“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
— John Swinton, preeminent New York journalist, at a press banquet, 1880.
Journalism is, for the most part, a dead, bastardized profession — no longer is it about holding power to account and keeping the public duly informed.
The line between journalism — traditionally, the dispassionate reporting of facts — and outright partisanship, whether knowingly or not, seems blurrier than ever.
As it has been for over a century since the dawn of Yellow Journalism — Journalists are answerable to a preset story selection process, funneled into news material that staunchly avoids controversy, instead exalting vague, generalized, and often trivial topics as “newsworthy”, over ones that could be “defamatory” or be deemed “too risky” to report on.
Today, Journalists espouse prepackaged, fence-sitting, irresolute propaganda that shuns the devil hiding in the details — with production mostly marketed towards the lowest common denominator; opting for simplified language, generalized explanations, and an inability to come to conclusions and actually analyze and inform rather than simply describe and commentate.
Journalism is branded as a “risky business” to deter maverick Journalism.
A high-stakes, red tape laden “minefield” mentality is hammered into every Journalist hopeful in an attempt to extinguish the curious spark that fuels the real investigative and analytical Journalism that we all need more of.
They would rather you play it safe and not “lose your job by getting it wrong”.
The result is tame media content that is vague, tiptoes, and is fearful of causing grief or insult, this is a known form of information suppression.
Today’s Journalism is a Journalism of mouthpieces, built on the ugly clutches of fear and dependency, today’s Journalism is intellectual prostitution.
The best Journalism has always come from dissidents, this is because the very basis of Journalism is dissent itself. The stranglehold of ‘professionalism’ has made journalists oblivious to the compromises with authority they are constantly making.
It has also ensured that many readers remain oblivious to the same compromises.
“The New York Times is the house organ of the Establishment. It is committed, both editorially and in its presentation of the news, to the interests of an Establishment: continuity, security and legitimacy. Therefore they generally support business and finance, the American version of empire, the government and the president, until, and unless, some excess is so egregious that it poses a threat to continuity, security or legitimacy.”
— Larry Beinhart, American author.
And just like ‘terrorism’, it turns out that ‘advocacy journalism’ is a sin committed only by opponents of established power, as the income dependency blind spot of mainstream Journalists taints the media pool for everyone:
This is especially so with the recent ‘fake news’ outcry slanting solely alternative “conspiracy” media outlets, while hypocritically ignoring the overwhelming globalist advocacy of the mainstream press.
“The major Western news outlets now conflate the discrete difficulties from made-up ‘fake news’ and baseless ‘conspiracy theories’ with responsible dissenting analysis,” he wrote. “All get thrown into the same pot and subjected to disdain and ridicule.”
— Robert Parry, American investigative journalist.
Mainstream Journalism education produces willing and committed establishment mouthpieces that don’t know the Emperor has no clothes.
The backgrounds of journalists who repeatedly and suspiciously repeat talking-points usually reveals a similar and extensive “resume” of mainstream indoctrination, it’s a common observable pattern, not to mention media outlets hiring left-leaning individuals over right-leaning ones; those with the liberal suitability that makes them easier to adopt, and get behind the agenda of the outlet.
Principles held by mainstream Journalists are often features of indoctrinated enslavement that have become too doctrinally familiarized to eschew.
Western media is directly and indirectly promoting Western imperialism.
Like the sons of chiefs in Britannia, foreign journalists serving Western media branches, i.e. Al Jazeera, probably have honestly convinced themselves that these features of control and manipulation are instead the “novelties of civilization.”
International Journalism acts as cultural imperialism for Western corporate interests.
Today, a “softer” version of imperialism is disseminated under the guise of journalism and academia.
This kind of imperialism was present in the elite-owned British Empire, when education and missionary programs were created to replace independent and unique local perspectives and culture with the uniform perspective and culture of Britain, serving British aspirations of global hegemony.
It sought to transform indigenous communities into imperial archetypes of civility and modernity by re-modelling the individual, the community, and the state through western, Christian philosophies that encouraged uniformity to the Empire and smoothed the aggravations of cultural and ideological acclimatization.
“We have few princes and earls today, but we surely have their modern-day equivalents in the very wealthy who seek to manage the news, make unsavoury facts disappear and elect representatives who are in service to their own economic and social agenda… The “free press” is no longer a check on power. It has instead become part of the power apparatus itself. And this is dangerous.”
— Dan Rather, American Journalist.
Today’s globalization takes these “soft” imperialist social engineering strategies to a new and unprecedented level, to push a cultural-Marxist deconstruction of foreign and domestic systems and entities that threaten globalism:
Today we have a large variety of truths: truths for feminists, truths for blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, homosexuals, trans-gendered, truths for the foreign policy community that serves the military/security complex, truths for the neocons, truths for the One Percent that control the economy and the economists who serve them, truths for “white supremacists,” itself a truth term for their opponents. You can add to the list. The “truth” in these “truths” is that they are self-serving of the group that expresses them. Their actual relation to truth is of no consequence to those espousing the “truths.”
Weaponized academia: A Journalist’s mainstream education focuses on these toxic tenets:
Be risk averse, play it safe, do what you are told: The profession of Journalism is risky, you should always have somebody’s reputation and the legal ramifications of any given story in the forefront of your mind (rather than advocacy of the truth); it is far easier to report on less controversial stories, and we encourage you to do so by providing you with safe, easy stories. Be very scared of the government being instrumental in locking up journalists for the crime of exposing the establishment, but hopefully you will be too loyal to the establishment to figure out that it is worth exposing.
Become an ideologue: Conspiracy and alternative media is “fake news”, and should be shunned and rallied against without question, do otherwise and you are a dunce that isn’t worthy of being a Journalist. Accept other traditionally held mainstream media ideas such as the Russia bogeyman scare.
Be unquestioningly loyal to us: You should unquestionably trust our establishment-owned Associated Press and other mainstream outlets as the best sources, we encourage you to work for them and use them as reference points in your research because they are “unbiased”.
Cultural indoctrination: Hatred of the West and its “privileged”, colonial native population must be at the forefront of your Journalistic philosophy and ethical advocacy, else you are an immoral Journalist.
Get used to doing it our way: Your stories and original content will be screened before its publication by a left-leaning, agenda-driven editor who will likely reject anything they and their masters disapprove of, so just save yourself the effort and produce propaganda for us otherwise you will not make it in this field. Accept the limits and compromises of corporate media that will inhibit you as a Journalist and become another “Repeater” Journalist.
Normalization of media tyranny: Everything we have taught you is how the industry has always been and always will be, it’s automatically the “best formula” because you’ve been taught by “professionals” who “know everything” about the industry — so yield, accept our compartmentalization and take up the standard of sell-out doctrinaire.
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion describes the elite’s intentions for weaponized education:
“We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order.”
We shall turn them into “unthinking submissive brutes waiting for things to be presented before their eyes in order to form an idea of them…”
“We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us…”
“Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism…. it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim. ” (Protocol 2)
Let me remind you of a passage from a 1930’s Communist manual on brainwashing. “In the United States, we have been able to alter the works of William James, and others, …and to place the tenets of Karl Marx, Pavlov, Lamarck, and the data of Dialectic Materialism into the textbooks of psychology, to such a degree that anyone thoroughly studying psychology becomes at once a candidate to accept the reasonableness of Communism.”
We can look at the Reuters fellowship program and see news organisations like Thompson Reuters, the BBC, The Economist and The Guardian are held up as “examples” of journalism.
This is despite their active manipulation of information toward particular political objectives rather than accurately informing the public.
In particular, these news services played crucial roles in promoting wars like the US-UK led invasion of Iraq in 2003, intentionally obfuscating critical information the public and policymakers required to make an honest assessment of the decision to go to war.
The BBC in particular has been embroiled in impropriety ranging from deceptive news coverage to paid-for documentaries and even criminal conduct committed by individuals, and covered up institutionally.
What isn’t taught in mainstream Journalistic education is corporate partisanship and the dangerously ever-centralizing state of major media organisations:
The elites are buying out the competition at an alarming rate, you may see many faces of the media, but behind it all there are only a few owners.
“The American media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government. The function of the “mainstream media” is to sell products and to brainwash the audience for the government and interest groups.”
— Paul Craig Roberts, American economist, journalist, blogger, and former civil servant.
Race relations is one of the biggest globalist social engineering efforts of the past fifty to sixty years, race has constantly been taken out of context and called an ‘issue of skin color’ by the race propagandists; civil rights figures fought the ‘good fight’, while the opposition; always equated to ‘racist extremists’; were the ‘baddies’.
I will open with two powerful quotes:
“We need to get rid of our liberal preconceptions. Men are not born equal, this is something which has not yet got through to the politicians, and it is by no means clear that all races are equally gifted.”
— Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA
“All the evidence to date suggests the strong and indeed overwhelming importance of genetic factors in producing the great variety of intellectual differences which we observe in our culture, and much of the differences observed between racial groups.”
— Hans Eysenck, Professor of Psychology at London University
In a survey from 1985 only 16% of biologists and 36% of educational psychologists disagreed with the statement “There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens“.[88]
The two main sides to the race argument (from Metapedia):
‘Race realists’ view race as a natural phenomenon to be observed, studied, and explained. They believe the human race is a valid biological concept, similar to sub-species or breeds or strains.
On the other side, those I term the hermeneusticists view “race” as an epiphenomenon, (like gender as opposed to “sex”) a mere social construction, with political and economic forces as the real causal agents. Rather than actually research race, hermeneuticists research those who study race.
The race-realist approach is empirical and employs a myriad of scientific methodologies, including surveys, social demography, IQ and personality tests, and behavior genetic analyses (e.g. twin studies).
The hermeneutical approach relies on textual, historical, and political analysis. The race-realist viewpoint is descriptive, explanatory, and typically avoids prescribing policy. Because the hermeneutical viewpoint sees inexorable links between theory and practice, its writings are often prescriptive and assume an advocacy position.
To their opponents, the race-realist approach comes across as cold, detached, and suspect of hiding a “racist” agenda. Hermeneuticists appear to race-realists as muddled, heated, and ideologically committed to an anti-racist activism.
Scientific race realism is not racist. Racism requires hatred. So the belief that some races are better than others is not racist: it is simply the scientific truth.
This article will put race into scientific context and expand on the deliberately suppressed and underrepresented information surrounding the topic.
Globalist migrant agenda (numerical IQ): high net movement from r-selection, low IQ regions to K-selection high IQ regions will spell disaster for the integrity of liberty-oriented Western civilization, lowering the (human development index) HDI and thus creating a more docile, controllable population.
These numbers came from a work carried out from 2002 to 2006 by Richard Lynn, a British Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish Professor of Political Science, who conducted IQ studies in more than 80 countries.
Richard Dawkins, ethologist & evolutionary biologist on the topic of racial classification:
“However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.”
— Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale
"Social construct"? Forget it. Race is biologically real. But it's irrelevant to anything that matters. We're all HUMAN.
Yes, we’re all human, we must love one another, but that should not stop us accepting our biodiversity as something to be seriously taken into consideration.
The weakest of us should not be arbitrarily ‘represented’ as the best of us against all natural authority; that isn’t wise or meritocratic, it is dangerously delusional.
Research on ethnic heterogeneity has found that divided societies have numerous and severe problems.
It is sometimes argued that “race is just skin deep“. This diagram from a 2011 study shows how much three populations (from Africa, East Asia, and Europe) differ genetically from one another (according to the genetic measure used) and regarding gene groups with different functions. Red lines (additions to the original image) mark gene groups stated to be involved in pigmentation, hair development, and skeletal development (physical appearance). There are numerous other gene groups including many involved in the nervous system or potentially involved in the nervous system (including the brain). The gene group showing the largest population differences was involved in pituitary gland development. The pituitary gland is the part of the brain which controls the hormone system which has many effects on the whole body (including the brain itself).[8]Lifetime risk of incarceration for different racial groups in the United States. The lifetime risk for Black males is around 1/3. The relationship between race and crime is one example of a topic where many important aspects are not covered in mainstream sources.Past and predicted future population numbers 1950-2100. One issue relevant to White demographics with Whites quickly becoming minorities worldwide.
What we have in modern times is forced redistribution of resources to lower IQ groups, allowing them to r-selectively breed, this drags the whole of society down, benefiting only the rich Jewish oligarchs who stand to gain from the weakness of a genetically decaying population.
The human racial differential phenomenon.
On the other hand, if this natural selective process is allowed to act out on its own, certain racial groups, depending on the extent of their differences, will, on the whole, remain separated.
What is naturally effective will be represented accordingly, what is not naturally effective will not be represented, this is not racism as we’ve been told (i.e. whites being more wealthy and better represented), this is natural selection in action, without it, the human race, and civilization, would simply not survive.
This natural segregation phenomenon is being deliberately suppressed, multicultural societies are mainly living apart (with bell curve to be accounted for), this truth is being kept from you.
Groups of people with similar IQ levels are able to integrate, hence why many east Asians are able to perfectly integrate in the West, as the IQ point difference increases it drops down to just assimilation, and then finally full segregation.
The fact that there are no culturally divided societies that are even remotely like the multicultural harmonious utopia we are being sold should cause concern (but is instead ignored).
“This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.” ― Angela Merkel
Segregation – Different cultures are kept separate from one another.
Assimilation – Minority cultures adopt the culture of the majority.
Integration – All cultures blend into a common culture. Sometimes described as a melting pot.
Multiculturalism assumes there are no important biological forces keeping different groups set apart. It envisions a world where all cultures live in peace and unity, and it is possible to experience other cultures the same as own’s own. Opponents hold this is an impossible fantasy that leads to alienation and anomie, especially when different ethnic groups are together.
Historical observances: most historical, non-socialist empires having many cultures have if anything practiced extensive self-segregation. The different cultures are usually allowed very extensive autonomy to manage their own affairs (including having separate law systems) as long as they pay taxes to the empire. The different groups to a large degree self-segregate from one another in the empire.
For example, in modern day Britain, Islamic migrants have evidently not integrated or even assimilated to the presiding Western culture. What underpins this is a combination of genetic, social, and environmental factors.
Results from various surveys in Britain on British Muslims have been described as stating that:
62% do not believe in the protection of free speech.
58% believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution.
68% support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
61% want homosexuality punished.
only 7% think of themselves as British first (81% say ‘Muslim’ rather than ‘Briton’).
31% identify more with Muslims in other countries than with non-Muslim Brits.
11% find violence for political ends acceptable.
up to 52% believe a Muslim man is entitled to up to four wives.
51% believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian’s consent.
1 in 10 support killing a family member over “dishonor”.
1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that ‘honor’ violence is acceptable.
28% want Britain to be an Islamic state.
40% want sharia in the UK.
40% of British Muslim students want sharia.]
On the other hand, the native population feels as follows:
A 2017 US survey found that is asked if the United States was “losing its culture and identity,” 55% of respondents said yes, with 68% of white working class Americans feeling that way. Almost half (48%) of white working class Americans also feel that “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country,” while 62% believe that immigrants arriving from other countries threaten American culture.
A 2017 UK survey found that 56% believe that local culture was threatened by ethnic minorities.
Research on biological/genetic mechanisms related to racial genetic interests has found that different groups tend to feel more empathy for and favor their own group which makes group conflict very difficult to avoid. This research also implies that assimilation/integration may not work unless the different groups are genetically similar. Thus, the different immigrant European groups to the United States could be assimilated/integrated but this may not work with immigrant groups that are more genetically different.
Stefan Molyneux elaborates as to why this racial segregation phenomenon occurs:
Other leading sources on race realism:
David Duke,
Steve Sailer,
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance,
J Philippe Rushton of the Pioneer Fund,
Charles Murray of “The Bell Curve”,
HBDers, the scientific wing of race realism. If race is a fact of nature, then it can and should be studied by science.
Also see:
Al-Andalus – Lacking any good example of a current multicultural utopia, supporters of multiculturalism have instead often claimed that Al-Andalus (medieval Islamic Iberia) was one, before being destroyed by White Christians.
Globalist cultural-Marxism is a method of undermining the success of natural systems of genetic selection, et al, for personal gain.
Cultural Marxism: the gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble everything under the Globalist model for world governance.
Race manipulation is just one part of this agenda, in this article I will focus on ‘race realism’ and genetic engineering as a powerful tool for population control.
Anti-meritocratic minority representation.
Anti-white minority ‘representation’ is afoot across school, media, professional, and political spheres.
ITV’s ‘Peston on Sunday Show’ was also found guilty of anti-white job advertisement.
They want to exalt desirable minorities and repress undesirable whites.
Minorities are grossly over-represented, while ‘white guilt’ and other cultural-Marxist social engineering ploys have been used to destroy the order-based western mindset and genotype, replacing it with the chaos-based third world mindset and genotype as a methodology for dysgenic population control.
Minority representation is a deliberate illusion.
The <1% remains majority white Ashkenazi Jews; nothing changes for them, yet everything changes for the population they want to control.
This graph gives a general idea for the race power index, although this is based on mainstream rich lists, not taking into account numerous Ashkenazi Jewish trillionaires, i.e. Rockefellers and Rothschilds.
By ‘representing’ minorities in high-earning and highly regarded roles as a ‘progressive’ social justice statement in a ‘post racial’ world, those in control gain more obedience, and create yet more popular acceptance for mass-migration and multiracial societies. Meanwhile, they still hold onto the real seats of power; having given away mere symbols of power, and not substantial power.
Average vs. extreme groups differences.
Another point is that only looking at average differences between groups may be misleading. Many characteristics that are influenced by many factors (like by many genes) will (due to the “central limit theorem”) have a “normal distribution” (a “bell curve” distribution). However, a characteristic of this distribution is that differences will be amplified at the extremes. Thus, group differences will be more pronounced at extreme values than they are at more average values. In practice, this means that racial differences will be more pronounced at extreme values (such as at extreme IQ values). Furthermore, in some situations these extreme groups may be particularly important. For example, it may be extreme rather than average persons that make most inventions. Thus, only looking at average group differences may in some situations be misleading.
Hiding the genetic ceiling with the glass ceiling.
Nothing changes at the very top of the hierarchy, but the general public are led to believe that the future is ‘minorities in high places’, i.e. Barack Obama, Sadiq Khan and so on, that minority groups were held back by a social glass ceiling, rather than a biological genetic one.
The Globalists have intentionally undermined natural selectivity, because they control corporate forces that are powerful and influential enough to overwrite the natural order that has ruled for so long and stood in the way of controlling populations.
Now they drive the direction of humanity’s genetic future, by rewriting the human genetic and epigenetic DNA they can pull the biological strings of the human race at their will.
Their false racial paradigm was and continues to be drilled deep into the minds of new generations to indoctrinate an irrational liberality founded in emotion rather than in scientific truth surrounding the subjects of race, colour, and creed — and the truth about biodiversity.
The stigma of being called a ‘racist’.
The fear of being labelled a ‘racist’ is one of the biggest mass-hysteric trends of our time, it is a designed social stigma that aims to suppress discussion and acknowledgement of the rational race discussion, this allows social engineering and race-mixing to take place with minimal popular resistance.
There’s a reason the migrant crisis heavily favors African and middle eastern migrants; they have the detrimental genotype and mindset they want to mass-introduce in the West, to create a worker subclass accustomed to poverty, corruption, and illiteracy. They use the welfare state and ‘open-door’ policy making as a magnet for these migrants.
This reality is consistently censored in the West as we are spoonfed the emotional narrative of the race discussion everyday; that those who challenge orthodox race and immigration ideas must, without question, be motivated by an extremist and irrational racist ‘hatred’, and whatever they have to say ought to be dismissed.
Race is not a social construct, it is biological.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
He claimed that our differences are not biological, but a result of hard graft, merit, and self-determination. He made an argument for environmental causes defining the ‘content of our characters’, but ignored the biological factors that also define who and what we are as human beings.
Environment plays a partial role in defining us, not an absolute role.
“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” — Richard Lynn.
“Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.” — Arthur Jensen.
Today, to even consider race in a non-collectivist light is heavily opposed, both legally and socially. We stand to lose resources, friends, our reputation, or our ego if we stand for what seems to be an idea already beaten by what we are told is the ‘consensus’, that race is a social construct that divides us.
As an individual, it makes sense to go with the ‘politically correct’ herd, to avoid the headache; because it’s the path of least resistance. But the dire implications of doing this are overlooked. Our biodiversity shapes the qualities (or flaws) and the rise or fall of civilization itself, understanding race is understanding ourselves and what it means to be human.
Civilization is made up of human individuals, but speciation can bring on collective racial traits.
Civilization is made up of biological human individuals, our environment is an extension of ourselves; our biology precedes everything we think of, everything we produce, our inclination and reception to certain persuasions, and every trait that enables the group to flourish, or to flounder.
IQ and good genes creates success and progression, poor genetics causes regression, environmental factors play a role too, but the genetic role is understated.
This is an imperative dynamic to successful civilization, a nation of the genetically healthy is going to be a nation set for success.
Garett Jones states in the video that:
“Smarter people are more likely to see the ‘invisible hand’, having smart, informed voters is crucial to a functioning civilization; to support market competition, to support some degree of long-term thinking, looking at the unseen versus the seen.”
Natural selection is everywhere, except in social justice ideology.
If you accept evolution, you accept race realism.
In the animal kingdom, successful genes always outlive weaker genes, stronger traits are passed on while weaker traits are cast aside, this process ensures the success and continuation of a species, it is a natural safeguard that has stood the test of time.
Humans follow these fundamental laws of nature too.
For example, in choosing a mate, or in a professional setting where a company hires on positive traits; a hardworking nature, punctuality, composure, adaptability, and creativity is favored over the slacker, a better candidate will net more resources and boost ‘survival’ chances — we can all agree to this common system of meritocracy; a nation is simply that on a larger scale; it’s group awareness of what has worked for survival in the immediate environment, and a desire to preserve and embolden that.
Yet today, in the name of tolerance, we insist on immigration policies that bring in people that do not have the necessary traits, both biologically and environmentally, to both maintain and further western civilization.
Historical context: race and lineage has always been recognized.
Before the 17th-century scientific revolution, ideas about race were inchoate and unsystematic — “Folk anthropology.”
To the degree they included notions we would now consider biological, those notions came from:
Practical knowledge obtained from millennia of experience in selective breeding of crops and livestock.
From these, by the time methodical science arrived on the scene, civilized peoples had a fair, but unorganized, stock of knowledge about inheritance and genetic similarity.
In modern times, these ideas about inheritance have been proven true.
“Genetic differences between human groups (in particular, differences in average native intelligence) have been an important factor in human history.”
With the Enlightenment, systematic biological classification was attempted, most persuasively by Linnaeus. Philosophers also took an interest — Kant, for example.
In modern times, the race debate is branded as ‘low-brow’ and nonintellectual, yet these leading thinkers partook in deliberating on race.
Race in the modern sense was salient in the 18th-century Americas and the Caribbean, which had long made use of black African and (to a much smaller degree) local indigenous peoples as slave labor. It was salient, too for the small minority of Europeans who had first-hand experience of Europe’s overseas empires.
This did not lead to much scientific theorizing, but it did cause a lot of noticing. Thomas Jefferson can be taken as representative.
The “long” 19th century (i.e. to 1914) saw the end of race slavery in the civilized world, and the rise and acceptance of evolutionary biology. There was much theorizing about race, most of it not very scientific. Charles Darwin was of course an outstanding exception — a great scientist.
Darwin observed clear differences between the races.
The 20th century saw the rise of population genetics (Wright, Fisher, Haldane), the neo-Darwinian synthesis (Dobzhansky, Mayr) in evolutionary biology, the molecular structure of DNA (Watson & Crick), and rigorous psychometry (Burt, Eysenck, Jensen).
All these developments had implications for the understanding of race as a feature of the human world. Modern science has allowed us to prove many of these historical theories and observances.
Race Realism and Race Denialism.
Let’s start by defining ‘race’ itself, modern society has been taught to see race in terms of color, that we are ‘all the same underneath’. Race actually means something else altogether:
“The biological definition of race is a geographically isolated breeding population that shares certain characteristics in higher frequencies than other populations of that species, but has not become reproductively isolated from other populations of the same species.”
‘Race realism’ is the scientific point of view that:
Like any other widely-distributed species, Homo sapiens are divided into local varieties – races – that differ in their biology.
Where races show different statistical profiles on heritable traits – physiognomy, metabolism, disease susceptibility, and the BIP traits (Behavior, Intelligence, Personality) – it is reasonable to infer that biological differences are causal factors.
Biological race differences work together with adscititious factors (history, geography, epidemiology) to shape social outcomes.
The ‘Bell Curve’: the science is clear, the races have classifiable differences, we must accept this uncomfortable truth and adapt ourselves accordingly.
The opposite of race realism is race denialism, and race denialism is the social ideology and practice promoted by Zionist Globalism in order to gain popular acceptance to subversively sully the races as a part of their agenda of dysgenics; to create the lowest common denominator as the average human being by promoting deleterious alleles.
‘Race denialism’ is the hypothetical point of view that:
Observed group differences between local varieties of Homo sap. are superficial and inconsequential, like the hair color of individuals.
The different statistical profiles of races on BIP traits and social outcomes are entirely caused by historical and social factors. Biology plays no part.
Poor genetics for the many means more power to the enlightened few, by lowering the genetic (and epigenetic) ceiling for average humans you can easily assert a designed eugenicist race above a designed dysgenicist slave race. If the average person lacks the mental faculties to conceive of their own enslavement then those in control have succeeded.
This agenda is promoted through race denialist, dysgenic-promoting propaganda which is widely seen across globalist controlled mediums:
The commanding heights of Western societies – media, schools, politics – are held by race denialists, mainstream anything promotes race denialism in the most one-sided way imaginable.
Race denialism is a social dogma. All respectable people are required to affirm it.
The geographical impact on race and IQ.
Early humans settled different landmasses, these landmasses held different environmental characteristics, which, in turn, affected their occupants.
Harsh northern hemisphere climates forced its occupants to become more adaptable and resourceful, surviving in colder, harsher climates required the development of larger intelligence faculties compared to survival in sub-Saharan Africa where an abundance of regional wildlife and flora meant biological adaptation was less necessary for survival.
The five major races correspond to major geographic barriers between human groups: the Oceans, the Sahara desert in Northern Africa, and the Himalayas mountain range in Central Asia (and the deserts and the mountain ranges bordering on the Himalayas). These geographic barriers can be distinguished in the above satellite imagery of Eurasia and Northern Africa.
“Caucasoids and Mongoloids who live in their homelands and in recently colonized regions, such as North America, did not rise to their present population levels and positions of cultural dominance by accident. They achieved all this because their ancestors occupied the most favorable of the earth’s zoological regions, in which other kinds of animals also attained dominance during the Pleistocene. These regions had challenging climates and ample breeding grounds and were centrally located within continental land masses. There general adaptation was more important than special adaptation. Any other subspecies that had evolved in these regions would probably have been just as successful.”
With the streets of Iran heating up in recent days and the Trump Administration’s threats hanging over the nation, a look back at an analysis paper by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute gives us a strong sense of what is driving Washington and the Deep State’s agenda in the former Persian Empire.
The paper, entitled “Which Path to Persia,” looks at the options available to the United States as it deals with Iran and its supposed threat to Middle East stability, peace and tranquility. The paper looks at two broad types of options; the persuasion approach, the engagement approach and the military approach.
In this posting, I will take a look at what the authors of the study recommend for the military options given that they believe that Iran will be less than willing to co-operate with either the persuasion or engagement options. Obviously, as was the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a military invasion is the recommended course of action. Let’s look at the authors’ recommendations for an invasion.
The authors suggest that the only way to eliminate all of the problems that Washington has with the current Iranian regime (i.e. support for terrorism, nuclearization, creating instability across the region) is to use the military invasion option. The goal of invasion would be to remove the current government, curse the military and put an end to its nuclear program.
While all of those goals are interesting, as the lessons of both Afghanistan and Iraq have taught Washington, the invasion option has to ensure that a stable and pro-American government assumes power once the U.S. military forces leave the nation. That said, there are some significant differences:
1.) Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq – 1.648 million square kilometers compared to 437.1 thousand square miles
2.) Iran has population that is more than twice the size of Iraq – 80.28 million people compared to 37.2 million people
3.) Iran’s military is far more advanced and well equipped than Iraq’s was at the time of the invasion in 2003. There were roughly 400,000 to 500,000 members of Iraq’s armed forces in 2003 compared to 934,000 in Iran’s armed forces.
The authors note that the most compelling reason to invade Iran sooner rather than later is that Iran’s agenda could become much more difficult to deter once it has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. As well, the nation’s wealth of both oil and natural gas mean that the United States and any partner invasion forces would have to ensure that the country does not slide into post-invasion chaos.
If the invasion option was the option of choice, it would take at least several months to move sufficient forces into the theatre and from one to six months to conduct the invasion. Given Iran’s larger geographic area, larger population and better military preparedness, the United States can pretty much assure itself that the invasion of Iran would be a far larger project than the Iraq invasion of 2003. As well, the American bases throughout the Persian Gulf region in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar that were key during the Iraq operations may well not be available unless Iran were to provoke hostilities.
To mount an invasion, the authors suggest that an initial invasion force of roughly the same size as the force used to invade Iraq in 2003; four U.S. divisions plus a British division. The Americans added a fifth division later in the invasion for a total of around 200,000 military personnel. An invading force would face two issues:
1.) Insurgent fighters
2.) Mountainous terrain
The initial invasion would require a significant contingent of Marines, requiring the use of two to four regimental combat teams or between 15,000 and 30,000 Marines to seize a beachhead and major port along the Iranian coastline to defeat Iran’s defensive positions. The challenges of terrain would require large numbers of air mobile forces including the brigades of the 101st Air Assault Division, the 82nd Airborne Division and the 173rd Airborne Brigade.
For an attack on Tehran (population 8.8 million and 15 million in the metropolitan area compared to 8.765 million in Baghdad), one to three heavy armored divisions would be required. The biggest difference from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 would be the need for a large naval commitment, particularly to prevent the Iranians from closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key bottleneck to the flow of oil from the Middle East. By way of comparison, Iraq has a coastline of 36 miles on the Persian Gulf compared to Iran’s 1520 miles as shown on this map:
As the United States discovered during the War on Terror, once the invasion phase was over, the hard work begins. The authors note the following:
“As in both Iraq and Afghanistan, post-invasion reconstruction would be the longest (and possibly the bloodiest) part of the whole endeavor. if it were handled very well, applying all of the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, it might require only a few years of major military and financial commitments, followed by a significant diminution of U.S. presence and aid thereafter.
If the reconstruction were to go badly, either because of American mistakes or forces beyond U.S. control, it could take many more years to produce an acceptable end state.”
What would it take to provoke an invasion and would the United States require provocation to justify an invasion of Iran? If the Iranians provoke an attack, it will make it far easier for the Americans to justify invading to the international and domestic communities.
Given the history between the United States and Iran, it is seen to be unlikely that Iran would be responsible for or take credit for an Iranian version of the 9/11 attack. Most European, Asian and Middle Eastern nations and their people are against any American-led military invasion of Iran, save two important American allies in the region; Saudi Arabia and Israel.
While this invasion scenario is mere conjecture, it is interesting to see that one of Washington’s largest and most influential think tanks, the Brookings Institution, has provided the Trump Administration with a roadmap to a military solution to the “Iranian problem” — a solution that must have the military-industrial-intelligence community rubbing their collective hands with glee.
It is also interesting to note that the report that was used as the source material for this posting was generated in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. In case you’ve forgotten, Haim Saban, the founding funder of the Saban Center back in 2002, was also a massive donor to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidential election as shown here:
With his total donations of $13.78 million during the 2016 cycle (all to the liberal side of the political spectrum), he and his wife came in 14th place overall as shown here:
Keeping in mind that the United States is largely responsible for the current situation in Iran given its involvement in removing the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh back in 1953 and the installation of his replacement, the west-leaning Mohammad Reza Shah who ended up being turfed out of Iran by his own countrymen, one might almost be able to draw a straight line between Washington and the current unrest in Iran and the nation’s strong anti-American stance.
In another posting, I will further examine this interesting report from the Brookings Institution which provides us with a glimpse into what may lie ahead for Iran.
Within a few generations, the knowledge we have access to now about reality and truth will be gone.
Information deemed by broad, vague terminology such as ‘inflammatory’ or ‘offensive’ is currently being phased-out as more and more restrictive policies on information are being introduced into the world of data; freedom of expression is under attack.
Many sources of high quality independent, third-party based information are under major threat, as they challenge and undermine the Globalist narrative, which is founded largely on deceit and people’s ignorance. It is understandable therefore, that any information that opens the door to hidden realities is seen as threatening.
“Fake news” is a prime example of how ‘undesirable’ information is getting witch-hunted and booted from major platforms, as well as being on the receiving-end of vicious mainstream media led smear campaigns.
The mainstream narrative should always be questioned, and those that it derides must be given attention.
I urge readers to purchase real, physical books on truth about how the world works as the intangible digital world is entering a phase of lockdown. If there is a possibility that globalists can erase the culture of liberty and human rights, they will (and are) attempting to by removing the physical and digital forms of that information. The next step is to indoctrinate new generations into docility and apathy, and most importantly, the willful rejection of independent info, principles of liberty, and all key precursors to individual thought.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other Globalist-linked platforms are actively participating in demonetizing, removing and demoralizing outlets & channels that speak ‘undesirable’ words and convey ideas deemed by their guidelines as ‘hateful’ or some such vague, concocted accusatory term, it is becoming evident that free speech is getting the back seat, while people’s ‘feelings’ are in pole position.
The CBS eye logo, a sinister reference to the ‘all-seeing eye’, representative of the information centralization & control revered by the Global elite.
The Elite-owned corporate giants are slowly crushing all ‘wrong-think’. Their approach will be gradual, their result will be heightened or total control over the movement and presentation of information, all such censorship and monitoring will be disguised as in the ‘best interests’ of the public concerned.
The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency.
Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
On October the 1st, 2016, President Barack Obama is set to pass legislation enabling the transferal of internet oversight to the United Nations (UN).
The UN is a notorious globalist bastion, an organisation that champions dogmatic, ruthless globalization at the behest of the global elite. It is responsible for orchestrating the rise and fall of nations in the disguise of ‘peacekeeping’ – yet it does no such thing as keep the peace, it creates chaos and then brings about an ‘ordered outcome’ of the elite’s political interests, i.e. instating Western leaning governments after ousting one that rejects globalist interests, Tripoli’s Gaddafi and Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad are examples of this. Hence the Illuminati motto ‘Order out of Chaos’ – For thee most part, the internet has been greatly unaffected by widespread censorship, but in light of recent strides by globalist hidden-hand operatives, i.e. the YouTube ‘Heroes’ scheme promoting mass flagging under the guise of fighting ‘negative content’ and now the Obama proposals for internet surveillance to be put in place, the future of the most revolutionary platform ever is in dire jeopardy.
“The age of nations must end. The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms.” – U.N. World Constitution
The UN is the worldly manifestation of the anti-light, the Luciferian, one-world order where all are drawn out from the nations into Lucifer’s bosom. As YHWH Elohim promised to introduce a world unified in His light, so must a shadow of that also be manfiested, this links into the ancient, occult term: ‘As Above, So Below’ – Know that this world is a place where light shines, and thus where shadows are also cast.
Ezekiel 36:24 – For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.
“We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and to lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him.”
The globalists want to ensure their prime opposition; alt-media on the internet, is as thoroughly suppressed as possible. They can push their agenda by coating it in something liberally appealing, like fighting hate on the internet, or reducing terrorist activity on the web, calling for their censorship as the best solution. People that refuse to think with reasoning and logic will blindly follow and support this call. Don’t be one of them.
The Spearhead Journal 
