Current wants or desires can easily be changed by media manipulation. By classical conditioning, you can change basic wants ridiculously — like Pavlov making dogs salivate to a bell instead of food. What people think they want is often illusion (another theme of religions too) and a result of manipulation, fads, or fashion which are meaningless. Understanding core interests, i.e. “welfare interests”, the timeless ground of the soul, can stop the twisting of our best impulses by the conditioners and manipulators. Understanding genetic interests is one way to do this.

Only by learning and honing your mind, understanding things like evolution, can you break free. With objective knowledge you can wake up from these forces and see your real wants and needs — those things in your true best interests. You can throw off conditioning with some effort and see clearly if you have made solid ground to stand on in your mind. Isn’t that precisely what truly separates us from animals?

Genetics and eugenics is the purest, highest religion in this sense. The purest and highest impulse of civilization. It is the epitome and manna of science and heaven. All these things go together. To say our genetic interests are wrong is to 1) deny life itself, 2) deny freedom, and to 3) especially deny being human. Since every side in conflicts thinks they are right, we can only get at who is really morally right by understanding how the world works and who we are and how we got here objectively from the evidence — beyond the ebb and flow of selfish wants and manipulations. Incidentally, that is how our court systems work. It is the foundation of justice. To say we should only pay attention to such selfish desire is nonsense. We need objective assessments of universal, real, and timeless interests. Never trust anyone who is against eugenics, or objective knowledge. They have something to hide. People and civilizations are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

It sounds like that entire book is manipulation masquerading as balance. Most critiques of early racial science try to say the motives were important. They want to say that they simply wanted to show they were superior back then rather than trying to find the truth. They get it wrong in pushing this view on purpose, I think — because of politics. All western science is marked by it’s objectivity. It is quite obvious to anyone with only cursory attention to history that the white race has been quite creative and superior in many things. They were trying to find out why objectively, and they knew it had something to do with biology.

It’s like when Chemistry had it’s beginnings in alchemy — they were wrong a lot back then, but they knew there were great truths there so they kept at it. All science is like that. There is the kernel of truth, and we try to hone it down to a science. Think Mendel’s pre-DNA bean plants VS knowledge of DNA and the modern genome project. We know this is how objective science works, it is obvious. So why do those who want to banish ideas of race from public view constantly go back to earlier flawed racial science to try to discredit it? For the same reason you might go back to early alchemy to discredit chemistry — ULTERIOR, NON-OBJECTIVE, motives!! Stephen Jay Gould did the same thing with his citation of early craniometric studies, etc. This book tries to say that both sides were politically-driven and that’s all we need to know, except this itself is a politically-correct attempt to confuse the issue. There IS objective science, and the idea of race is important and sound — maybe the MOST important concept of all time and the real focus of all science. Nice try.

Ah yes, the “Israeli Water Engineer” – who posts as “J” on various blogs, including “Majority Rights” as well as “Mangans.”

I note that despite not having any significant content-wise problem with my “formulation” he delves into two particularly stupid examples of ad hominem – the family formation “criticism” as well as Levantine psychobabble about “envy.”

This is to be expected from a Near Eastern Asiatic, whose bizarre Oriental mindset is foreign to Western traditions of empiricism and logical debate.

Let’s look at each “criticism” in turn.

Certainly, the low white birthrate is a problem, but it is primarily a problem because whites are forced to compete in the same polity with faster-breeding minorities (*) as well as being subjected to replacement immigration. The solution to weathering the demographic transition is to protect the people from demographic competition, not by forcing whites to attempt to outbreed r-selected non-whites (**), a contest whites will undoubtedly lose. Birthrates alone are not the problem, birthrates coupled with multiracialism and immigration are the problems. Population size changes can level out and be reversed, but only if population replacement can be avoided.

*Certainly, Israelis must be aware of this problem with their own fast-breeding Palestinian minority. Granted, Jews and Arabs are genetically and culturally very close; however, they still identify as different peoples competing for the same territory. Therefore, it is imperative for guys like “J” to do their part and have ten children on welfare. However, given the phenotypic realities of J’s female co-ethnics, it is understandable if Israeli men have problems performing and instead prefer to expend their vital energies with Eastern European women tricked into coming to Israel and forced into prostitution by J’s racist and goy-hating co-ethnics. Full separation of the Jewish and Arab populations seems to be a more sustainable solution.

**No doubt it would be beneficial to certain market-dominant minorities at the top of the human energy pyramid if American whites would adopt “J’s” advice to become welfare-addicted, r-selected, non-racist family formers, rather than combining sustainable family formation with biocultural homogeneity. A dumbed down, “sweet” and “non-racist” mass of social welfare whites makes a good serf class, does it not?

The stupidity about envy is particularly ridiculous, as any substantial disagreement on policy can always be attributed to “envy.” Dislike the war in Iraq? You are envious of George W. Bush. Against “health care reform?” You are envious of Barack Obama. You are just a stupid “hater!”

The pot calling the kettle black perhaps, Mr. J?

It’s funny. When I was in the Phillipines I met several Chinese Philipinos. They were, of course, 100% ethnically Chinese. Not once in a hundred years of occupation did any cases of miscegenation happen. And nobody ever called it racist. But add Jews to the mix, I’d give them 30 years before the Chinese are infested with mulattos and half-Philipinos and other half-castes.

Crazed Middle Easterners killing other Middle Easterners.

http://www.h2oreuse.blogspot.com/2010/01/ted-sallis-accuses-malik-of.html

Makes a lot of sense. If you are a pro-white activist, you are not serious unless you have ten children and agitate for social welfare programs. The fact that someone involved in the political process can potentially influence policies involving millions of people means nothing. Unless you have ten children like a Mormon – and be sweetly “non-racist” to boot – you are not serious.

Typically Asiatic is this non-white Middle Easterner’s assertion that critique of Malik – even criticism that the non-white Middle Easterner agrees is a reasonable formulation – is motivated by envy of the successful Malik. It’s all “pathology” don’t you know, after all, the non-white, Middle Eastern Frankfurt School types say so!

Hey! Is the Israeli Water Engineer’s criticism of Sallis itself motivated by jealousy? Certainly, any animus toward, say, the President of Iran by “Israeli Engineers” must be motivated by envy as well! We certainly cannot assume that Israeli hostility to foreign leaders who profess hatred toward Israel can be anything other than envy, can we? And if Malik promotes ideas poisonous to whites, why, any critique of that must, must, must be motivated by envy!

Since “Israeli Water Engineers” allegedly have high IQs, I am not sure what is so mystifying about:

It is too easy for people to dismiss unwelcome ideas by stating that the promoter of those ideas has “committed the XYZ fallacy,” thus ending debate on the topic.

Kenan Malik and other “One World, One Love” left-wing whackos like him are far from the only ones who believe in this kind of nonsense. Corporate advertisers promote this same ideology. One of the reasons (maybe even the most important one) why left-wing “culturalism” has triumphed in the West is because it fits so well with capitalism. It acts a sort of decertification of reason. People are duped into believing that they are making “rational” and “informed” choices when the exact opposite is the case. Under the present regime ordinary White people are being forced to make irrational and uninformed choices about almost everything from what brand of laundry detergent they buy to how they “think” about race relations.

I agree with this, it is more preferable to be empathetic and explain why this is wrong and then ask what he really meant. However, there is a slight imbalance, to use an understatement, in the debate today for the media and its leaders are not interested in truth, rational arguments and similar things that we expect of a debate.

They wish to mass produce their statements everywhere and do not wish a debate to reach an agreement, rational conclusion or anything that was formerly considered civilized. They only wish to stomp down their monstrosities in your throat and if you do not agree you are a “hater.” Hence, by pure man power shortage and shortage of time we in the opposition have to be hard and sometimes pick the easy way of pointing out fallacy XYZ.

However foolish it may appear to those who’ve studied the data, left racists use hasty generalization (without calling it such) to keep environmentalism alive. And the ecological fallacy is invoked to discredit normal behavioural responses to non-Whites. Almost anything can be labelled a fallacy of some sort. If system propaganda backs it up, the average person will accept it.

Good, let him do this in his own backward, third world country!

Don’t come here and mess up ours out of your overwhelming sense of inadequacy and envy.

Remember to all you third worlders and your lackeys: Once a host is killed, the PARASITE dies along with it.

Pretty much says it all on the motives and motivation of this non-European ‘vampire’!

This article of yours is another in a string of proverbial ‘out of the park’ homeruns.

Fantastic job, Ted!