yrittävät kiistää biologisia faktoja, mm. rotujen välisiä älykkyyseroja ja temperamenttieroja, aivan samalla uskonnollisella fanaattisuudella kuin ideologiset edeltäjänsä eli bolshevikit.

Ei mitään uutta auringon alla. Kommunistit yrittivät kiistää objektiivisia faktoja 1920-luvulla. Multikultiuskovaiset yrittävät kiistää objektiivisia faktoja 2000-luvulla. Multikultiuskovaiset ovat nykyajan kommunisteja. Monikulttuurisuusideologiassa ei ole mitään uutta, vaan se on täsmälleen samanlaista fanaattista, mielisairasta vihaa länsimaista sivilisaatiota vastaan kuin kommunismi.

(Kaikki lihavoinnit minun.)

More and more we are coming to see that hatred of
civilization is mainly a matter of heredity; that Bolshe-
viks are mostly born and not made. How can we expect
a man to support a social order which he instinctively
detests or which he is congenitally unable to achieve?
And how can society expect peaceful progress so long
as it spawns social rebels and laggards, and at the same
time sterilizes those creative superiors who are at once
its builders and its preservers?

The fact is that construction and destruction, prog-
ress and regress, evolution and revolution, are alike the
work of dynamic minorities. We have already seen how
numerically small are the talented elites which create
and advance high civilizations; while Jacobin France
and Bolshevik Russia prove how a small but ruthless
revolutionary faction can wreck a social order and tyran-
nize over a great population. Of course, these dynamic
groups are composed primarily of leaders - they are the
officers' corps of much larger armies which mobilize in-
stinctively when crises arise. Take the present world
crisis. In every country, the champions of the existing
order can count upon the resolute support of all those
who appreciate our civilization and wish to preserve it
from disruption. On the other hand, the revolutionary
leaders can count with equal confidence upon the un-
adaptable, inferior, and degenerate elements, who nat-
urally dislike our civilization and welcome a summons
to its overthrow.

Such are the distinctively "superior" and "inferior"
groups the standing armies of civilization and of chaos.
But, even when fully mobilized, these armies are minori-
ties. Between them stands an intermediate mass of
mediocrity, which, even in the most civilized countries,
probably constitutes a majority of the whole people.
In the United States, for example, this intermediate mass
is typified by the various "C" grades of the Army In-
telligence Tests the men with mental ages of from twelve
to fifteen years, whom the tests indicated comprised 61
per cent of the total population. These people are in-
capable of either creating or maintaining a high civiliza-
tion. For that, they are dependent upon the superiors;
just as in the army they depend upon the "A" and "B"
grades of the officers' corps, without whom they would
be as sheep without a shepherd.

However, these mediocres are not "inferiors" in the
technical sense; they are capable of adapting themselves
to the ordinary requirements of civilization, and of
profiting by the superiors' creative achievements
profiting often so successfully that they attain great
wealth and influence.

In some respects the mediocre have their social value.
Their very lack of initiative renders them natural con-
servers of whatever they adopt, and they thus act as
social ballast and as a brake to prevent the élite from
going too fast and getting out of touch with reality. They
also usually support the existing social order, and thus
tend to oppose revolution.

However, the mediocre have the defects of their quali-
ties. Their very conservatism is apt to be harmful, and
is frequently disastrous. This is because it is unintel-
ligent - a mere clinging to things as they are, with no
discrimination between what is sound and what is un-
sound or outworn; a mere blind aversion to change just
because it is change. This is sheer bourbonism. And
bourbonism is dangerous because it blocks progress,
prevents reform, perpetuates social evils, breeds discon-
tent, and thus engenders revolution.

The chief danger of bourbonism is that it is so power-
ful. If society were really guided by its creative elite,
mediocrity might be useful as a sort of "constitutional
opposition" stabilizing and regulating progress. Unfor-
tunately, society is ruled largely by mediocrity.

The most cursory survey of our world is enough to show that in politics, finance, business, and most other fields of human activity, a large proportion of the most influential figures are persons of decidedly mediocre intelligence and character.

The number of stupid reactionaries in high
places is depressing, and their stupidity is amazing when
we consider their opportunities. In fact, these oppor-
tunities are the best proof of their inherent stupidity,
because the mere fact that so little has been brought
out shows that there was very little there to bring.

At first sight all this may seem to conflict with what
we have previously discovered: that superiors tend to
rise in the social scale, and that in advanced modern
societies there has been a marked concentration of su-
periority in the middle and upper classes. But when we
look more closely, we see that there is no real discrepancy.

In the first place, the concentration of ability in the
upper social strata is not absolute, but relative.
Relatively, the upper and middle classes of society
undoubtedly contain a higher percentage of superiority
than do the lower classes. But this most emphatically
does not mean that the upper and middle classes are
made up wholly of superior persons while the lower
social strata are composed wholly of inferiors.

On the contrary, the lower social strata unquestionably
contain multitudes of valuable strains which have not
yet displayed themselves by rising in the social scale.

This is particularly true where the "social ladder" and
assortative mating have not drained the lower classes
and sharply stratified the population. For example, in
the American Army Intelligence Tests some of the
best scores were made by illiterate, ignorant Southern
mountaineers who had never before been outside their
native valleys. In other words, primitive conditions
had held back a high-grade Anglo-Saxon stock; but the
intelligence was there, passed on from generation to
generation, and only awaiting a favorable opportunity
to display itself.

We thus see that superior intelligence is not a monopoly
of the upper and middle social classes, albeit they do
possess a distinct relative advantage in this respect.

The next question which naturally arises is: What are
the proportions of superiors to mediocres and inferiors
within these classes? The question of inferiority need
not long detain us. The demands of modern life are suf-
ficiently great, and the social ladder works sufficiently
well to weed out most of the distinctly inferior indi-
viduals who arise in the upper and middle strata of so-
ciety by socially sterilizing them as economic failures or
by forcing them down to lower social levels.

With mediocrity, however, it is quite otherwise. A
glance at social statistics is enough to prove that a large
proportion of both the upper and middle classes must
consist of mediocrities. Consider the relative size of
social groups. In most Western nations from 5 to 10
per cent of the population should certainly be counted
as belonging to the upper social classes, while the middle
classes (urban and rural) probably run between 20 and
40 per cent. Now compare these figures with the matter
of intelligence. We have already seen that biological,
sociological, and psychological researches have alike re-
vealed the fact that high intelligence is rare. The Amer-
ican Army Intelligence Tests indicate that only 4 per
cent of the American population are of "very superior
intelligence" (Grade "A"), while only 9 per cent are of
"superior intelligence" (Grade "B"). We have also
seen that superior intelligence is by no means exclusively
confined to the upper and middle social strata. Yet,
even if superior intelligence were so confined, we have
every reason to believe that these strata would still con-
sist largely of mediocrities, for the very simple reason
that there would not be enough genuine superiors to go

This raises a third question: Within the upper social strata, what is the relative status of superiors and mediocres, measured by recognized standards of
achievement and by direct influence in the community?

This is a matter of great importance.

If high intelligence be so rare, it is vital to social progress, and even to social security, that it should function with the greatest possible efficiency and should exert the greatest possible effect.

Now, no unbiased student of modern life can doubt that
this is very far from being the case. The melancholy
truth is that our stock of high creative intelligence (all
too meagre at best) is in the main imperfectly utilized.
To be sure, those pessimists who assert that it is nearly
all wasted are wrong. Comparatively little real talent
is wholly wasted. In advanced modern societies the
genuine superior can usually rise, and in many fields, like
science, art, literature, and certain of the professions, he
may reasonably hope to rise to the very top.

In other fields, however, particularly in politics, finance,
and business, this is not the case. Here, too, creative in-
telligence does tend to rise, and sometimes rises to the
top. But more frequently the highest posts are filled
by essentially mediocre personalities - shrewd, aggres-
sive, acquisitive, yet lacking that constructive vision
which is the birthmark of true greatness.

Now, this is a serious matter, because it is precisely
these fields wherein constructive leadership is supremely
important for social progress and social stability. His-
tory proves conclusively that revolutions are precipitated
mainly by inefficient government and unwise finance.
Here more than anywhere else the guidance of superior
intelligence is a vital necessity. Were our political and
economic life today guided by our best minds, we should
have little to fear from social revolution. A series of
constructive reforms would safeguard the future, while
the present revolutionary onslaught would be summarily
repelled. High intelligence is nearly always well poised,
and can be depended upon in a crisis to keep cool and
do the right thing. Mediocrity, on the other hand, lacks
poise and vision. Yet governments are today every-
where mainly in mediocre hands.

Governments should govern; should have faith in themselves and the principles they stand for; and should meet the challenge of aggressive minorities with intelligent foresight, instant action, and unflinching courage.

The mere fact that the revolutionists are a minority is no safeguard, because it is determined minorities, not passive majorities, that get their way.

The lesson of past revolutions, particularly the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, is that a small but resolute faction possesses the same decisive tactical advantage as a small but highly disciplined and enthusiastic army attacking a huge but ill-organized and spiritless foe. In such cases the assailants have the inestimable advantage of knowing what they want and exactly where they mean to make their attack. The defenders, on the contrary, not only do not know their own minds, but also usually fail to see precisely where, when, and how the attack is coming. They stand, fearful and irresolute, waiting to be hit - beaten before they are struck.

To avert this danger we need intelligent action. For
one thing, public opinion should be carefully informed
about the basic issues involved. When people appreciate
the true nature of social revolution, the irreparable cul-
tural and racial losses, the terrible setback to progress,
they will realize that all sections of the population ex-
cept the inferior and degenerate elements would be the
losers, and they will resolve determinedly to preserve
civilization from disruption.

By "information," however, I most emphatically do
not mean "propaganda." The truth about social revo-
lution is enough to open the eyes of all who believe in
orderly progress; while neither argument nor entreaty
can convert those temperamentally predisposed to vio-
lent subversive action. We must clearly recognize that
there exists an irreconcilable minority of congenital revo-
lutionists, born rebels against civilization, who can be
restrained only by superior force. This rebel minority
has, however, evolved a philosophy peculiarly enticing
in these troubled transition times when discontent is
rife, old beliefs shattered, and the new goals not yet
plainly in sight. Under these circumstances the phi-
losophy of revolt has attracted multitudes of persons im-
patient of present ills and grasping at the hope of violent
short cuts to progress. This is particularly true of certain types of emotional liberals, who play in with the revolutionists and are used as catspaws. Here we have the chief reasons for that idealization of revolution which has such a vogue in many quarters.

However, these unwitting dupes are not at heart irreconcilable enemies of society. They simply do not realize that they are on a path which leads to chaos. If they came to realize social revolution's inevitable consequences, most of them would stop aiding the revolutionists in their attacks on society, and would join forces with those who are striving for constructive progress by evolutionary methods. The real revolutionists would thus be deprived of much of their present strength, and could be more easily dealt with.

Now, this may be accomplished by instructive informa-
tion. It cannot be accomplished by "propaganda."
Hysterical denunciations of Bolshevism, specializing in
atrocity stories and yarns like the "nationalization of
women," defeat their own object. They divert attention
from fundamentals to details, generate heat without
light, spread panic rather than resolution, and invite
blind reaction instead of discriminating action. Such
propaganda stirs up a multitude of silly people who run
around looking for Communists under the bed and calling
everybody a "Bolshevik" who happens to disagree with
them. This modern witch-finding is not only fatuous;
it is harmful as well. Many of those denounced as "Bol-
sheviks" are not genuine social rebels at all, but people
so harassed by social ills or personal misfortunes that
they blindly take Bolshevism's false promises at their
face value. These people need education, not persecu-
tion. To dragoon and insult them simply drives them
into the Bolsheviks' arms. The thing to do is to under-
stand exactly who the real Bolsheviks are, attend to them
thoroughly, and then give suspects the benefit of the

The real social rebels should, of course, be given short shrift.

No misguided sentimentality should shield those who plot the disruption of civilization and the degradation of the race. Boasting, as they do, that they have declared war upon the social order, let them be taken at their word. These irreconcilables should be carefully watched, strictly punished whenever they offend, and where anything like revolution is attempted, hunted down and extirpated.

They who take the sword against society must perish by society's sword.

Yet we should not forget that repression, of itself,
solves nothing. Knowing, as we do, that Bolsheviks are
mostly born and not made, we must realize that new
social rebels will arise until their recruiting grounds are
eliminated. When society takes in hand the betterment
of the race, when degenerates and inferiors are no longer
permitted to breed like lice, the floods of chaos will soon
dry up.

Until then repression must go on. But we must know
exactly what we are about. Repression is a dangerous
weapon, which should be used only within strictly de-
fined limits and even then with regret.

Now what are the limits of repression ? They are the
limits of action. Revolutionary action should be in-
stantly, inexorably repressed. There the dead-line
be drawn, so clear and plain that all would
know what
trespass means. But beyond that
forbidden zone - free

No tampering with freedom of thought under any
circumstances, and no curtailment of free speech except where it incites to violence and thus practically crosses the dead-line.

Society should say to its discontented: "You may
think what you please. You may discuss what you
please. You may advocate what you please, except it
involve violence, express or implied. If you preach or in-
sinuate violence, you will be punished. If you throw
bombs, you will be individually executed. If you try
revolutions, you will be collectively wiped out. But so
long as you avoid doing those forbidden things, you may
be watched, but you will not be interfered with."

At this point the timid or stupid reactionary may ex-
claim: "But this is giving Bolshevism a chance to hide
behind legal technicalities !" Granted. "This will allow
revolutionists to conduct a camouflaged propaganda!"
Granted. "The results may be dangerous!" Granted;
all granted. And yet we cannot do otherwise, because
all the harm the Bolsheviks might do by clever abuse
of their freedom to think and speak, would be as nothing
to the harm done by denying them that freedom.

This harm would be manifold. In the first place, such
action would tend to defeat its own object and to en-
courage rather than suppress revolutionary unrest, be-
cause for every camouflaged Bolshevik who might be
smoked out and laid by the heels, ten free spirits would
be impelled to become revolutionists, since in their eyes
(singular paradox!) Bolshevism would be associated
with liberty.

In the second place, any serious curtailment of free speech would render impossible the formation of that intelligent public opinion which we have already seen to be so necessary for comprehending difficulties and conceiving effective remedies.

Lastly, such a policy would paralyze intellectual activity,
enthrone reaction, and block progress. To protect society
from disruption, however necessary, is merely part of a
larger whole. Social order must be preserved, because
that is the vital prerequisite of constructive progress.
But constructive progress must take place. Things cannot
be left as they are, because under present conditions we
are headed toward racial impoverishment and cultural de-
cline. Our chief hope for the future is the scientific spirit.
But that spirit thrives only on unfettered knowledge and
truth. Lacking this sustenance, it withers and decays.
One of Bolshevism's deadly sins is its brutal crushing of
intellectual freedom. Shall we be guilty of the very crime
we so abhor in our enemies? What a wretched outcome:
to escape the destructive tyranny of Bolshevism only
to fall under the petrifying tyranny of bourbonism !

Heaven be praised, humanity is not restricted to so
poor a choice. Another path lies open the path of race-
betterment. And science points the way. We already
know enough to make a sure start, and increasing knowl-
edge will guide our footsteps as we move on. That is
the hopeful aspect of the situation. We do not have to
guess. We know. All we need to do is to apply what
we have already learned and keep on using our brains.
The result will be such a combined increase of knowledge
and creative intelligence that many problems, today in-
superable, will solve themselves.

Furthermore, science, which points the path to the
future, gives us hope for the present as well. Materially
the forces of chaos may still be growing, especially
through racial impoverishment; but morally they are
being undermined. Science, especially biology, is cutting
the ground from under their feet. Even a decade ago,
when errors like environmentalism and "natural equal-
ity" were generally accepted, the Under-Man was able
to make out a plausible case.

Today the basic importance of heredity and the real nature of inferiority are becoming more and more widely understood and appreciated.

Indeed, it is this very spread of scientific truth which
accounts largely for the growing violence of social un-
rest. Consciously or instinctively the revolutionary
leaders feel that the "moral imponderables" have de-
serted them, and that they must therefore rely more
and more upon force.

Does not Bolshevism admit that
it cannot peacefully convert the world, but can triumph only by the dictatorship of a ruthless minority, destroying whole classes, and then forcibly transforming the remaining population by a long process of intensive propaganda extending perhaps for generations ? What a monstrous doctrine ! But, also, what a monumental confession of moral bankruptcy !

This is the counsel of desperation, not the assurance of victory.

That which maddens Bolshevism is, however, our in-
spiration. To us science speaks. And her words are :
"Sursum corda! Lift up your hearts! Have faith in
yourselves; in your civilization; in your race. Tread
confidently the path I have revealed to you. Ye know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free !"


STRESSFUL transition is the key-note of our time. Un-
less all signs be at fault, we stand at one of those mo-
mentous crises in history when mankind moves from
one well-marked epoch into another of widely different
character. Such crucial periods are of supreme impor-
tance, because their outcome may determine man's
course for many generations, perhaps for many centuries.

Transition spells struggle. And this is pre-eminently
true of today. Historians of the distant future, apprais-
ing our times, may conclude that the Great War was
merely a symptom an episode in a much vaster struggle
of ideas and elemental forces which began long before
the war, and lasted long after its close. Certainly such
a conflict of ideas is today raging. Perhaps never in
human annals have principles so dissimilar striven so
fiercely for mastery of the coming age.

Now in this conflict the ultimate antagonists appear
to be biology and Bolshevism: Bolshevism, the incarna-
tion of the atavistic past; biology, the hope of a pro-
gressive future. To call Bolshevism the incarnation of
the past may sound paradoxical if we heed its claims to
being ultramodern. But we have weighed those claims
and have found them mere camouflage. What we have
found is that Bolshevism, instead of being very new, is very old, that it is the last of a long series of revolts by the unadaptable, inferior, and degenerate elements against civilizations which have irked them and which they have therefore wished to destroy.

The only new thing about Bolshevism is its "rationalizing"
of rebellious emotions into an exceedingly insidious and
persuasive philosophy of revolt which has not merely
welded all the real social rebels, but has also deluded
many misguided dupes, blind to what Bolshevism implies.

Such is the champion of the old, primitive past:
intrenched behind ancient errors like environmentalism
and "natural equality," favored by the unrest of transition
times, and reinforced by ever-multiplying swarms of
degenerates and inferiors.

Myös tämä tekstinpätkä samalta ajalta kuvaa hyvin kehitysmaista länsimaihin suuntautuvan maahanmuuttoaallon aiheuttaman väestön rodullisen muuttumisen seurauksia:

There must be some relation between the average innate capacity of a nation and the effect likely to be produced by the expenditure of a given amount of energy on improving the environment.

If a race falls back in its inborn qualities; if, owing to the efforts of philanthropists and the burdens of unsound taxation, more of the failures of civilization reach maturity and parenthood, and fewer competent persons are brought into existence to support them, not only has the nation less energy to use for the maintenance and improvement of its social conditions, but such energy as is available will produce a correspondingly smaller effect.

The old standard can be maintained, if at all, only by a policy of overspending leading to bankruptcy. We have, in fact, conditions in which retrogression will set in and the environment will follow the heredity downhill.

4 kommenttia:

IDA kirjoitti...

No niin. Täällähän kiihotetaan :)

Tuossa tekstissä vaikuttaisi olevan ainakin yksi ongelma: Korkea älykkyys ei välttämättä ole hyödynnettävissä millään tavoin. Eli se ei välttämättä sopeudu mihinkään hierarkiaan. Edes siis sellaiseen missä sillä olisi joku taattu paikka auringossa. Mikäli yhteiskuntaa johdettaisiin tuolta ÄO-testien korkeimmalta osuudelta on hyvin mahdollista, että ongelmat vain kasvaisivat.

Eugeniikankin perimmäinen ongelmakin on se kuka valitsee ja miten.

Kumitonttu kirjoitti...

Mistä teoksesta tuo teksti on?

Väkivaltaisia ihmisiä, pedofiileja ja alkoholisteja on onnistuneesti hoidettu vankiloiden terapiaryhmissä jo kymmeniä vuosia. Sen sijaan, että kommunisteja (lue: vihreitä) laitettaisiin tällaisiin hoitoihin, he ovat onnistuneet saamaan tuomiolle toisinajattelijoita. On ihmeellistä, että meillä ei tajuta kommunismin ja islamin keskinäistä yhteyttä, vaikka molemmissa ideologioissa juuri ajatusrikollisuus on ykkösvihollinen.

Ainoa lohtu, jos sitä voi lohtuna pitää, on se, että kun islam pääsee valtaan, kusisimpaan paikkaan joutuvat nykyiset kommunistit. Niinhän Itä-Saksankin entiset natsit joutuivat kommunistihallinnon aikana pahimpaan liriin, kun olivat menneet tukemaan kilpailevaa ideologiaa. Tästä saisi muuten kohta Venäjällä tuomion, kun tulin verranneeksi bolsevismia natsismiin. Suomessa puolestaan lienee rasistista todeta moinen.

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Lothrop Stoddard:
The Revolt Against Civilization

Kumitonttu kirjoitti...

Mikko, tässä Martin Durkinin hyvää analyysia aiheesta:

Romanticism is in essence anti-Capitalist. Not in the sense of traditional Marxism. The Marxists wanted to go forwards not backwards. They wanted to build bigger factories than the capitalists, not folksy medieval craft workshops. No. Romanticism was a kind of reactionary anti-capitalism. And it was the ideology and aesthetic worldview of those people who lost most, or gained least from capitalism. I think it’s the same today. In Europe, the toffs (Prince Charles and his gang) are green because they have lost their position in society. The intellectuals – teachers, lecturers, scientists are green because they don’t have the status they used to. (Not long ago, a professor would have been someone important, had a big house, maids etc). These days, plumbers make more money.