Hostis Humani Generis
– or –
An essay on a pivotal issue of our era
From GANPAC BRIEF, “News and Views by Hans Schmidt”
We shall now identify a few of the doctrines and orientations which have caused American liberalism to evolve into what we call “Jewish Liberalism.” Jews everywhere recognize these doctrines as being part of the Jewish “party line,” and for the past several decades they have been proselytized with a religious fervor from Jewish dominated areas of academia and the media of mass communication. Underlying all of these doctrines is the Jewish attempt to undermine the leadership, authority and dignity of the dominant males of our society and to replace them with Jewish males. Also, there is the attempt to depreciate and destroy the culture and civilization these white males have created.
For the past two centuries European observers have noted that it is not “racial equality” that the Jews are after, but rather destruction of the white race. But why destroy the white race?
Originally darker of complexion and kinkier of hair, the Jews came to Europe. One can only speculate as to their reactions when they stood on the streets and watched the pleasant, clean-cut, blond, blue-eyed children playing in the streets. How they must have craved after (as they do today) the delicately featured, modest, blond girls who were generally “off limits” to Jews. Here they were God’s chosen people... .yet so ugly, so sleazy and so dark. “Well,” they must have concluded, “this situation must be remedied.” So Jewish businessmen began importing “workers” from Africa into France, and even into the German Rhineland, while Jewish propaganda machinery was vigorously promoting the lie that there are no significant biological differences between the races which reflect in mental quality. “It’s safe to mix,” is the theme. “It’s even a sign of a healthy society.”
Prior to the Second World War virtually all Americans and Europeans were openly racist and opposed race mixing because they recognized that racial differences reflect in mental quality. This understanding came from a wide range of experiences which people had with other racial types, and from the breeding of animals. They did not need IQ tests or “scientific” studies. It was obvious to them, just as it is to us today, who is intelligent, and who is not. They noticed not only differences in intelligence and talents between the races, but differences in personality and temperament as well. They also noticed that mulattos were generally more intelligent than pure Negroes, and they noticed that the more white blood in the mulatto, the generally more intelligent he was.
In the breeding of animals our ancestors bred them not only to bring about certain physical characteristics, but they bred them for mental qualities as well. It was obvious to them that different breeds within a species differ considerably in mental quality. As a matter of fact, when two breeds differ physically then it is inevitable that they will also differ in mental quality. Golden retrievers, Doberman pinchers, basset hounds and poodles all differ considerably in mental capacities as well as in personality and temperament and yet they all belong to the same species.
Today our Jewish dominated social sciences are in a muddle over the race question. The average IQ score of white Americans is 100. Over the past forty years social scientists have been trying to explain away why, when all environmental factors are equal, Negroes score an average of 15 points less on IQ tests than whites, and only a small percentage have an IQ of 100 or more. No matter what they did, they could not devise a test which could measure intelligence and close the racial gap. In desperation some prominent social scientists began to deny that IQ tests really measure anything significant. Some began to deny that there is such a thing as intelligence. Others even tried to deny that there is such a thing as race. But none of these arguments was convincing, and many were totally absurd. The overwhelming evidence was there, obvious and easily accessible to everyone. Pressure was building for the truth to come out into the open.
Probably the best kept secret in the social sciences today is that all evidence points to the fact that “Latinos,” with Indian blood, have an average IQ of around 90, and this because of their genetic makeup. Presently, there is not a decent term to identify this race, so we shall here call them “Indians,” and those with mixed white blood “Mestizos.” Racially these people are Mongolian, but they have genetically diverged somewhat from the Asian Mongolians who generally have an IQ of around 100.
In 1994 the book The Bell Curve was published. We view the publishing of this book as a desperate attempt at damage control on the part of a few top social scientists even before the damage was done. What the authors (one Jew and one American) did was to present the overwhelming evidence for genetically based differences in intelligence between the races, and then try to control the public’s understanding of the implications of this reality. What they concluded was, “So what! We can still mix.” They argued, absurdly, that since the racial differences reflect only average differences between the races there are some Negroes who are more intelligent than some whites and therefore we should have a race blind society and go ahead and mix it up.
The Jewish Liberal establishment received the book with trepidation, and rightly so. It will be impossible to hide the true implications of facing the reality of racial differences. The authors failed to take some very important and obvious factors into account.
A multi-racial society gives rise to very serious problems and injustices for all the races involved. Our civilization is based on a population which has an average IQ of 100 points. Persons with less than a 90 IQ have great difficulty in handling their occupational, financial, practical and social affairs in our society. Fifty percent of the Negro population have less than an 85 IQ. Fifty percent of Indian and Mestizo “Latinos” have less than a 90 IQ. These unfortunate people are expected to compete with the rest of us, and they are expected to handle a civilization which European whites have created. They try and try and finally give it up, and their frustrations turn to anger and this results in the terrible social problems we face today.
If race mixing with Negroes and Indians occurs on a massive scale, then the average IQ of the general population will drop. Even a drop of a few points would have tremendous implications. Also, Mestizo-mulattos have a very different personality and temperament than white Europeans, and this would impact greatly on both culture and civilization. We have many examples in Africa and in Latin America of the results of race mixing. We do not need Jewish and Jewish educated “social scientists’ to tell us what the inevitable outcome of race mixing would be. It would result in a catastrophe of tremendous proportions.
Realizing that there would be no way to cover up the real consequences of race mixing, the liberal establishment decided that its lies on the race question must be sustained at all costs. The Bell Curve was quickly shoved down the memory hole.
A dangerous shift has been occurring in the perceptions and attitudes of the American people regarding race. Today large numbers of our population no longer believe that Negroes and Indians are inherently less intelligent than whites. While direct race mixing propaganda is contributing to this shift, the major factor is the influence of the unreal world of television programming. In virtually all TV productions non-whites are portrayed as being competent, intelligent and charming characters. Also, the networks recruit the most intelligent and articulate non-whites whom they can find and use them as talk show hosts, anchor people, reporters, commentators, etc. The general public, impressed by these personalities and understanding little about the distribution of intelligence in a population, concludes that Negroes and Indians are really not inherently less intelligent than whites. All of this is resulting in a breakdown of race mixing taboos, and recently significant numbers of white women of the lower classes have begun miscegenating with “Latinos” with Indian blood. An irony in this matter is that the most highly educated Americans, those who previously fervently believed that the races are inherently equal, now believe that there probably are significant differences between the races in intelligence and in general mental quality.
As for the question of which races the world over have higher or lower biologically determined capacities for intelligence, it seems that almost all the races and sub-races on the Euro-Asian continent and in North Africa have an average of around 100 IQ. Some regions of China and Southeast Asia may have populations with less than 100. Negroes, most South Sea Islanders, Australian aborigines, Eskimos and New World Indians have somewhat less than 100. The Japanese may have a bit more than 100 IQ. Slightly higher IQ scores by the Jews may be the result of a combination of past eugenic practices and child rearing practices on their part.
While some races and sub-races may perform similarly on IQ tests, by virtue of the fact they are biologically different it is certain that they differ in total mental quality. India Indians and Chinese differ from Europeans, and from each other, in various biologically determined traits of temperament, character and personality. Because of this, race mixing of any kind is something which should be approached with great caution by everyone.
It has been said that from the time of the French Revolution the Jews of Europe were whispering into the ears of European ladies that they should “free” themselves from those evil, domineering men who are holding them in subjugation. There is little doubt that the Jews are the source and inspiration of the feminist movement. Virtually all of the major feminist organizations across the country are dominated by Jewish lesbians, and Jews in academia and the major media have been almost unanimously sympathetic to these charming ladies and their agendas.
The main reason why the Jews push feminism is, of course, to get at the dominant Gentile males. They want to degrade them and weaken them. They want to paint them as evil. And they want the weaker and less critical females to have political and social power because this creates conditions which are much better for Jewish domination.
One very significant example of early Jewish influence on the feminist movement (and all of social science) is the case of Franz Boas, a European Jew who came to dominate the Anthropology Department at Columbia University in 1896 when that science was in its embryonic stages. He held sway there for over forty years and conferred hundreds of Ph.D’s in anthropology. These persons, with their Jewish Liberal orientations, spread like a cancer across our land and began indoctrinating Americans with their Jewish Liberal point of view.
Among these Ph.D.’s. were Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict, two Gentile ladies whose books and field studies became mandatory reading for a whole generation of educated Americans. Essentially, what their “scientific” research led these ladies to conclude is that there is no inborn difference in mental quality between men and women, and that women could (and probably should) be dominant over men. While these ladies were almost certainly sincere in their convictions, they were surrounded by Jews who gave them their orientations and supported them and gleefully popularized and propagandized their “scientific” discoveries.
Once again here we have a Jewish lie which flies into the face of reality. In all Mammalia, including the higher primates, males are always dominant over the females. The males struggle with each other for dominance in a social hierarchy of their own and from which the females are excluded. The females establish their own hierarchy and occupy themselves caring for the children. In short, they behave as people universally always have behaved. It is absurd to claim that these behavior patterns are “learned,” and are not inborn.
Related to feminism is the thrust in Jewish Liberalism for “homosexual rights.” Once again, here they are throwing it into the face of the poor Gentile male. It is interesting and instructive how leading social scientists, for more than three decades, promoted the lie that ten percent of males were homosexual. Unable to sustain the lie any longer, they were recently forced to admit that it is really only one and a half to three percent, depending on your definition of homosexuality.
The Jewish thrust for “civil rights” has always been geared in such a way as to promote the Jewish doctrines of race mixing, feminism, homosexual rights, etc. In the “free speech” movement of the 1960’s our “peddlers of pornography” were not out to protect political speech, but rather pornographic material. Today our great defenders of civil rights are maneuvering to suppress, possibly by law, what they consider to be “hate speech,” i.e. any criticism of them or their agendas.
Before the Second World War, Europeans were accusing the Jews of trying to “effeminize” white males. Then, during the 1950’s and 1960’s hundreds of books were published attacking that horrible person, the “authoritarian personality.” These books were made mandatory reading on college campuses across the country. The movie industry picked up the theme and produced large numbers of movies attacking white Gentile men in positions of authority. Policemen, fathers, business executives, military officers, ship captains, prison wardens, etc. were shown as being cruel, evil, and even insane. Then the “flower children” of the 1960’s came to prominence and since then we have had “unisex” and “sensitivity training.” The purpose of all this was to undermine Gentiles’ respect for authority and to discourage the Gentile male from becoming dominant and assertive. Somehow, strangely, these orientations do not seem to affect the Jewish males, who are as aggressive and domineering as ever.
|‘We [Jews] killed them [Arabs] out of a certain native hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.’ Ari Shavit, New York Times, 27 May 1996.|