Culture Wars #1 - Talking in "Code".

This series of posts will deal with a wide range of topics concerning culture. By culture, I mean our behavior, what we listen to, watch and what we enjoy.

The focus is upon behavior that we must change if we are to survive.

We European-Americans have a very dangerous habit of assuming that everyone thinks just like us and has good intentions. We have a very hard time spotting alien-unspoken agendas. We fail to spot these agendas because we are not looking for them.

We must learn to stop and think.

Let me illustrate with a classic example.

Recently Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray wrote a book entitled "The Bell Curve." The book raised a big rukus and reviews appeared everywhere. At any given time approximately 1/2 the bandwidth on alt.politics.nationalism.white was consumed with arguments about that book.

Now according to the authors, the main message of the book is that our elites are becoming dangerously isolated from the common man. But according to the reviewers, the main message of the book was that some brown races have lower IQs!

Now why do you suppose that the authors and the reviewers disagree so profoundly about the theme and the purpose of the book?

Who do you suppose is right?

Fascinating questions! As I open my copy and count pages, it becomes apparent that the authors spend 509 pages on the evidence that intelligence is hereditary and that our "information elites" are being selected on this hereditary basis.

The authors then spend a mere 17 pages (Chapter 21) on their central thesis - the dangers created by the isolation of this new elite.

Now let me warn you. When an author sets out to write a book about the dangers of a new hereditary elite, spends 500+ pages proving that such an elite has been created, but only 17 pages on the dangers (their sole stated purpose) something very important is going on. Your "code-speak" antenna should arise.

And indeed when you read those 17 pages of chapter 21, you get very thin gruel. These pages reiterate what is said in the preface; - that this new cognitive elite is isolated. Never, ever does the book give you one illustration, example or even a hint of exactly what the "danger" might be.

If all you are to do is comprehend the literal meaning of the words, then you are left scratching your head. So the cognitive elite is isolated? Why is that dangerous? What apocalypse awaits? The most important message of this book is broadly hinted at, but left entirely unspoken. Nevertheless, with a little detective work, the message is clear.

The authors are very careful to lay out the social pathologies that accompany low IQ, including increased crime, poverty and illegitimacy. They pointedly assert, over and over, that the intelligent are being removed from most working class neighborhoods. At the turn of the century, the intelligent formed most of the neighborhood leaders in churches, PTAs and local clubs. As these people are removed from working class neighborhoods, these neighborhoods are crippled, unable to organize, and vulnerable to social decay.

For the first 266 pages, the authors confine their discussion of the effects of low IQ to whites only, and limit the statistics on social pathology to whites (a very important clue about the real message of this book). They place particular emphasis on the advent of high levels of white illegitimacy, implying that white neighborhoods will soon become as dangerous and crime ridden as black neighborhoods.

The authors do not want readers with short attention spans to miss the graphic descriptions of white, working class neighborhoods full of illegitimacy and sullen angry skin-heads.

The next clue is a graphic on page 46, which clearly shows that while American Universities have been doing a much better job at rounding up intelligent people and getting them college degrees, only slightly more than half those with IQs above 115 get college degrees, and a clear majority of those above 130 do _not_ attend college, remaining scattered in the those decaying neighborhoods.

Now why do you suppose the authors would print such an important graphic that tends to undermine their thesis? The graphic shows that while there may be _fewer_ intelligent people back in those decaying neighborhoods, nevertheless, a clear majority of those with IQs at the truly gifted and genius levels remain back there with the decay!

People with IQs above 130 process information differently from the rest of society. They care a lot less about status. They are self-taught. They will act upon ideas, regardless of what others think. They have far less patience with propaganda than people with IQs below 130. People with IQs between 110 and 120 are far more conscious of status, manners and place. They tend to be a powerful force for social stability.

Now I will ask you; could this graphic have something to do with the real message of this book?

Might this vision of decaying white neighborhoods with too few 115 IQ people for stability but with more than half of our geniuses be disquieting to anyone out there?

Is the real message that there are more than enough _very_ smart people left in those decaying white neighborhoods to cause lots of trouble?

Is the "code" becoming clearer?

So who, exactly is this "elite" that the authors are warning of impending danger? The book never says, although there are hints.

The book carefully notes that Asians have IQs that are 5 points, on average, ahead of whites. Jews have IQs that are 12 points above whites.

The authors spend 500 pages demonstrating that those people in our society with the highest IQs get all the best jobs, make all the money, and end up with all the power.

So let us go ahead and break the code! Here is the authors' real message:

The authors think that this is a prescription for disaster. But of course, they must say it in code. The bald indented statements above are very dangerous. Such statements can never be made in public.

Their warning is directed at this new culturally non-white elite. The authors are neo-conservatives. What the authors are saying, in code, is that in order to be a secure elite, you must actively seek to _foster_ and _protect_ the culture of the majority. You cannot tear it down. You cannot, on one hand preach the virtues of equality, opportunity and diversity, while at the same time attacking the culture of the majority and hobbling them with quotas.

The problem that all neo-conservatives are addressing is a simple one. These new minority elites must overcome their suspicions and hostilities toward the majority or there well be real trouble. In particular, the newly conspicuous jewish elite must learn to foster and protect traditional Christianity and stop viewing it as an "enemy". The jews must shed their paranoia about pogroms and vigilantly protect the culture of the white majority.

Holding prosperous positions carries with it the responsibility for protecting others. For minorities in these positions, the responsibility is a stretch. According to these two neo-conservative authors, it is a responsibility that our new minority elites are handling very badly.

Multi-racial empires have a unique flaw that homogenous nations do not.

In a homogenous nation, ethnic unity tends to discipline elites to take responsibility for their political positions. If their policy prescriptions are destructive, they are destroying their own people. Ethnic unity tends to add a dimension of control to the appetites of elites. They are expected to protect the health safety and happiness of their own kind.

In a multiracial empire, elites become cosmopolitan. They lose the sense of unity between race and nation, and are free to advocate all sorts of bad policies, because the ill consequence of this policy will be inflicted upon cultural and racial strangers - people for whom these elites no longer have a sense of responsibility. It is only when a policy affects them personally that they react.

For minority elites, the problem is even worse. Because the evil policy could not have been adopted without some majority support, the minority elites never feel responsible for the consequences. In addition, minority elites will believe that the policy would have worked out fine if only the majority had not screwed up the administration of it.

That is why we still have Marxists in 1995. Being a jewish ideological construct, the descendants of the jews who invented it still believe it, despite its failure everywhere it has been tried, because it has "never been administered correctly." There is nothing wrong with Marxism; the problem is with the goyim who keep messing it up.

Not only are they free to disclaim responsibility, but they are free to indulge veiled hatreds toward the majority, with very little risk of discovery. All they need do is to speak in code, so that members of their own kind understand but the broader society does not.

Out of spleen and spite for some ancient outrage or slight, these minority elites are free to advocate racial quotas, confiscatory taxes, destroy traditional religions and promote alternative life styles that plunge millions into poverty and crime without the slightest remorse for the consequences. Why? Because they feel no bond of kinship with these people who are harmed. More often than not, they are overtly hostile to those harmed.

Neo-conservatives do not think that this will work.

But they also must speak in code. For indeed, the intended audience is expected to understand the real message without having it spelled out in black and white. Spelling it out runs the risk of informing the unorganized and unsuspecting majority. And that is not their purpose.

What you, the average European-American, must understand is that minority elites will always speak to each other of truly important and dangerous things in code.

After all, when they debate among themselves just exactly how they must deal with us, it may be very dangerous if we hear and understand.

Speaking in code is the sign of a strong culture, a culture with a will to survive. To remain ignorant of the truly important discussions going on around us dealing with our fate is a sign of a weak culture, one that is easily destroyed.

We must change.

We must learn how to think like minorities. We must develop powerful "code-speak" antenna.

We must understand the real agendas behind the words and images placed before us so that we can defend our own culture.

Neo-conservatism is a Jewish thing. It was invented by Norman Podhoretz and Midge Dechter at Commentary magazine. Its leading lights are George Gilder, Irving Kristol, and his son, Bud Kristol, Ronald Reagan's speech writer. They are good people, devoid of ethnic hostility towards us. They are engaged in a passionate and sincere debate with the "socialist" and profoundly anti-white members of their own tribe over the issue of fitness for leadership of this American empire.

If I thought the neoconservatives had a chance of winning this argument I would not be alarming you in this manner. But it is our job to be realists and defend ourselves. The neoconservatives are good people, but they constitute a mere 10% of their tribe.

The neoconservatives are faced with a daunting task. They must convince their co-religionists to protect and foster Christian belief and Christian values among Christians, at a time when establishment judaism and the Holocaust lobby constantly fan their fears to raise funds for Jewish charities and the State of Israel.

The Ole Ygg believes that the neo-conservatives will lose the argument and that the problem will get worse.

Back to Main Page

(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.