Sunday, June 2, 2013

“Prejudice Research” and the Anti-White Brigade

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.