I find this a nice article , do you guys agree, but also sad becuase you see how complex it is. Public policy eventually turns on who holds the moral high ground. After all, no one wants to be seen as supporting â€œevilâ€ and anyone who believes he is morally in the wrong is more easily defeated. Clearly, it was capturing the moral high ground that brought about the abolition of slavery and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Laws. And there is no doubt that today the anti-racist egalitarians have captured the moral high ground. â€œTo see what is in front of oneâ€™s nose requires a constant struggle,â€ (George Orwell) may be true of most of us, but egalitarians struggle not to see the 800 pound gorilla in front of them, and even dress him up in a suit, tie, and glasses so others wonâ€™t notice him. (See front cover.) The evidence that the races are not genetically equal, especially in intelligence and behavior, is clear to all but the reality-challenged egalitarians, who find it emotionally unacceptable. Any apparent differences must be due to the irrationality of whites, who, consciously or unconsciously, think they see differences where there are none, thereby somehow preventing non-whites from achieving, even when the finish line is moved closer and closer. Whites, probably the least ethnocentric of all the races, judging from the devastation of their internecine wars and the immense costs they have imposed on themselves for the benefit the blacks, are nevertheless pronounced guilty of the newly-concocted sin of racism, i.e., of favoring those of their own kind, behaving as nature insists they must if they are to continue to exist. Would that it were so. Thus, the weapon of choice for the egalitarians is the morality of sacrifice, a morality that coincides nicely with both Marxism [SUP]1[/SUP] and Christianity, though Egalitarians often display contempt for Christianity. Both embrace the morality of sacrifice â€“ that on the scale of morality, from the depths of the devil to the heights of heaven, one rises or falls according to whether his acts benefit others â€¦ or himself. [SUP]2[/SUP] The moral high ground is gained by personal sacrifice, be it of money, resources, mates, territory, children, or life itself. And, obviously, sacrifice is possible in only one direction - from those who have to those who do not have, no matter how honestly or ethically they acquired what they have. The morality of sacrifice is a weapon used by the have-nots to infuse the haves with guilt and induce them to abandon all that they have worked for; one does not have to be a cynic to realize that it is a morality that will be quickly abandoned when the have-nots become the haves. Evolution offers no support for the morality of sacrifice, because sacrifice is adaptive only if it is likely to increase oneâ€™s alleles in future generations, which is not a sacrifice at all, but a necessity if oneâ€™s lineage is to avoid extinction. Although that is called â€œaltruismâ€ by biologists, it is in no way a sacrifice because it is a biological gain to the individual, not a loss. It is hardly a coincidence that Caucasians, who have a strong urge to cooperate with and help others, [SUP]3[/SUP] embraced Christianity, a religion that requires them to do exactly that. Thus, they receive moral kudos for doing what their genes urge them to do anyway, but for different reasons. Before modern times, those urges served them well in hunting, fighting off enemies, and creating civilizations. [SUP]4[/SUP] Altruism was strongly adaptive when nearly everyone one dealt with had most of the same alleles but, once the anti-racists mixed the races up, altruism became maladaptive as it lead Caucasians to sacrifice their own genetic interests for the benefit of those who did not share as many of their alleles and did not reciprocate. [SUP]5[/SUP] Today, Caucasian altruism is not directed just towards nearby Caucasians, but towards anyone anywhere, i.e., â€œpromiscuous altruism.â€ [SUP]6[/SUP] The urge to help people of a different race, [SUP]7[/SUP] sometimes called the â€œWhite Manâ€™s Burdenâ€ because only whites seem to have it, lowers fitness, sometimes drastically. [SUP]8[/SUP]To much of the world, people who give away their territory and wealth are not â€œgoodâ€ people, to be admired and emulated, but â€œsuckers,â€ to be despised. [SUP]9[/SUP] Worse, to be the recipient of aid is insulting and degrading as it is seen as proof that the recipient is inferior to the giver. The result is that the giver does not receive the love and gratitude that he believes he is entitled to, but hatred. [SUP]10[/SUP] Now the giver is helping his enemies, all the while dumbfounded by their growing hatred for him. Does he stop giving? No, he condemns himself for not giving enough, wallows in his guilt, and further aids in his own demise. Associations of whites with non-whites has made the altruism and cooperation that was formerly adaptive, maladaptive. To avoid becoming a dead end on a 3Â½ billion year old lineage, the promiscuous altruist must learn to allocate his altruism roughly in accord with relatedness, [SUP]11[/SUP] and refuse to accept any guilt for doing so. One might suppose that this would be not be difficult to do, but for demonized whites, who accept their status as immoral pariahs, it is not. If you let others convince you of your own immorality, they have already defeated you, without firing a shot. You will no longer defend what was once yours, and will wallow in the neurosis of self-hatred. [SUP]12[/SUP] Far better to take pride in being the epitome of evil than to be tricked into defeat by a few words. Even if it were true that whites are evil to the core (and it is not true), pride in their evilness would serve them far better than shame. A snake that believes it is immoral to bite and swallow an adorable little baby bunny is no longer a snake; indeed, it is no longer, period. A morality that forbids us to be what we are, holds that extinction is our only moral course of action. Whites could easily secure the preservation of their race, as they are the most technologically competent of the races. But, tricked into believing that their survival as a race is immoral, they refuse to do so. All people, especially men, seek status, as status brings more reproductive success. [SUP]13[/SUP] When a man cannot claim status based on wealth or power, he is left with the poor manâ€™s status â€“ moral superiority. The egalitarianâ€™s claim of moral superiority is the ultimate claim for status as it trumps status based on both wealth and power. Even if he has no other indicia of status, he can claim he has greater moral worth. (To be consistent, an egalitarian must, of course, deny that there is a genetic component to morality, for otherwise his claim of moral superiority would invalidate his claim that everyone is genetically equal.) [SUP]14[/SUP] A claim of moral superiority, however, is not consistent with the multiculturalistsâ€™ dictum that â€œall cultures are equalâ€ because â€œcultureâ€ includes morality and, if oneâ€™s own moral stands are superior, then the moral standards of others have to be inferior. Indeed, even many multiculturalists regard some alien cultural practices as immoral. [SUP]15[/SUP] But why let foolish inconsistencies hobble a glorious ideology? [SUP]16[/SUP] Surely, having an emotionally comforting, but inconsistent ideology is preferable to consistency and the cold shower of reality? (Barkow, 1991, p. 201). David Hume long ago pointed out (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739) that one cannot obtain a â€œoughtâ€ from an â€œis,â€ an observation that is sometimes referred to as â€œHume's Guillotine." That is, to objectively prove a statement is true one must begin with facts about man and the world he lives in, then show that those facts lead to the conclusion that the statement must be true. Hume was asserting that no moral statement can be proved to be true by reasoning from facts. Morality is outside of the â€œisâ€ world of facts and is in an entirely different realm of moral â€œoughtsâ€ and â€œshoulds,â€ [SUP]17[/SUP] and there is no way to journey from one realm to the other. [SUP]18[/SUP] Morality is not discovered using our senses, as facts are, but is created or divined by man. [SUP]19[/SUP] Thus, morality cannot be â€œcorrectâ€ or â€œtrue,â€ in the sense that facts about reality are. Nevertheless, a moral statement is commonly accepted as true when it is emphatically asserted to be true by a large number of people. Counting votes does not prove something is true, of course, but we all have a psychological tendency to believe that â€œ60 million Frenchmen canâ€™t be wrong,â€ even if they neither have nor can have any objective proof that they are correct. The beliefs that racism is immoral and anti-racism is moral long ago passed the â€œtipping pointâ€ and now nearly everyone either accepts them as true or is at least afraid to say that they are not true. Dual Morality If we take it as an abiding principle that any morality, the acceptance of which will lead to our extinction, is so much in conflict with reality that it cannot be correct, then anti-racism cannot be a correct morality. Man, like his relative, the chimpanzee, is an animal that lived and lives in groups. Behavior, such as murder, rape, theft, and adultery, that endangered the survival of the group could not be tolerated and became â€œimmoral.â€ [SUP]20[/SUP] But that morality was intra group â€“ within the group. As to inter group behavior â€“ between groups â€“ there was an entirely different morality. We see this â€œdual moralityâ€ today, especially preceding and during a war, when the enemy is demonized and dehumanized, so that the intra group rules of morality need not be applied to them. [SUP]21[/SUP] The existence of a group, any kind of a group, necessitates dual behavior, i.e., people in the group must behave one way towards members of the group and a different way towards outsiders, for otherwise they cannot function as a group; this suggests that at least some behavior that is immoral within a group will be moral between groups. Egalitarianism argues against a dual morality because, if everyone is genetically about the same, everyone should be treated the same. That does not follow, however, because the second phrase has a â€œshouldâ€ in it and the first phrase does not, so that argument is decapitated by Humeâ€™s Guillotine. [SUP]22[/SUP] Egalitarianismâ€™s mono-morality is also incompatible with manâ€™s nature as a group animal. To require man to adhere to one-morality-fits-all is an attempt to make man into something he is not, which requires the destruction of what he is. Far better to accept a dual morality, one morality for inside the group and a different morality for outside the group, and try to obtain agreements with other groups on the terms of the out-group morality. [SUP]23[/SUP] In addition to being in conflict with manâ€™s nature as a group animal, a morality based on egalitarianism is irrelevant to biological survival. The object of all life is to successfully reproduce. Whether the parties are equal or unequal, in any sense, or whether their behavior is fair or moral, matters only to the extent that it increases or decreases success in reproducing. And, for groups, unequal, unfair, and amoral dual morality does exactly that. [SUP]24[/SUP] Even in peacetime, no one, not even egalitarians, applies the same morality to everyone. Certainly, everyone, to some extent, follows a â€œdo as I say, not as I doâ€ dual morality, and everyone has a different morality for their children, even their adult children, than they do for strangers. We donâ€™t toss dice to determine to which drowning person we will throw the last life preserver, which is what should be done if our morality were the same for everyone. No, instead, we make a moral judgment about who is more worthy to live, typically women and children. No one actually lives by a one-morality-fits-all rule. And, most of the time, these multiple moralities will, at least approximately, coincide with the answer to the question, â€œWhich choice maximizes my reproductive success?â€ To act according to that â€œnatural moralityâ€ is adaptive and usually instinctive, and to not do so is maladaptive and usually extinctive. Populations all across the planet apply different moralities to different people, depending upon their genetic relatedness (Simpson, 2003, pp. 798-801). They typically use flattering words for their own people and pejorative words for people outside their group to justify their dual morality, e.g., â€œgoyâ€ for a non-Jew (â€œanimalâ€), [SUP]25[/SUP] as in â€œJewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.â€ (Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Josephâ€™s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, justifying the murder of an Arab girl by Jews). [SUP]26[/SUP] Although Christian egalitarians quote the Bible for support, there are many references one can find to a â€œdifferent strokes for different folksâ€ morality in the Bible, such as â€œâ€¦our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.â€ (Genesis 15: 18â€“20; Joshua 1: 3â€“4). A successful population that has expanded to the carrying capacity of its territory has to move into the territory of contiguous populations. Since resources are limited, when one population expands and eliminates a competing population, it increases its own fitness. If it fails to do so and instead maintains a stable population, it jeopardize its own long term survival when, inevitably, circumstances and the environment change and turn against it. This necessitates a dual morality â€“ an intra-population morality and an inter-population morality. But inter-population warfare for territory is no longer necessary. The brutality of conquest and colonialization can be replaced by the civility of contract. Conquest, after all, is not free; in addition to military costs, it may leave a legacy of guilt that demoralizes the conquering population, providing its enemies with a weapon, e.g., Mahatma Gandhi in India fighting the British. Contract, on the other hand, improves the lot of both parties. The expanding population obtains additional territory and, in return, the other population receives resources. The U.S. practiced this policy several times in its history, with Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of California and the southwest from Mexico, and the purchase of Alaska from Russia. The only morality that can be followed without moving towards extinction is a morality that directs our behavior towards passing on our alleles, e.g., â€œBe fruitful and multiply.â€ (Genesis 1:28). Quite naturally, that is the morality that people follow when they not are subjected to propaganda and coercion to make them choose a different morality. In the long run, an egalitarianism morality is doomed, for it demoralizes and immobilizes those who adhere to it, reducing their genetic fitness, and driving them to extinction. (Though, of course, that would not apply to a deceptive egalitarian who urges others to follow egalitarianism while he himself does not.) The empathy that we feel for other creatures is a creation of nature, the mirror neurons in our brain. [SUP]27[/SUP] Empathy motivates us to help those who are around us, based on their genetic similarity to us, i.e., how many of our alleles they have. That is why we care deeply about our babies, some for our pet dog or cat, little for the mouse in the house, and not at all for the spider on the glider. Empathy arose long before television and instant worldwide communications, when the only people anyone knew lived in the same geographical vicinity and were closely related. Now a person can feel more empathy for someone on the other side of the planet, who is suffering on television, but who shares few alleles with him, than he can for his own children sitting right beside him. [SUP]28[/SUP] Empathy gives morality an emotional impetus, but nature does not create a morality and natureâ€™s only punishment for ignoring it is the guilt felt for violating a morality that has been accepted. And, although the amount of empathy we feel for others varies approximately with genetic distance, the lines that divide different moral standards are drawn by men, not nature, and men draw them to suit their own purposes. Empathy is natureâ€™s way of controlling man; morality is manâ€™s way. Both are adaptive when they increase our reproductive success and both are maladaptive when they decrease it. Man created morality to benefit the group â€“ it reduced strife, induced cooperation, and kept the group stable. Morality encouraged individuals within a group to put aside their own genetic interests for the benefit of others in their group. [SUP]29[/SUP] But now other groups have hijacked that morality to use as a weapon against the group that created it. Those who define what is or is not moral can be expected to do so in a way that benefits themselves, and those who do not resist that morality will be at the mercy of the morality-definers. In the War Against Whites, the egalitarians claim the right to define â€œmoralityâ€ and collect the spoils from the demonized and demoralized Whites; whites can save themselves only by refusing to accept any morality that requires their extinction.