by Michael Kennedy

 

An article which was printed in New Scientist, published on the 15th of December 2012 was brought to my attention. The article, which appears in the opinion section, written by Gordon Hodson and Kimberly Costello draws a long bow, and hypothesizes that racial prejudice may be links to how people feel about animals. The articles abstract immediately makes it clear that the article will by trying to link “racial prejudice” with disrespect for animals. This is of course, an opinion piece, because ultimately, a negative view on racial prejudice, is a view based solely on opinion, not one of fact. Science may, MAY, make a link between attitudes towards animals and attitudes towards other races, but putting a negative, or positive connotation is a matter of viewpoint. This article though, entitled “The human cost of devaluing animals” ends up failing to make any solid link between views on animals and racial prejudice, and was likely relying more on the predictable, liberal viewpoints of the readers. In the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia, one can always rely on appeasing Liberal tropes and reflecting left wing, humanist attitudes to gain favour and increase the relevance of an academic work.

The article was based on papers in “Advances in Understanding Humanness and Dehumanisation”, created by self styled “prejudice researchers”. An academic can always rely on a career studying “Leftist” causes. To think we pay for this.

The articles thesis is this. Feeling of superiority of other living things (animals and people of other races) leads to devaluation. A perception of a divide between humans and animals leads to prejudice of outgroups, and that this leads to dehumanisation. The study which was conducted, involved WHITE Canadian children aged between 6 to 10 years old. The reason that WHITE children were selected was never fully explained, though as we know, anti-racism is a code word for anti-white, and a study against “racial prejudice” would mean nothing in academia, if it was about racial prejudice in Negros, Asians or other races. Only pointing out “racism” in whites matters. The children were asked to attribute uniquely human emotions to images of black and white people and were asked to place these pictures, along with pictures of animals on a horizontal board, with the distance between were they were placed being representative of the distance the child felt were between the subjects of the pictures.

The conclusion which was drawn from this, was that those children which displayed a greater dehumanisation of children of other races, also displayed a greater dehumanisation of animals. This supposedly means that dehumanisation of outgroups is related to dehumanisation of animals. The article then draws a long bow to suggest that this is what drives attitudes to towards immigrants, and not thinks, like say, population pressure, high house prices from rapid population growth, attitudes of many Muslims towards the West, rising crime from immigrant gangs, a desire to still preserve a racial heritage against an unwanted program of mass third world immigration and the like. The article then concludes stating that “we” are facing the same struggle for animal rights as we did for civil rights, womens rights and gay rights, that is, all the standard leftist causes

The question that comes to mind, is how often do “prejudice researchers”, or other liberals “researching racism” actually ASK people who oppose mass immigration, or who are vocal in preserving their race as to the reason for their ideology? How many people who are PAID, often with our own tax dollars, to study, or more accurately, combat against white self interest, as part of their study speak to, interview or glean information from the intellectuals within the movement? Never. It is more prudent for the researcher against prejudice to come to a conclusion that the attitudes are unwarranted, unnecessary, and should be combated by more study, by more money going their way. This study seems to have been architecturally designed to draw a conclusion which would confirm leftist prejudices, that their campaigning against “racism” and for animals rights is not only warranted, but linked, as these are part of one all encompassing, inter-related problem. The article audience, likewise, is unlikely to know, or care about the reasons that people, such as Nationalist Alternative members have, and therefore are more likely to believe that attitudes which are labelled as “racist” are due to the silly reasons given be “prejudice researchers”. Quite simply, because they don’t know any better, they’ll believe anything, and often do.

In asking the children to put the pictures of people of various races on a horizontal scale, it is setting them up to place them in a manner which could lead someone to conclude that there is racial prejudice in the ranking. The only way that this author can see for the children to have placed the pictures of people of various races correctly, is to have placed them vertically, that is, at the exact same horizontal position. Otherwise, even putting them next to each other would allow someone to conclude that there is a racial ranking, simply because one was placed before another, a very likely outcome, when asked to put on a horizontal scale. Secondly, each child is likely to have a different, subjective view on how distance on the horizontal scale related to distance between the emotional capabilities of the subjects of the pictures. The fact that some children placed other races and animals further apart, may not mean that this child thought they animals and other races were more distance, but simply had a different idea in mind as to the significance of each inch of space between the pictures. Without a control, or a standard, or an objective means of evaluating the meaning intended for each unit of distance, the study is very, very open to differing interpretations. Such a method may work for one person, but to draw comparisons between people, this methodology is very unreliable. It is about as reliable as asking two people in pain to show using outstretched arms how much it hurts.

Lastly, the article begins with a quote about Auschwitz, an allusion to Germany’s Nationalist Socialist regimes program of mass homicide against Jews, but doesn’t see the irony that Nationalist Socialist Germany, which is held as the epitome of dehumanisation, was also one of the most progressive in terms of animals rights. The NSDAP took animals rights very seriously. Nazi Germany was the first country to ban vivisection , commercial animal trapping and even imposed regulations on the boiling of lobsters and enacted broad conservation measures. The Nationalist Socialist Governments pro-animal measures eclipsed anything before, and perhaps any since. Yet “tolerant” and “multicultural” nations, which supposedly shun dehumanisation of other people, are inclusive of all races, still practice animal testing, still wantonly wipe out entire species for profiteering, whether it be to rape natural resources, or to line the pockets of property developers, still allow cruel Kosher and Halal slaughter and the live export of animals. Australia, according to some, prides itself on racial inclusion and opposing ideologies which supposedly lead to people being put in cattle cars, yet we all pass, on a frequent basis, real cattle cars, trucks and trains with livestock crammed on their way to the slaughterhouse to be slaughtered to provide food to feed the economy. While the Western multicultural, white nations may treat animals better overall, there is no doubt at all, that we still treat them primarily as a commodity, as goods to be traded, used, exploited, whose welfare is secondary to profit. Meanwhile, many nationalists, (Nationalist Alternative included) rally for animal rights.

Having a desire to preserve your own race doesn’t mean that you have to treat animals badly. The two are unrelated. It is perfectly understandable for a person to hold the view that people of other races also have uniquely human emotions, but a world social order with borders is still a preferable situation. There is no contradiction in believing that animals don’t have the same level of consciousness, of emotional complexity as humans, but still suffer, and that it is better for us, emotionally and spiritually to spare these sentient, even if not as complex, creatures of suffering. In fact, is says something about the “prejudice researchers” that they believe that viewing another living creature as lesser results in poor treatment. While it is true that viewing animals as ‘lesser being’ can no doubt be used to justify exploiting and destroying them, it is not necessarily true that viewing them as lesser, or different would lead one to this conclusion. Those who view animals as “lesser” and who have no qualms about exploiting them, or driving a species extinct to lay down another suburb over their habitat, are more likely holding these views of animals to justify acting in blind self interest. That is, dehumanisation is perhaps a tool which people use to convince themselves of otherwise unjustifiable actions, that is, that the New Scientist article may be getting the cart before the horse, that we create a mythology of animals being something lesser than sentient, feeling creatures like us to escape our conscious, to negate any questions we may ask ourselves so we can continue with our behaviour. People may eat meat, because they think animals are just moving resources and therefore OK, but they view animals as just moving resources because they like to eat meat, and this view allows them to continue with a pleasurable activity without having to deal with the moral issues that such an activity raises.

 

Whatever the truth may be, we know that many Nationalists, many pro-white activists are also concerned about animal rights and preservation of the natural world. This makes sense to us, because we acknowledge that our race is part of the natural world, a national creation ,and in preserving our race because of a belief that our right to exist is a natural, universal given right, a right that all living things have, there is little stretching of the imagination required to apply this to other races and to other species. Whether they are ‘lesser’ or not is therefore irrelevant, but as mentioned earlier, it is easier, and more profitable for an academic to appeal to Liberalism by simply ignoring all this and studying a caricature of what they term racial prejudice and validating Liberal thought with a predictable conclusion.

 

 

4 Responses to “Prejudice Research” and the Anti-White Brigade

  1. Hugh Pearson says:

    Folks.. I see your ‘nationalism’ is actually race based. Because of that it’s doomed to failure. If your nationalism was based on values rather than race, it could not only survive but also thrive. You need only look at America today to see how far the “white”ness has been eroded and diminished by a combination of a huge influx of Mexicans/Latino’s and a sizable chunk of the white population who are so deluded as to not see the writing on the wall from that..and actually vote themselves into oblivion. I doubt that situation will ever be reversed in America save by civil war, and if that occurs it will cause a bitterly divided community that is unlikely to survive the downward economic implications of such an outcome. “Values” can unite all races, and after all..the color of a persons skin is only skin deep.. “skincolor” does not hold a weapon or cause a war..it’s what’s inside. As I placed on another page today “I’d rather fail in a cause that will succeed, than succeed in a cause doomed to fail”. If Hitler had not made ‘race’ the core of his platform, and had not sought to eliminate ‘all’ Jews.. (rather than selected individuals who were actively undermining German society) and had not made ‘territorial expansion’ as major planks of his policy, he might have actually been a force for good….rather than evil. Failure to learn the lessons of history means we are doomed to repeat them.

  2. Hugh Pearson says:

    Having expressed the previous comments about ‘race’ etc.. and having read more of the article for which this comment is directed… I can also say that there IS a deliberate and specific program world wide, but emanating from generally Marxist sources, to ‘abolish’ the white race. The clearest example of this is found in Noel Ignatiev’s essay on the web site “Race Traitor” which has as it’s slogan “Treason to whitness is loyalty to humanity”. The essay is short, but pointed “Abolish the White Race, by any means necessary” (just google that) Ignatiev was a Harvard History professor, and happens to be Jewish and Marxist. Then there is locally the work of Dr Colin Tatz, who, in his book “With intent to destroy: Reflections on Genocide” tries to expand the UN definition of Genocide and to then apply his expanded definition to ensnare white Australians of British heritage in both a moral and LEGAL way… ie.. using the courts. That is a direct attack on white Aussies because of their race and skin color. Tatz also happens to be Jewish. For your information, though I feel you might already be aware of this.. look up “Triple Ex-thnics” by dr Nathan Abrams where he, as an expert on Jewish involvement in the Media, (he is Jewish) exposes the Jewish involvement in Porn and the reasons for this. Then there is this striking article by Joel Stein (also Jewish) in the LA Times “How Jewish is Hollywood?” where he underlines the Jewish control of Hollywood, Wall street and other things. Taken individually, one might fob them off as not relevant… but taken together, they constitute reasonable grounds for a concerted attack on and exposure of, those specific issues. They do not however inform a general anti semitic attitude.

  3. mkennedy says:

    Nationalism, which is based on an ethnic nation, i.e. race, is enjoying a revival in Europe, and to a degree it is growing in the USA, but they are doing it by proxy, that is, by means which appear non-racial on the surface. Read through some of our articles about American politics, as well as some other, non-mainstream analysis (the mainstream tend not to analyse anything). The last US election was VERY race based, more so any election since, and political pundits are starting to notice this, even mainstream ones! The Democrats actively recruit minorities, and the Republicans, though they fail to accept that, are becoming the party of whites. How can one see the fact that blacks voted for Obama at a rate over 95%, and not see racial politics in that?? In Europe, Nationalism is turning more and more towards nativism.

    The more that multi-racialism establishes a foothold in Australia, the more that white Australians have “anti-racist”, ie anti-white messages and programs aimed at them, the more that “racial” nationalism will be seen as a political solution.

    We don’t consider a nation, united solely on values a nation. If so, then you would have to concede, that it would be acceptable for your identity to be replaced, assimilated out by another people, as long as they hold the same values, which today, is about serving the same masters. Such a nation is nothing specific. It is based on nothing but conditional acceptance of values. It means that my own child, my own family is not part of my ‘nation’ if they don’t hold whatever values we are dictated as being “Australian” values, but an African is! This is absurd! But it’s what people are told to accept.

    The type of nationalism that you are talking about, civic nationalism, is still popular, but a 20th century ideology. In the 21st century, we are seeing identity politics coming to the fore. You may not see it relevant now, but as Australia becomes more multiracial, as the different groups within Australia are going to seek more political representation for their interests, it only follows that white Australians will see the need for similar representation.

    Besides, we have no interest in nationalism based on ‘values’ or duty to a government. We want to protect our heritage. That is our goal.

    Lastly, you should not judge that attitudes of Australians based on what you see in the media. We know, from experience, that Australians are far more receptive of our politics that most people realise, they just don’t realise that they are not alone. It seems from your follow up comment, that you too realise that there is an anti-white taint to Liberalism. You would be surprised to find out how many ordinary Australians see it too, though keep silent.

  4. ChesterJem says:

    viagra healthy male generic viagra ok http://fast-sildenafil.com/ – viagra viagra generic cheap cheap india viagra buy viagra online brand viagra cheap viagra drug information http://fast-sildenafil.com/ – buy viagra. original viagra hearing loss viagra