Você está na página 1de 4


By William Allingham
We see that a society creates all the diversity it needs in a very efficient way and that seems
really amazing to me.
We don't get all persons with the same skills, but rather people whose skills complement
each-other's. Almost like a body which creates all the different kinds of cells it needs with its
body parts programmed to interact properly with the rest of the body. I think this is only
possible because they were created by the same body.
I wonder if a gene pool of people (a race) operates the same way, creating the diversity it
needs to fulfill the diverse functions of a society in a safer and more efficient manner than if
we would just artificially pick different individuals from different gene pools (races) and try to
integrate them.
This is not far fetched after considering the sophistication and elegance of nature. If snakes
have infrared vision and whales can communicate underwater, nature can arrange races to
be self-sufficient without interference from other races.
If racial groups were not self-sufficient and capable of creating all the diversity they need
under the bounds of the same race they would not have evolved at all during thousands of
years and, in fact, if it were not more efficient for a community to create diversity through race,
nature wouldn't favor the existence of different species and subspecies.
It certainly wouldn't work to take different organs from different persons and try to build a
healthy body with them. People who undergo a single transplantation always end up with
health problems for life. Imagine if not just one, but most of your organs were transplanted!
Greatness comes from deep unity in a community and when you create disunity you won't
have progress no matter how talented these disunited members are. (uniting people by mere
economic transactions won't ever do the job).
The best computer program is useless if it cannot be installed in your computer. With some
talent you can work marvels using the programs that are compatible, even if they are not the
best on the market, but you will do nothing with the best software in the world if they cannot
adapt to your hardware.
Thus, the smartest black person or the most hardworking Mexican won't be of much use in a
society where he cannot be properly installed. Society is much more than economic
transactions and a less intelligent teacher but who belongs to the same race and shares a
common genetic setup of sensibilities will be more useful than the most intelligent teacher if
the latter comes from India, Mexico or Japan and evolved different kinds of sensibilities and
his work in the classroom lacks the idealism that can only be inspired by a sense of belonging
to a homogenious community.
The greatness of white communities arises not because of all the individual members being
perfect, but because on average they share a sensibility and some form of character that in
unison creates the kind of beauty which inspires progress; disrupt that beauty with individuals

from the most exotic places and these individuals won't have a society suited for nourishing
their talents.
Thus, the hardy white farmer is as valuable and necessary for a successful society as the
intellectual as long as both share the same sensibility and ethics inherent in their race, their
value vanishes when isolated and thus that value exists more in their genetic belonging than
in any virtue they might have as lone creatures.
This is not to deny the contribution of individual geniuses to white communities, but they
would have been worthless if there was not a society in tune with their inquietudes from
where they derived inspiration and nourishment.
If Johannes Kepler (no matter how poor he grew up in Germany) had been born in Uganda he
would have achieved nothing.
The idea that transcendental beauty and a sensibility shared by a gene pool is more important
than learned tricks and a favorable environment came to me after studying the Middle Ages.
Nowadays the idea of an enriched environment has become fashionable to explain
differences in skills among races. Supposedly, the theory goes, if a child is not raised in an
enriched environment with absolutely everything in place and protected from even the
slightest rush of wind, he or she won't develop all of his or her potentials (the reader should
already be acquainted with twin studies refuting in a scientific manner those claims thus lets
focus here just on historical arguments).
As it turned out many of the greatest intellectuals and political leaders of Europe during the
Middle Ages were children abandoned by their poor parents, who grew up in a monastery,
raised in the austerity and impersonal way a community of all male monks could afford.
Many European geniuses like Leonardo da Vinci or Johannes Keppler grew up poor in times
when cheap books and sophisticated education were not available to them, their diets were
far from enriched and many times saw their parents and siblings die young etc. nevertheless
they accomplished more than any Mexican raised in modern America with the most efficient
and accessible welfare and education systems in human history.
Thus, these European geniuses and leaders derived the fuel for their achievements from the
beauty experienced in their community, despite of lacking any material aid, and that could
only have come from inner and deeper sources; an inner sensibility and a way of feeling that
belongs to a certain community bound by race.
The best individual parts won't fit together if designed for very different cars. Nowadays we
talk about individuals and the value of a person being totally independent of everything but
It's silly and dangerous to put much emphasis on the value of an individual, since an
individual has never and will never ever exist outside of a community, we are always
bound to simply form part of something greater (there even exists a study confirming that
communities with high incidences of suicide in Canada lacked a sense of belonging to a
certain culture and had no history inherent to their tribe, in other words they had forgotten

their origins. They spent more time watching TV and ate at McDonalds, etc. The paradox here
is that in order to integrate different people we have to destroy any trace of culture and tribal
narratives that may create friction. see Cultural continuity as a Hedge Against Suicide in
Canadas first Nations Michael J Chandler).
An individual derives physical, cultural and emotional nourishment from a community, thus,
more important than the individual we have to put value on his role as part of the community
and give priority to the preservation and elevation of the community itself because without
communities individuals can never exist.....a good set of questions would be:
*Regardless of his virtues as an individual, do his virtues help the community or do they
vanish in that context?
*Are his virtues as an individual simply outweighed by the damage he causes in the
community? Etc.
This is a difficult exercise because it requires the use of an expanded vision.
Communities have existed millions of years before humans and if we destroy healthy
communities we destroy the foundations of human progress. We would end up with
something capable of producing only creatures with less capacity than modern humans. If we
change the community, we will inevitably change the kind of life forms it sustains. That would
go counter to any notion of humanity because the idea of humans being special or more than
animals resides in their capacity to create progress and of understanding reality, by
undermining the further development of those qualities (through the destruction of higher
forms of society) we are negating the value of the very thing that makes us human.
My doctor wouldn't play around with the health of a patient, the same it's better not to risk the
health of a society, especially when talking about white societies which are the scarce
sources of the cultural beauty which make higher forms of living possible.
I really believe that only Beauty can legitimate life itself and inspire progress.
Life without transcendental beauty is worthless. You can have all the commodities and
practicalities of life without it being worth living . Only beauty can inspire creativity and
improvement, "learned tricks" alone won't.
Also the process of evolution is not static. If we put so much value on humans, it follows that if
a more sentient and sophisticated life form evolves from us, it will be even more valuable and
thus it should be more immoral to undermine their existence than the immorality of genocide.
To deny a society the possibility of creating more sophisticated life forms (Eugenics) than the
actual ones, should be considered a worse crime.