Farewell Sir Thomas Sean Connery

“My view is that to get anywhere in life you have to be anti-social, otherwise you'll end up being devoured. I've never been particularly social, anyway, but if I've ever been rude, fifty per cent of it has usually been provoked by other people's attitudes. Though I do admit, like most Celts, I'm moody. It's fine until people try to cheer you up with gems like, 'snap out of it' or 'Come on, now'.”

Sir Thomas Sean Connery

Konstantinos Katsifas: Presente!

On the 28th October, 2018, Konstantinos Katsifas, a 35-year-old man belonging to the native Hellenic community of the occupied Northern Epirus, was shot dead by Albanian police near Vouliarates, around 5km from the Greek-Albanian border, during an alleged shooting exchange between the man and special police forces.

Katsifas had raised the Hellenic flag for “OXI Day” to commemorate the Hellenic soldiers who lost their lives defending Hellas during the Greco-Italian War of 1940.

After raising the Hellenic flag, Katsifas shouted “Zito I Ellas!” (Hail Hellas!) as he took his last breath.

Fascism and American Reactions, 1922

Oct 28th, 1922

In the United States, Mussolini’s March on Rome (1922) inspired self‐​reflection and visions for the near future.

In late October, 1922, Benito Mussolini followed a column of 30,000 “Black Shirts” into Rome, where he was greeted with an automobile furnished by the King of Italy himself, Victor Emmanuel III. The king refused a petition to declare martial law tendered by the existing government led by Prime Minister Luigi Facta, tacitly recognizing “Fascisti” rule in the personage of the new movement’s leader. In the following months, Mussolini and the Fascists terrorized their enemies throughout Italy and consolidated political power; the movement birthed in Mussolini’s private circles of veterans only a few years earlier bloomed into an international curiosity, “Fascism.” In the United States, American opinion‐​makers exhibited reactions ranging from shocked disbelief to impartial curiosity and what can properly be described as jubilant and mystical support for a “nation” of people reclaiming their government from leftist radicals and feckless politicians alike. The Kansas City Star identified Mussolini’s fascism with the by‐​then familiar concept of “100 per cent Americanism,” while joining a host of other observers in praising the Fascist’s unmatched anti‐​communism and supposed returns to individualism, the rule of law, and respect for private control of property. Papers like the Fort Worth Star‐​Telegram reacted to Mussolini’s rise to power with measured unease rooted in fears of another general European war sparked by Italian conquests along the Adriatic. Even many of those who supported his anti‐​communism feared Mussolini’s militaristic rhetoric. Common to these accounts is the certainty that fascist success depended upon appeals to the Italian middle class and veterans of the First World War. As such, many American citizens positively identified with the fascist movement and found the events in Italy useful for interpreting their own more immediate, local world. In the years of its infancy, fascism provided Americans with either an image of what they could achieve as a united, 100 per cent American whole, or a portent of disruption, war, and desolation to come.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION:

Anthony Comegna

Assistant Editor for Intellectual History

KANSAS CITY STAR, 9 AUGUST 1922

“Fascisti Idea to Spread–Exiled Russians Would Adopt Plan in Own Country–One Million Men in Italy are Banded Together to Advance Nationalism and War on Socialists and Communists.”

Rome. Aug. 9.–

FOUNDED BY AN EDITOR

Fascism is not three and a half years old, having been founded in Milan by Sig. Mussolini, editor of Popolo d’Italia in April, 1919. The first action took place April 19, immediately after its organization, when only 350 members, all distinguished war veterans, attacked and destroyed the offices of Avanti, a Socialist newspaper. Since then with each attack on anti‐​national forces, thousands of youths have flocked to Mussolini’s banner, just as sixty‐​two years ago they flocked to the army of Garibaldi, who started the war of redemption for Italy in Sicili with one thousand men and by the time he reached Naples had nearly one hundred thousand followers.

The Fascisti’s ideals consist of 100 per cent nationalism. They believe in applying patriotism with force; they not only have no patience with 50 per‐​cent Italianism, but they believe also in clubbing “50 per centers.” They have no special theory of government, but want the best government that is obtainable. For the time being they are monarchial, but if tomorrow they should see that a republic would be better for Italy they would be republicans. What they want is the greatest well being and the maximum prosperity for the nation, not by class struggle, but by co‐​operation among the various classes.

NOT A SECRET ORGANIZATION.

Fascism is not a secret organization like the Ku Klux Klan, for everybody knows its constitution, and its members wear uniforms which everybody can see. They use illegal means because the constitutional powers do not deal with the situation.

Sig. Mussolini is only 38 years old. Until the end of 1914 he was an ardent Socialist and director of Avanti. The world war converted him to nationalism. He founded the Popolo d’Italia, fought bravely in the war, was elected a deputy at the last elections and is now considered the most powerful man in Italy. One million men obey him without ever questioning his orders.

DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 21 AUGUST 1922

“’Discipline–and Work’ Aim of Italy’s Man of Hour and Fascisti Head”

By the United News.

Rome. Aug. 20.–Benito Mussolini, Italy’s Man of the hour, is planning for the future, when the Fascisti, which he leads, comes into political power, according to him.

The Fascisti, at a word from Mussolini, have laid down their arms and are organizing as a political party. They came into existence in 1919, since when their chief object has been to combat Socialism and Communism.

Mussolini, who shies from interviewers, answered questions briefly.

“What would be the first step you would take if in power?”

“Discipline.”

“And then–“

“Discipline for all. That covers everything for a beginning.”

“And your foreign policy?”

“Equilibrium and conciliation.”

“What definite steps would you enforce to put Italy on a firm economic basis?”

“Work. Discipline and work. Fascism is great because it is a constructive, creative working force. Italy can be the same.”

Italy’s three political parties will be Mussolini’s, the Popolari and the Socialists.

Of the last named, Mussolini said:

“They have become bourgeois. As soon as they are definitely removed from Bolshevism, need from extreme Fascism will be over.”

Referring to the Popolari, or clericals, Mussolini said: “Priests should celebrate mass and not mix in politics.”

FORT WORTH STAR‐​TELEGRAM, 30 OCTOBER 1922

“Fascisti Leader Backed by 1,000,000 Armed Men is Now Unchallenged Ruler of Italy”

By Paul Scott Mowrer…

Paris. Oct. 30.–Benito Mussolini, leader of the Fascisti, seems to be the unchallenged dictator of Italy.

Owing to the severe censorship that has been established in Italy the news from that country must be taken with some allowance but it appears that the black shirts and army helmets of Benito Mussolini’s nationalist reactionaries are already supreme. The Fascisti, of whom there are said to be 1,000,000, are mobilized. Barracks and armories have been occupied and arms seized…Already masters of Piedmont and Lombardy fascisti hold Florence, Siena and Pisa. In Rome they occupied the railway stations and public buildings until they were taken over by the army, which is honeycombed with fascism.

Made Feeble Protest.

Before disappearing the Facta government made a faint show of resistance and ordered up a poster accusing the Fascisti of sedition and promising to preserve order at all costs. It also desired to proclaim martial law but the King refused to sign the decree. It is therefore Benito Mussolini who has proclaimed and is executing martial law. All the bourses have been closed and Parliament, which was to have reconvened Nov. 7, will probably be dissolved.

Italian Free Masonry has issued a proclamation recognizing the Fascisti movement and the Pope, through the bishop, has appealed for peace and union. The Fascisti have proclaimed loyalty to the King, who is apparently well disposed toward the Fascisti.

The Fascisti program is frankly nationalist and perhaps even reactionary. The Fascisti proclamation announces that “military, political and administrative powers are transferred to a committee of action of four members with dictatorial positions.”

The rights of workers of all categories will be respected, according to the proclamation, which adds that the new regime will be “generous toward nonmilitant adversaries but inexorable toward others.” The aim of the movement is declared to be the “safety and grandeur of Italy.”

The chief points of the interior program appear to be the exaltation of the army and a strong patriotric union of all Italy and especially of the north and south. Fascism originally sprang from the disgust of the moderate conservative elements at the government’s failure to uphold the laws when the workmen seized the factories two years ago and at the apparent powerlessness of the government to repress the communist violence which followed.

Reds Were Fought.

Groups of Fascisti were first formed to combat the reds with their own weapons–assault and riot. They were so successful that communism seems to be effectively rowed in Italy. The army and navy are sympathetic; the organizations of war veterans are on their side and they also claim to have enrolled 800,000 workmen from the labor unions. Their professed desire is to put an end to the undignified feebleness and vaccilation which have marked the Italy policy, not only internal but especially external, ever since the armistice. They promise to insure respect for Italians and Italian interests all over the world…They will insist on greater recognition of Italy’s claims in the Mediterranean and especially in the Adriatic. They demand that Jugo Slavia shall free Montenegro and they talk of annexing Dalmatia.

This program, unless modified, seems somewhat ominous for peace with Italy’s neighbors.

FORT WORTH STAR‐​TELEGRAM, 5 NOVEMBER 1922

“Men and Affairs”

Washington, as well as the rest of the United States, has been struggling the past few days to get itself straight on Fascism, the Fascisti and the new Fascist government in Italy. It is not likely, however, that the Fascisti will ever have the vogue in this country that the Bolsheviki had. Americans soon go the idea that the Bolsheviki was somebody against the government, and against everything, so America adopted the word and it is now an indelible part of the English language. It is not so easy to classify or place the Fascisti and Fascist does not roll off the tongue like Bolshevik.

Mussolini, the Fascist premier of Italy, says that Fascism is a purely Italian question that as bolshevism is a purely Russian matter. It is possibly true that bolshevism is a purely Russian matter, but lots of American people have been officially classed by their friends or enemies as Bolsheviks and bolshevicks they will be until they die.

Fascism seems a bit more intricate. It means, as far as can be judged from this distance, Italy for the Italians. The Fascisti in this country call it “America first.” When it was said of Mr. Wilson that he kept us out of the war, it was a fascist sentiment that said it. When it is said of Mr. Harding that he kept us out of the League of Nations, it is again the fascist sentiment that speaks.

There are plenty of the Fascisti in the United States, it seems, but they have always gone under the proud boast of “100 per cent Americans.” The English language appears to grow more and more inelastic. It is pitiful to have to say such awkward compound words as pro‐​leaguer and anti‐​leaguer, when in most of the foreign languages an expressive single word would suffice. Of course we have had in this country a faction known as the Wilsonites, but even that is not a pretty word like Fascisti or Bolsheviki.

Some of Premier Mussolini’s political opponents recently accused him of flirting with the Germans and possibly with Russians with the idea of forming an international Fascisti, or a sort of reactionary international movement. He denounces this as absurd, the Fascisti are for Italy first, last and all the time, and the rest of the world can go hang. The Democrats say it was the American Fascisti won the election in 1920.

PORTLAND MORNING OREGONIAN, 6 NOVEMBER 1922

“Revolt Against Socialism”

Both the accession to power of the fascisti in Italy and the defeat of the labor party in the British municipal elections point the same way–revolt against socialism and return to individualism as the way to bring cost of government within revenue and to reduce it further in order to reduce taxes…

National ownership of railroads, telegraphs and telephones, municipal ownership of public utilities and government monopolies of such commodities as tobacco are common in Europe…Fascism began in Italy as a revolt against socialism, and Mussolini evidently intends to go the whole way in restoring the public services and monopolies to private enterprise. That will relieve the government of enormous losses and will remove a horde of people from the public payroll. If the experience of France is an indication, all public services are greatly over-manned…He evidently sees that hard work and economy from the head of the government down to the humblest workman must be combined with that efficiency that is possible only for private enterprise in order that Italy may pay its way, reduce its debts and regain prosperity.

The deplorable fact about this return to economic sanity is that it is undertaken by a distinctly militarist party. If the fascisti should attempt to make good the claim to all the territory that was once Italian, they will embark their country in wars that will destroy all the fruits of their economic reforms.

DULUTH NEW TRIBUNE, 12 NOVEMBER 1922

“Middle Class Takes Fascism to Gain Rights–Revolt in Italy Projected by Underpaid ‘White Collar’ Folk, Says Writer”

By J. W. T. Mason. (Written for the United Press)

The Fascisti success in Italy marks Europe’s turning toward the middle classes. If the young and untried men Premier Mussolini has taken into his cabinet show an ability to handle the technical machinery of government, there will be a full recovery of the economic ground lost by the middle classes during the war.

As Bolshevism was an attack against all classes by the Russian workingmen, so the Fascisti movement is an attack against both the idle rich and overpaid laboring classes by the white collar men.

Alliance Formed.

Mussolini has formed an alliance with various workingmen groups. But, this is for the purpose of using them against the capitalists who crush the middle classes. Mussolini supports the policy of syndicalism. That is to say, he wants the workingmen to have a voice in the management of the factories. By setting workingmen and capitalists thus at odds, Mussolini expects the middle classes to hold the balance of power and acquire more for themselves.

The gravest problem Europe has had to face since the war has been the plight of the white collar classes. The workingmen of Europe have never before had such high wages, measured either by a money standard or by purchasing power. Similarly, the capitalists reaped enormous profits when war prices reigned.

Middle Class Loses.

But, the middle classes have lost ground. Their wages have not kept pace with the increased cost of living. The problem is especially acute in Italy, where middle class technical education has far outrun working class education. Italy in consequence has too many doctors, lawyers and other professional men for the number of inhabitants who have been educated to the point of using their services.

This is the fundamental reason why the middle class revolt against postwar conditions has started in Italy rather than in any other country. There is that additional burden for the middle class Italians to bear. If Mussolini can solve his own middle class problem, therefore, other countries will be incited to taking action themselves, since their own difficulties are not so complicated.

Only Hope of Recovery.

Without a recovery of the European middle classes, it is hopeless to expect the world ever to get to right. The cultural responsibilities of the middle classes will not be assumed by the other classes. The white collar men alone among the Europeans are willing to make sacrifices for social progress as distinct from economic progress.

But, under the financial burdens imposed on them by the war, they have been unable to do much more than keep alive. They are wearing the same old clothes, concealing their poverty as best they can.

They are now reaching the end of their patience. The Fascisti movement represents to them the possibility of successful self‐​assertion. For that reason, Italy has suddenly become the middle class leader for all Europe.

SAN JOSE (CA) MERCURY HERALD, 25 NOVEMBER 1922

“The Cure for Bolshevism”

Five years ago–and less–Europe meditated in anguished accents the need of a defensive front against the advance of bolshevism. Today, communism, through its third international, searches fanatically for means to combat the tide of fascism. This is as it should be. The pendulum swings.

So long as communism is only the goal of a fraction of the world’s population it was inevitable that it should flow back to its mean limits. So long as fascism is only the goal of a part of the population, that, too, in time, must flow back to its boundaries. Fascism came into existence as a result of communism, the disease gave birth to the remedy.

Fascism is not far removed from normalcy; it is the existing order reduced to the terms of the small merchant and wage‐​earner who does not believe in millenniums but clings pathetically to the practical need of three meals a day. Bolshevism in Italy brought starvation and chaos, fascism drove out communism, which is in hiding, and reasserts popular authority. There is only one weapon bolshevism can use to repel advances against it and recapture its superficial influence, and that is to abandon communism. The majority, where not held in subjection as in Russia, inevitably asserts its desires.

Communism, on the fact of the facts, is not one of them.

GRAND FORKS HERALD, 31 DECEMBER 1922

“Letter Tells of Conditions Now in Italy”

An interesting letter has been received from Mrs. Gerda Hellberg Castelli of Rome…written of the conditions and especially the “Fascisti” in Italy, to Mrs. R. D. Campbell of this city. Mrs. Castelli and Captain Castelli will be remembered as residents here some years ago…

The letter follows:

Favor Organization.

“We, both my husband and I, are great ‘Fascisti’ and bless Mussolini who swept away the clique of rotten and selfish and incompetent politicians! I do not marvel if the countries abroad do not understand all what this means and have to judge ‘Fascisti,’ but one who has lived here for long and knows the Italians, feels that such a marvelous movement could not grow up so quick in any other country but Italy. It has been grand to witness, and I was sorry my husband way away at a congress in Bologna just the days of the ‘revolution!’ Because such it was, but one where not a workman went on strike, not a peasant left off work; it was done before they had time to think and move. Both peasant and workman of the saner type were glad for and desired the change, as it was felt everywhere Italy had no government at all! And chaos cannot last for long. And really it is quite a spiritual movement as well as patriotic, and idealistic, and we needed that badly after all these years of demagogism and party Socialism, and the world everywhere needs a bit of ‘Fascism,’ it seems to me.

“Mussolini is marvelous, so far at least; he speaks in a manner quite new (and more honest) to diplomacy and commands respect just for his fearless outspokenness. It is quite a pleasure to read the papers, now. And to see some sixty thousand young, fine and handsome men between eighteen and thirty years go in cortege in the Corso the 31st of October was a sight not to be forgotten. Half a million young men dead in the war, and yet so many fine ones left! Really, this country is inexhaustible!

Wants G. F. News.

“I am looking forward to seeing Ruth Carothers here a hear news about all in Grand Forks which we keep in such a good memory! I wonder if we ever shall come over to the United States again. I would like it very much, I assure you…

“And here in Rome the sun shines always this autumn; such lovely weather we are having.

“Now I must stop, with best wishes for a happy Christmas and good New Year to Dr. Campbell and yourself from us both.

“Always yours sincerely,

–“Gerda Hellberg Castelli.”

https://www.libertarianism.org/

Under the Shadow of the Sword

“My paradise lies in the shadow of my sword.”

— Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

A few remarks on democracy

by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

I should like to make a few remarks, derived from daily experience, in a manner that can be understood by any young legionary or worker.

We wear the clothes and embrace the forms of democracy. Are they worth anything? We don't know yet. But we do know one thing. We know it for sure. That some of the largest and most civilised nations of Europe have discarded those clothes and have acquired new ones. Did they get rid of them forever? Other nations are doing their best to dispose of them and to get new ones also. Why? Have all nations gone mad? Are the Romanian politicians the only wise men in the world? Somehow I doubt it.

Those who have changed them and those who want to change them must each have their own reasons.

But why should we concern ourselves with other nations' reasons? Let us rather concern ourselves with the reasons that would make us Romanians ready to change the clothes of democracy.

If we have no reasons to do so, if the reasons are no good, then we shall keep the clothes, even should all of Europe get rid of them.

However, they are no good for us either, because:

1. Democracy destroys the unity of the Romanian nation, dividing it among political parties, making Romanians hate one another, and thus exposing a divided people to the united congregation of Jewish power at a difficult time in the nation's history.

This argument alone is so persuasive as to warrant the discarding of democracy in favor of anything that would ensure our unity--or life itself. For disunity means death.

2. Democracy makes Romanian citizens out of millions of Jews by making them the Romanians' equals. By giving them the same legal rights. Equality? What for? We have been here for thousands of years. Plow and weapon in hand. With our labors and blood. Why equality with those who have been here for only one hundred, ten, or even five years? Let's look at the past: We created this state. Let's look at the future: We Romanians are fully responsible for Greater Romania. They have nothing to do with it. What could be the responsibility of Jews, in the history books, for the disappearance of the Romanian state?

Thus: no equality in labor, sacrifice, and struggle for the creation of the state and no equal responsibility for its future. Equality? According to an old maxim: Equality is to treat unequally the unequal. What are the reasons for the Jews' demanding equal treatment, equal political rights with the Romanians?

3. Democracy is incapable of perseverance. Since it is shared by political parties that rule for one, two, or three years, it is unable to conceive and carry out plans of longer duration. One party annuls the plans and efforts of the other. What is conceived and built by one party today is destroyed by another tomorrow.

In a country in which much has to be built, in which building is indeed the primary historical requirement, this disadvantage of democracy constitutes a true danger. It is a situation similar to that which prevails in an establishment where masters are changed every year, each new master bringing in his own plans, ruining what was done by some, and starting new things, which will in turn be destroyed by tomorrow's masters.

4. Democracy prevents the politician's fulfilment of his obligations to the nation. Even the most well-meaning politician becomes, in a democracy, the slave of his supporters, because either he satisfies their personal interests or they destroy his organisation. The politician lives under the tyranny and permanent threat of the electoral bosses.

He is placed in a position in which he must choose between the termination of his lifetime work and the satisfaction of the demands of party members. And the politician, given such a choice, opts for the latter. He does so not out of his own pocket, but out of that of the country. He creates jobs, sets up missions, commissions, sinecures--all rostered in the nation's budget--which put increasingly heavy pressures on a tired people.

5. Democracy cannot wield authority, because it cannot enforce its decisions. A party cannot move against itself, against its members who engage in scandalous malfeasance, who rob and steal, because it is afraid of losing its members. Nor can it move against its adversaries, because in so doing it would risk exposure of its own wrongdoings and shady business.

6. Democracy serves big business. Because of the expensive, competitive character of the multiparty system, democracy requires ample funds. It therefore naturally becomes the servant of the big international Jewish financiers, who enslave her by paying her.

In this manner, a nation's fate is placed in the hands of a clique of bankers.

Making Sense of the Concept of Race: A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family

Copyright by Steve Sailer 1998

For a number of years, mainstream anthropologists have been trying to discredit the Concept of Race by claiming that races are just arbitrary social constructs without biological underpinnings. Just flipping through today's newspaper, however, demonstrates that the non-anthropologists of the world are paying no attention. As one editor recently observed, "Without race, what would we have to write about?"

Underlying much of the attack on the concept of race is repugnance at the mass murders that Nazis used racial thinking to justify. Of course, in this century even more people have been murdered by Marxists in the name of equality and the malleability of human nature. So, it's clear that humans are facile both at murdering other humans they find inconvenient and in developing ideological rationalizations for mass murder.

I believe that the relevant lesson of history is that, on the whole and in the long run, truth is more beneficial to humanity than obfuscation, lies, ignorance, and wishful thinking. And, even if it's not, the truth is a hell of a lot more interesting. Therefore, since race is obviously such an important topic, we deserve a clear discussion of what it means.

Most of the criticism of the concept of "races" focuses on the lack of agreement over how many races there are, what to call them, and precisely who belongs to them.

In contrast, scientists who defend the validity of the race concept make many good points, but their replies tend to be confuse the average person. I believe the problem is that they start from the wrong end of the stick; in fact, the wrong ends of two sticks. (1) They attempt to reason down from the species to the race, and (2) They attempt to argue that humans can be sorted into races based on their differing characteristics. These are the techniques used in classifications of non-human animals, so it's natural to explain race in these terms. Unfortunately, confusion tends to follow.

Clearly, humanity is now one species. (But our unity is fairly recent development, possibly brought about by our genocide of competitors like the Neandertal.)

Trying to explain the concept of race by starting from the concept of species is fraught with uncertainties. The modern definition of a species, a group that can produce fertile offspring, is of fairly recent origin. (It's informative to note that although Darwin titled his book "The Origin of Species," he possessed no clear definition of "species".) Also, there are many grey areas between animal species and animal races. Consider a male animal and a female animal selected from populations that are similar but not identical in appearance, and thus might or might not be members of separate species. Sometimes, biologists find that they don't mate in the wild (implying they represent separate species), but they do successfully breed in captivity if they are kept from their preferred partners (implying they represent merely separate races). Sometimes, science cannot tell at all if they could successfully breed: they won't mate in the wild because they have plenty of more preferred partners around, and they won't mate in captivity with anybody at all, because captivity makes them feel shy or out of sorts. So, with "species" providing such a wobbly foundation, it's not surprising than many people feel uncomfortably moving on to the even less clear-cut realm of "races".

Nor is trying to define races as populations that differ in physical characteristics a persuasive starting point for thinking about race. Jared Diamond followed this logic out to the point of logical absurdity in his October, 1994 Discover Magazine article "Race Without Color" by claiming that we could define races on any physical characteristic we chose, with say Norwegians and Nigerian Fulanis belonging to the Lactose Tolerant race and Japanese and Nigerian Ibos belonging to the Lactose Intolerant race.

Obviously, Diamond's logic leads to a travesty of reality. It is difficult to determine whether he meant it seriously. Diamond is far too logical and realistic to normally write something that stupid, yet on one subject, he often writes nonsense: race. Whether this article was an amusing hoax, or whether he really believes it, or whether he was just pandering to a market hungry for politically correct obfuscation is impossible to determine by anyone who doesn't have access to his conscience. Despite, or, more likely, because of its high flapdoodle content, "Race Without Color" has become quite influential, inspiring in part a subsequent Newsweek cover story claiming that race doesn't exist.

That biological realists have not successfully buried such a transparently bogus claim is evidence that they are neither making themselves clear, nor that they are even thinking that clearly themselves. The reason that defining Fulanis and Ibo as belonging to separate races is ridiculous is because the true definition of races is not built on any particular trait, it's built on ancestry. We all intuitively know that Fulanis and Ibos are more racially similar with each other because they have more recent ancestors in common with each other than they do with Norwegians or Japanese. Race starts with boy meets girl, followed by baby.

It's important to note that the standard critique of the concept of "race" -- nobody can agree on their number, name, or precise constituents -- applies even more so to the concept of "extended family". Yet nobody doubts the reality of extended families.

Vince Sarich has rightly pointed out that races are what mathematicians call "fuzzy sets," which is not an insult these days: "fuzzy logic" is a booming field in mathematics and computer science. Nonetheless, I suggest that describing races to the average reader in terms of a cutting edge realm of mathematics is not a winning tactic. Instead, simply give the reader an analogy he can immediately understand: extended families. Everybody knows that extended families are fuzzy: the reader defines his own extended family more broadly when making up his Christmas card list than when thinking about who he'd donate a kidney to or hit up for a loan. That doesn't mean there is no biological reality underlying extended families. Everybody knows that their can be some social fictions in defining a family (many people dote on their adopted nephews as much as their biological ones), but they also understand that there are limits to social constructionism (most would dote more upon a nephew who was adopted into the family as a beguiling baby than as a pimply teenager). The absurdity of Diamond's putative Lactose Tolerant race is revealed by analogy to extended family. What response would I get if I sent the DuPont family Diamond's article and a letter pointing out that by analogizing from Diamond's logic, we could posit the existence of a Six-Letters-In-The-Last-Name Family to which both Dupont and Sailer belong, so therefore please cut me in on the family fortune?

Now the crucial step is point out that the reason extended families provide such perfect analogies for races is because they are actually the same thing. A RACE IS SIMPLY AN EXTREMELY EXTENDED FAMILY.

Why are extended families even fuzzier than races? Or, to put it another way, why are races more coherent, cohesive and longer lasting than extended families? The difference stems from the degree of outmarriage (exogamy). While extended families share a lot of genes (the next time you're looking at a picture of another Kennedy caught in a scandal, notice how much he looks like other Kennedys), their genetic distinctiveness fades back into the average for the general population with which they intermarry as you move outward to more distant relatives or you move forward or backward in time. The partial exceptions are extended families that intermarry heavily. The most famous examples are the crowned heads of Europe, who for the last two centuries or could reasonably be considered to be one clan. Among Europe's extended family of royals, inbreeding has kept traits like hemophilia, weak chins, and jug ears around longer and more abundantly than would be found in a family with a greater aversion against first cousins marrying.

Yet, as you extend the boundaries of the extended family farther and farther out, you typically find that they start turning in upon themselves. Most families down through history have married almost exclusively within some sort of population that's more restricted than the entire human species. Thus, while traits unique to a family fade with time (forward or backward) and outward to more distant relatives, a racial group's biological traits can remain quite stable over fairly long periods.

This of course doesn't mean that racial groups are permanent or immutable. It all depends on the degree of exogamy. Racial groups can change rather rapidly -- e.g.,Mexicans could be considered a reasonably distinct racial grouping that originated in 1519. California will possess a sizable population of Eurasians in the 21st Century.

Do the races actually differ genetically? Of course, they do -- by definition. If you have a group that's not defined by ancestry (e.g., Roman Catholics, left-handers, homosexuals, Hispanics, etc.), you don't have a racial group.

Do races differ enough genetically to matter practically? There is one small group of anthropologists who would answer "Of course". They are the forensic anthropologists, and they by far have the most down to earth, life or death responsibilities of all anthropologists. The police call them in when somebody finds a skeleton in the woods. The first step to identifying the dead person is to determine sex and race. In the U.S., at least, this is surprisingly easy.

In general, race plays a hugely important role in forensics. Eye-witness identifications of individual suspects are notoriously doubtful, yet their testimony about the race of the suspect they saw running away from the scene of the crime tends to be quite accurate and helpful. While many cultural anthropologists scoff that racial identifications are based purely on skin color, they're really based on the witness' gestalt of appearance. In our increasingly multiethnic society, average Americans are becoming more sophisticated about distinguishing by race and subrace. Consider four medium brown people: a typical African-American of 75% black, 25% white heritage; a dark Asian Indian; a dark Southeast Asian; and a dark Mexican. Few Americans who live in big cities would fail to distinguish the race of the African-American as being different from the others. I suspect that most of you reading this essay could in fact distinguish all four people and name the region their ancestors came from. (However, I would not expect the average American to be able to confidently distinguish African-Americans from, say, Australian aborigines, or, especially, certain Melanesians. However, that level of sophistication may well come about in future decades).

It's often said that most human biodiversity occurs between individuals within races, not between races. There is truth to this, but of course it differs by trait, by individual, and by racial grouping. For example, there is no variation at all among humans, racial or individual, in terms of the number of heads we have. Everybody gets one. At the other extreme, there is pervasive individual variation in fingerprints, yet fingerprints are close to useless for determining an individual's race. On the other hand, there is no overlap whatsoever in skin color between, say, the English and the Kalenjin of Kenya (albinos excepted). Most traits, however, show both individual variation and racial variation. Consider sprinting ability. There's lots of diversity within every group. Nonetheless, small average differences can have huge cumulative results -- that's why the man who owns the roulette wheel makes more money than the people who play it. If you still don't believe me, let's bet. You randomly pick 100 Mexican-American youths and I'll randomly pick 100 African-American youths, and I will bet you any amount of money you like that my guys will sprint faster on average over 100 meters than your guys. (In case you are wondering, up through 1997 of the 134 times humans had run 100m in less than 10 seconds, every single instance was accomplished by a man of West African descent.)

Clearly, the outer boundaries to out-marriage that define a racial group are not solid but probabilistic. An American of Norwegian descent is unlikely to have any black African ancestors in last 50 generations. In contrast, a Sicilian-American might well have some black ancestors. Geographic proximity matters. This truth has lead to the most rational assault on the concept of race, Ashley Montagu's "clinal variation" idea: the concept of race isn't useful because traits tend to vary incrementally across distances. There is some truth to this. The question is how much. Clinal variation would be a very useful model if the surface of the Earth resembled the Yucatan peninsula: dead flat, lacking in any kind of surface water, all limestone, and just generally featureless. In reality, Earth is covered with oceans, deserts, mountains, rivers, glaciers, and other natural boundaries. It would also improve the validity of the clinal model if human history -- conquests, migrations, enslavements, genocides, etc. -- had never happened. In general, reality tends to be lumpy. (This lumpiness extends all the way back to the Big Bang: if there hadn't been variations in density in the primal atom, the universe would be a thin, featureless broth today, rather resembling the clinal model on a cosmic scale.) Thus, areas where this clinal variation ought to exist (the Sahara, Central Asia, the Himalayas, the Atlantic Ocean, etc.) tend to be mostly unpopulated. In contrast, the places with the great big clumps of population (China, Europe, etc.) tend to be monoracial.

Consider clinal variation between black Africans and Southeast Asians. There'd be a lot of it except that the Indian Ocean gets in the way. In fact, there is one place where there is clinal variation between black Africans and Southeast Asians: Madagascar. But, this is an exception that proves the rule. Jared Diamond calls the ancient Malgasy settlement of Madagascar the most surprising fact in the history of geography. Or consider a place that's perfect for clinal variation: the Nile. As you go due south along the Blue Nile from the Mediterranean to Lake Victoria, as the sun climbs higher in the sky, clinal variation predicts that you should witness a smooth, harmonious, almost imperceptible change from light brown to very dark brown skins. Yet, if you've been the reading the foreign news for the last thirty years, you'll note there's been an almost nonstop civil war has gone on in the Sudan between the white northerners and the black southerners. So, even on the Nile, the elegant clinal model proves less realistic than the lumpy racial model.

Let me pause to suggest some terminology. "Race" is often used very broadly -- "the human race" vs. "the Irish race". Similarly, "family" is sometimes used very broadly: "the human family" or "the family of man." This vagueness can be salutary because it shows that there are no real hard and fast boundaries between races and families. However, I think it would be useful for descriptive purposes to generally refer to humanity as a "species" and to use "race" to refer to continental-scale genetic groupings. Australian-Papuans fill an entire continent and a huge island next door. Subsaharan Africans fill all but the northern fringe of the inhabitable ranges of Africa (I'll leave out the khoisan and pygmies for now). Whites or caucasians or whatever you want to call them inhabit the western half of Eurasia. East Asians inhabit the Eastern half. You can split East Asians into Northeastern Asians and Southeastern Asians, or lump them together. My reading of Cavalli-Sforza says either choice makes about the same amount of sense. Amerindians inhabit two continents, although you could also lump them with East Asians. So, while enumerating continental-scale races is not an exact process, and there are groups that don't fit this Big Picture, we probably don't have more than six continent-scale races. And if you lump like crazy and ignore the Australians, you can reasonably justify even the old-fashioned Negroid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid triad.

When referring to groups that are subsets of the continental scale races, I'd recommend "subraces. " The number of subraces is endless. Many might prefer "ethnic groups" to "subraces," as in Jews, Italians, Irish, English, Koreans, Japanese, and other groups that possess a fair degree of genetic distinctiveness, but don't monopolize anything close to a continent. The problem is that the term "ethnic group" comes with a lot of non-genetic baggage. For example, the U.S. government applies the term to all Spanish speaking people, no matter what their ancestry.

But isn't the example of Hispanics or Latinos a perfect illustration of the social construction of race? It's definitely a social construction of some sort (a language group?), but it's not a racial grouping. That the concepts of social constructs and genetic racial groups can complement each other is nicely shown by examining Latino baseball players. Baseball people think of major league baseball players as falling into three main groups: "whites", "blacks" (i.e., African-Americans), and "Latinos" (players who either speak Spanish or, arguably, come from a background of Spanish-speakers). Nobody ever lumps Spanish-speaking blacks with American blacks.

You see important cultural similarities among most Latin players, despite their coming from different nations and being comprised of three different ethnic groups in varying combinations: blacks like Sammy Sosa, whites like Jose Canseco, and Amerindians like Fernando Valenzuela, and various hybrids. Most notably, Latin ballplayers are usually free swingers: on average, they accept fewer bases on balls than white or African-American hitters. This tends to be true even of awesome sluggers like Sammy and Juan Gonzales. It seems reasonable to attribute the differences in number of walks between, say, black Dominicans and African-Americans to the Latin Caribbean's exuberant culture vs. the cult of cool that prevails among black Americans. So, this appears to be purely a cultural artifact, showing that the social construct model can provide useful predictions in this case.

On the other hand, despite cultural similarities, there are major differences in innate talent among Latin ballplayers that appear to follow ethnic lines: black Hispanic ballplayers have the best chance of making the big leagues, followed by black-white mixes, then white, with Mexican-Indians having the toughest time. The almost-all black Dominican Republic is the world's greatest producer of baseball talent, producing about 6 times as many major leaguers as baseball-mad Mexico, which has many times more people. The LA Dodgers' scout in Mexico, who is of course of Mexican descent himself, explained a few years ago that there were so few Mexican big leaguers because Mexicans tended to be slow and short because of short legs. (The only Mexican ballplayer to win a Cy Young or MVP is Fernando Valenzuela, who certainly relied more on brain, heart, coordination, and baseball-experience than on a perfect physique). The usual lynch mob started to form to get this scout, but then it dissipated because nobody could figure out exactly how to criticize what he said. In summary, racial biology seems to play a large role even in a field where almost no observers (except scouts) notices it.

Finally, many argue that there's no biological reality behind calling African-Americans "black" since most are some shade of brown, reflecting their mixed race heritage. The usual guesstimate is that African-Americans average about 25% white or Amerindian genes. While I was at UCLA I spent a lot of time hanging out with my Cameroonian friends, and I could soon reliably distinguish Africans from African-Americans by sight.

The theory of the social construction of blackness is particularly popular among intellectuals, in part because many famous black intellectuals are quite white in appearance (e.g., Lani Guinier looks like she was separated at birth from her identical twin Gilda Radner; also note Shelby Steele, August Wilson, W.E.B. Dubois, and the superb writer Jean Toomer; in contrast, my hero, Thomas Sowell is very dark).

Nonetheless, it is my observation that the vast majority of African-Americans appear to be no more than half white. Why is this? I think it stems from three social factors that were very powerful in American society until recently: the "one-drop" rule; the near absolute ban on black male-white female sexual relations; and the less onerous social aversion toward white male-black female relations, especially against interracial marriage.

I've been drawing hypothetical family trees to get some sense of what would have had to have happened in previous generations to lead to a current "black" being 3/4 white. The fewest number of interracial matings required is two: your parents and one pair of your grandparents. In the future this will not be uncommon, but until recently, it's been pretty unlikely -- there was just too much social (and often legal and extra-legal --e.g., lynchings) hostility against miscegenation for it too happen twice out of three couples.

Let's assume, however, that all the socially-defined miscegenation took place 4 and 5 generations ago in the 19th Century, and since then there have only been marriages among socially-defined "blacks." For you to end up as 3/4 white and 1/4 black, my crude model suggests that that would have required 4 of the 8 "marriages" among your great-great-grandparents to be miscegenations, and all 4 "marriages" among your great-grandparents to have been interracial. This combination strikes me as possible but very rare, consider the racial climate at the time. You can make up other family trees, but you'll find similar implications.

Also, keep in mind that the near-absolute ban on black male-white female couplings until recent decades means that 50% of the part black-part white individuals were locked out of almost any chance of mating with pure-whites.

Finally, since society and often the law frowned very heavily upon white male-black female marriages, and frowned upon white male-black female non-marital relations, I'd suspect that most of the interracial relationships produced only 1 or 2 children, in contrast to the 6 or 8 that were common in black-black marriages at the time.

All this suggests that mostly white "black" families would have tended to become blacker over time as they were most likely to mate with blacker blacks. This seems to explain why America has clearly distinct black and white populations, whereas Latin countries with different social rules have much more blended, less dichotomous racial groups. (I suspect that the difference is that white men in the slave sections of America tended to have enough white women around to provide them with the pleasures of family life, allowing them to focus on their pure white sons and ignore their half black sons. In contrast, the conquistadores tend to lack white wives, so they took paternal interest in their hybrid sons. If true, this could help explain why "half-breed" white/Indian hybrids were so much more socially accepted in America. For example, Winston Churchill's American grandmother was a major high society battleax, despite being the 1/4 Iroquois. On the frontier, white women were in short supply, so white men integrated their half-breed kids more into white society.

In summary, the concept of race appears to be a reasonable and useful one for helping us understand more about the reality of human existence.

Black Light of Illumination

Winds of Despair by Raquel Muñío

“Turning to the dark side to find spiritual experiences has been equivalent to damnation in the western monotheistic tradition, but if we look at religions with a less finite distinction between light and darkness we will find that the dark has also been viewed as a source of illumination.”

Thomas Karlson

                                       

The First Principle

"And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race."

Plato

Οψόμεθα Εις Φιλίππους

Marcus Junius Brutus murdered Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC. Plutarch famously reported that Brutus experienced a vision of a Julius Caesar's a few months before the battle. One night he saw a huge and shadowy form appearing in front of him; when he calmly asked, "What and whence art thou?" it answered "Thy evil spirit, Brutus: I shall see thee at Philippi." He again met the ghost the night before the battle. Indeed, there Brutus was defeated and because none of his comrades wanted to to kill him, despite his pleas, he committed suicide falling on his sword.

The Mysticism of Fate and the Free Will

                                                           James Giles (1801–1870)

"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery, you have health; when you destroy mystery, you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of today) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also."

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Joe Rowan – A fallen Brother who will never be forgotten

„It always hits the wrong ones and too early, anyway…“, Asatru sang it already on their first album and it couldn’t be more true than in the tragic case of Hammer Joe Rowan. His actions were selfless, marked by courage and a sense of duty, and his victim was unforgotten. Joe did this, for which many people would probably lack the courage. On a tragic night of fate, there was a clash with some blacks. Joe stood protecting his comrades and was shot cowardly by Naseer Ghani. Joe Rowan left behind his wife and child, unpunished the crime and the perpetrator still free. We would like to continue to honor this tamer man, with the kind permission of the former editor of Nordwind Magazine, we present this personal report about Joe Rowan Online. You have gone but never forgotten. Rest in peace, Joe Rowan!

On October 22, 1994, more than 11 years ago * „Hammer“ Joe Rowan was shot by a black man named Naseer Ghani. Some will no longer know the name Joe Rowan, some will still associate him with the band Nordic Thunder, others know about the tragic circumstances of his death, others he has become a legend.

* according to the time calculation at that time when this article was written.

There is a cover of tribute songs, news and also the annual Hammerfest in the USA is dedicated to him. And yet I would like to review his much too short life once again. This summary was written by Bob, the former bassist of Nordic Thunder, later Blue Eyed Devils and now Teardown:

I first met Joe when I was about 19. And in the three years we knew each other a good friendship developed. We were both members of the Hammerskin Nation and played together in Nordic Thunder. So we had a lot to do with each other. On the weekends he practically lived with us.

I have great memories of the numerous rehearsals with Nordic Thunder, The Voice and Aggravated Assault. We used to rehearse in my mother’s house, which regularly turned into a full weekend party. They were great parties, we were all good friends and we had a great time. Joe used to build up his portable tattoo and we always got stung by him afterwards. Everyone knew Joe and everyone who knew him loved him.

Joe was the ideal of an ideologically established skinhead. Fearless, having a level of knowledge and 100% dedicated to the cause. He was the driving force that united all local groups. He was a member of Eastern Hammer Skins (EHS) and Atlantic City Skinheads (ACS). He was also friends with many other groups and organizations. And when there were differences between the groups, Joe was always the reassuring link.

The weekend parties were attended by comrades from EHS, ACS, Delaware Crew, Pensylvania Skins and many others and there were rarely problems. Joe was definitely the common factor that was quickly noticed after his death. The whole unity and camaraderie broke apart afterwards. The groups started with their old rivalries and the gang mentality started again.

Joe never believed in this superficial cheese between the various groups and I remember that he took sides in disputes at concerts between different groups. He knew that the real enemy was outside our movement and strongly condemned quarrels and struggles within, between like-minded people. It is shameful to see today how quarrels and envy rule.

Joe was always loyal to the cause and his friends. But he was also full of life. He was the entertainer at every party, extremely funny and thrilling. You never had a bad time with Joe. He always made jokes and was always able to get the best out of a bad situation. This made it very difficult for us to cope with his death. Such a joyful person, generous and friendly did not deserve to be ripped out of life so early. The old cliché is unfortunately very true: „Only the best die young“.

Besides his friendly nature he was also a great singer. He was a natural talent. I was in many bands and Joe was by far the most tarnished for singing. He knew music very well and knew a lot of different bands. He preferred the old XX Oi bands.

He often started singing the French stuff out loud and we thought he was crazy. But he had a sense for melody. He had a natural talent for singing and his own style. He just knew how to sing. After some practice I can say without reservations that he was the best.

But he was not the original singer of Nordic Thunder. My brother and I had formed the band a year before. We were dissatisfied with the original singers and were looking for a better replacement. We were members of the EHS in Baltimore and he belonged to the EHS Chapter in Philadelphia. Through this connection we met Joe and so our great time and good music began. With Nordic Thunder we released 2 full CDs. Of all these tracks Joe only wrote the lyrics to „Cold hard facts“. Therefore it makes this song something special. He wrote this lyric after being arrested for illegal possession of weapons and facing trial in Delaware. He was imprisoned for a month or two and wrote this lyric during that time. We started recording for the new Nordic Thunder in the summer of 94, which would later be called F**** S****. When he was murdered, we were still recording the disc and hadn’t agreed on a name yet.

Joe was murdered on 01 October 1994, just 22 years old. I was not present when he died. I heard all the stories. At a supermarket it came to disputes between some skinheads and some blacks. One of the blacks then pulled a small caliber gun and started shooting. Everyone tried to move into cover. So did Joe, who got a bullet in his back. I heard that daß´er died immediately.

How could one die by the shot of a small caliber weapon? It looks like Odin, God or whoever considered Joe too good for this world and took him to himself.

Of course, Joe wasn’t free of mistakes either. He was a human being and therefore he was not perfect. But the way he behaved and his behavior outweighed every dark side. It was a huge shock to hear of his death. The thought of losing someone so extremely valuable and energetic was unbearable. The funeral was very depressing. At least 100 comrades and his family came. The ceremony was full of grief. Joe’s influence on my life was so enormous and his death such a drastic experience that I sometimes dream of him even today. Listening to Nordic Thunder, and especially „Cold hard facts“ still triggers strong emotions in me today.

He was a very important figure in my life and he was an even more important person for our cause. I never met anyone like him again. He was always loyal and it was a pleasure to have him around. The people who never had the chance to meet him can believe me when I say that he was a great person.

He was really a unique personality and his death made him a martyr for our cause. He gave his life in a fight against enemies of our nation. He had values, honor and loyalty like few others in our movement. Although he was not the greatest or strongest, he did not avoid any struggle. He stood against the system and fought every day for his faith. The thing lost on 01 October 1994 an extraordinary person.

http://www.frontmagazin.de/