Heredity
Physical and psychological characteristics innate to biological nature — and hence transmittable.
Heredity not only constitutes an individual or familial disposition, but a collective one. A people’s hereditary disposition, though not perfectly clear and having thus a fluid character, nevertheless exists.
The dominant ideology now rejects all idea of a people’s heredity. Based on the dogmas of assimilation and integration, it holds that identity is not transmitted, but acquired. Any human group can therefore adapt itself to any culture. The taboo science of ethnopsychology has demonstrated, though, that the behaviour of peoples and nations depends to a significant degree on their collective genetic disposition. Put in identical circumstances, different peoples produce different results. Those not favoured by their natural environment can often thus produce more than those who are. The Dutch, for example, whose natural environment is atrocious, far out-produce African populations situated in lands that are naturally rich.
We need to finish with the behaviourist dogma, whose origin is Marxist, according to which differences in performance levels and living standards between countries and civilisations are uniquely due to the hazards of history, to the relations of production, and to the exploitation of one people by another. These differences are atavistic, the fruit of different collective heredities, most of which, of course, are innate.
Heredity is nevertheless not everything. Or rather it has surprises to reveal. Within every people, degenerate tendencies can always surface. Hence the decline of certain civilisations. The Great War of 1914-1918, for example, profoundly damaged the genetic basis of European elites, of her natural aristocrats. Thus, perhaps for this reason, the decline in character and virtus[1] so evident today. In addition to genetic factors, harmful ideologies also have the power to deprive human groups of the capacity for resistance and creativity. No people, except for limited periods, should claim to be hereditarily superior to another.
History is nothing but the relations of forces — the struggle for life. If Europeans are being colonised by formerly dominated peoples from the South, if they accept every kind of humiliation, it’s due, first off, to a weakness within them. Heredity is not eternal. We need to be constantly on guard against superiority complexes. Heredity is acquired, but it’s also conquered and defended. Every people, by its own hand, can lose the hereditary disposition that is its force, for it is actualised only within its own culture; or, in cases of counter-selection, it stupidly squanders its genetic patrimony.
More precisely said — and this remark is totally taboo in Europe today, though not in the rest of the world, which freely acknowledges it — race-mixing is fatal to a people’s heredity and the pursuit of its civilisation. It’s the dialectic of the innate and the acquired, it’s also the history of the living. For the cultural transmission of a tradition and the continuation of a civilisation are impossible without maintaining its biological core, its original stock. André Lama, for example, has shown that the fall of the Roman Empire was due, in part, to Roman mixing with alien populations.[2]
(see germen; heritage; miscegenation; race, racism and anti-racism)
