Race: Racism; Anti-Racism

A genetically distinct population.

The idea of a ‘pure race’ is obviously not a serious one. It’s the racial fact that counts. A race can be the stabilised product of an ancient melange. Contemporary genetics, out of favour with the dominant ideology, has well and truly confirmed humanity’s division into genetically statistical populations.

Races are not so much distinguished by phenotypic differences (skin colour, hair, height, etc.) as by genotypic variations affecting temperament and mental abilities — along with innate physiological and biological differences.

In reference to Henri Vallois’ work, Pierre Vial explains that, ‘Identity rests, at root, on a biological reality — a reality that has been the subject of physical anthropology . . . This biological belonging conditions numerous human characteristics, both at the individual and collective levels. The man on the street, still possessing a bit of common sense despite the media’s ceaseless brainwashing, well knows that there’s a difference between a Senegalese and someone from the Auvergne. Difference here doesn’t necessarily imply inferiority or superiority’.

The ethnodifferentialism Vial invokes differs significantly from the ambiguous concept of ethnopluralism. Ethnodifferentialism refuses all cohabitation with different peoples in the same territory, just as it refuses racial colonisation or domination — while ethnopluralism potentially leads to disaster — supporting, as it does, the ‘communitarian’ cohabitation of different peoples within the same political territory — a cohabitation that has never succeeded in history and inevitably leads to racism and racial conflict. The notion of race doesn’t exhaust that of ethnicity. Race is the biological constituent of ethnicity.

For strictly dogmatic reasons, the one-track thought (la pensée unique) of the dominant ideology denies even the existence of races (with the pseudo-argument that individual genetic differences are more important than differences between racial groups). It claims it wants to legally combat ‘racism’ — which is demonised in the way Victorians demonised libertinism. But how, one wonders, can something that supposedly doesn’t exist be condemned? And how is it even possible to have ‘racism’ if races are fictitious?

Anti-racism, the indispensable viaticum of the self-righteous, is actually a form of xenophilia (the valorisation of the ‘Other’) and of race-phobia. Obsessed and terrified by the fact of race — a major problem with the advent of multi-racial society and the problems it brings — Western ideology has succumbed to both race-phobia and, contradictorily, race-mania. To declare oneself ‘anti-racist’ and to denounce racism are today an obligatory propriety for all ideologues, artists, politicians, and journalists, on the Left and the Right — an obligation as necessary as proclaiming oneself a ‘good Muslim’ in Saudi Arabia.

In Europe we’ve reached the absurd point where whoever affirms the ‘inequality of races’ or the ‘superiority of the White race’ (true or not, it doesn’t matter) is accused of ‘racial hatred’, even if these affirmations are respectful of other races. Worse: ‘to be racist’ today (see the case of the Austrian leader of the FPÖ, Jörg Haider), has nothing to do with seeing the ‘Other’ as inferior or with threatening this ‘Other’, but simply with defending one’s own identity or defending oneself from the invasion. This suggests that European elites might have some sort of psychoanalytical problem with race — not unlike the one Victorians had with ‘sex’. Fixated on the question of race, anti-racists repress their own morbid instincts and concealed obsessions. ‘Race’ for them is some sort of devilish spirit that needs to be exorcised. Anti-racism, as such, becomes an ideological exorcism.

Africans or Asians, in contrast, speak of race and the fact of race as if it were perfectly natural. Arabs and Africans have also recently published works (in France and Great Britain) asserting their intrinsic superiority over ‘Whites’: Muslim leaders have even affirmed the need ‘of eradicating Whites from the planet’. They have never been prosecuted by French authorities. One might conclude from this that the elites don’t consider ‘anti-White’ racism dangerous, since it’s implicitly assumed that the White man will always defend himself and be dominant. This implies a certain contempt for other races — for it assumes that Whites will always dominate and that non-Whites are congenitally handicapped and in need of protection. In any case, it demonstrates the repressed racism of the dominant anti-racist ideology.

‘Racial hatred’ — an evidently absurd sentiment that reproaches other humans not for their acts but for their being — is an inevitable offshoot of multi-racial society. All multi-racial societies are multi-racist. None have ever functioned in harmony. They all generate discriminations.

On the subject of race, the dominant ideology has entangled itself in innumerable and insurmountable contradictions: affirmative action, quotas for Blacks, etc. One recognises the existence of races, though without recognising their legitimacy. The anti-racism of militants favouring racial quotas (for example, such as those demands for Blacks made by the Égalité collective) is an expression of the most pronounced racism — and has the effect of racialising society.

Nothing, moreover, is ever said about ‘anti-White racism’, which is never repressed, though it’s always present. Racism is seen in one way: the ethnic European alone is intrinsically guilty of this original sin.

At the end of the Nineteenth century, the neologism ‘racism’ had neither the same meaning nor the same present pejorative sense. It designated a doctrine that sought to explain differences between peoples and civilisations on the basis of their racial composition — what today we would call a ‘genetic’ explanation for a people’s general character. And, it’s everywhere ignored, the first self-proclaimed ‘racists’ — like Dr. Jules Soury, René Martial, or Jeremy Salmon — were partisans of miscegenation! For these racial pioneers, genetic crosses were the best way of achieving a ‘race of aptitude’ — wherever ‘pure races’ had failed because of their excessive specialisation. Like horses or dogs, they thought the human race was to practice selective cross-breeding in order to obtain the best results. Originally, then, racism was a doctrine of miscegenation. But thereafter it was added to every sauce — given that its powerful, emotional connotations no longer mean much anymore.

One is accused of ‘racism’ in the West on the basis of the most extravagant claim: whoever defends his identity and homeland from alien colonisers is deemed a ‘racist’. Due to some magical quality, Europeans alone produce racist theories. One forgets, for example, the numerous racist and supremacist anti-White positions taken by the African disciples of the Senegalese sociologist Cheikh Anta Diop — whose work the current leaders of the new South Africa or Zimbabwe never stop spreading — without offending anyone.

Racism today is confused with xenophobia. It’s not even a question of racism or anti-racism, but of affirming the importance of race in constituting humanity. Biological differences in this sense are a source of richness; they become sources of conflict only when racial barriers cease to exist. As De Gaulle explained, France is obviously a country of the White race, and like every such country, it’s perfectly able to welcome a small number of minorities (like Blacks from the French West Indies), but it certainly can’t become a multi-racial society without generating unmanageable conflicts. This is the case with every people. For those lacking a minimum of biological homogeneity are threatened in the long run with internal decomposition. The racial fact is not everything, of course. But it’s there. To neglect it inevitably leads to catastrophe.

To make the notion of ‘race’ a taboo, to turn it into a quasi-religious prohibition, nullifies it — which has the added consequences of reversing its effects, for like every ‘family secret’, it becomes a time bomb. Its repercussions are easily imagined.

(see chaos, ethnic; ethnomasochism; people; xenophilia)