Modern anthropologists and social ‘scientists’ widely deny the existence of race. The reasons they give for this are varied, but the end result is, and is clearly desired to be, the same: an emotional, fearful hesitancy to use a word which is understood to be proscribed. And this fearfulness, this hesitancy, which in itself has very little to do with concern for what is factual, is a part of and contributes to the destruction of awareness of and pride in one’s people which has occurred in the West during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
The evidence is clear in the ubiquitous papers, conferences, and proclamations by academic associations: conceptual clarity is something which is, if it is given mind to, utilised in service of the propagation of an ethos. The majority of such papers and proclamations, as exampled by the American Association of Physical Anthropologist’s joint statement, are headed by and concluded with obvious admissions of intent: to undermine what is felt to be a dangerous and immoral concept. To combat ‘discrimination’ and affect the formation of public policy.
It is, in a sense, unfair to dismiss individual conceptual claims by their association with a cultural movement– but the existence of that movement is itself demonstrated by the proliferation of such claims, with the varied accuracy of aspects of the arguments they utilise and their lack of a shared conceptual basis, and by the way that the discourse is dominated by clearly political sentiments. Here, more than anywhere else, you will find anthropologists strategising about altering the thoughts of the layman. Here, you will find outright polemics against those who continue to use the word. Here, you will find an academic discourse shackled by embarrassment and spurred by the cowardice and desire for prestige that so many scholars are subject to.
In The Concept of Race, Ashley Montague claims that a word’s meaning is defined by its effects. He uses this as a justification for scorning all those who continue to talk of race, or who seek to propose subtler or more accurate conceptions of it than those which are, in the literature, attacked and undermined. Race is thus identified with its usage in either decades old or non-academic contexts– and, as anybody familiar with modern academic should recognise, almost any statement in such contexts is, at least by their standards, vulnerable to the endless conceptual sub-division and re-division and re-contextualising and definition-out-of-existence of modern scholars. The effect of this though– that is, the particular word and way of thinking that is targeted– is something which was set in motion by concerns outside of that conceptual, perpetually dialectical process. And which uses it towards something else.
An instance of that something else can be observed in the changes in the make-up of the English population, and the changes in what it is like to live in England amongst the other people living there, in recent decades. The academic denial of race has contributed to the creation of a situation in which nothing which could be called race really persists, or has any strong prospect for doing so: London is a foreign city, our institutions our not our institutions, and that subtle balance and mutual, unspoken uniqueness of culture which could persist in previous conditions is decimated by the admixture that, particularly in major cities, now prevails.
The academic contribution to this, practically, has been in affecting or supporting politicians and creating a sense of false objectivity and self-checking in the people, both of which allowed the practical decimation of a culture by the numbness and lack of racial vitality which concepts and corrupted intellectual authorities helped to impose. The effect of this has been to allow national and global social structures and norms to come into being which de-emphasise any people’s culture or way of being, and which in particular deny White peoples– easily manipulated as they seem to be by such abstract concepts– the ability to exist as a living folk. Practically, and regardless of conceptual errors involved in its particular descriptions, race did exist as a tangible reality– but the sense of unity which went with that existence, which helped make of a people with whatever long-grown genetic and cultural factors were in play, no longer exists. What exists, in Britain and in America, is a de-vitalised, conceptually crippled remnant which has little hope of re-instating an existence for itself such as it once had, which was made possible by epochal spans of history and development relatively independent from the factors– the other races, and admixture, and global socio-political structures– which are now homogenising it and– there is no other word– making it impure.
The assault upon our concepts– the purging of the means through which vital collective instincts were maintained– may sometimes claim conceptual precision as its motivation, but the layman is again not involved in that process, and is ultimately, practically, subject only to propagandistic manipulation from those who live by conceptual divisions, and who he has little hope of realistically challenging. The unconsidered emotional and reflexive reactions which once maintained are now crippled, or, even, manipulated into being automatically and reflexively racially self-destructive.
Social ‘scientists’ attack a concept they refuse to allow to evolve and develop: they assume that nobody who had a racial sense could admit of the complexity and flux and admixtures which are involved in racial history. Or they assert this complexity and the lack of totally clear, totally delimited categories which our genetic history involves. They attack a stereotype in a way which they could not if it were not for the cultural pressures which prevent any uninhibited response or defence from occurring.
Our peoples go on largely unaware of their plight, their destruction, what they have lost. They are the mutated components of an infected, etiolated super-organism. And their own academia, their own thought– with help, admittedly, from numerous Jewish writers, such as Franz Boas (who initiated the modern anthropological attitude towards race)– has been and is a primary agent in the process of undermining their vital instincts and making them confused, uncaring, or blindly accepting enough to march on towards a practical change in their practical way of life and what they as a daily reality are.
In thrall to these temporary, abstract ideas, they go on, destroying a greater life and individually transcendent being they have failed to see the value of, knowing not where it is they are really departing from, and as the primary agents of their own destruction. Perhaps our race has a death wish. Those of us who do not need to form pure and independent tribal communities, maintained across generations, which teach their members what has been done, which implement traditions designed to reverse and prevent its influences within themselves, and which preserve. Not necessarily because we do not appreciate others– but because we recognise that what we and our ancestors represent is precious, and must be maintained practically. When the system we must hide from totters– then, we can flourish once again.