John J. Ray, Ph.D. wrote before on several occasions that Nazism is a left-wing movement. Dr. Ray, however, is a traditional conservative. It’s interesting that at least some Nazis view themselves as leftist.

NATIONAL SOCIALISM: A LEFT-WING MOVEMENT
by Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

*originally written for Nordland Foblag

For far too many years it has been widely accepted that National Socialists are extreme right-wingers, and only rarely have they hesitated to refer to themselves as such. At a certain point, however, it became the official policy of the World Union of National Socialists to avoid the term “right-wing,” claiming that National Socialism does not fit into the pattern of “right” and “left” and instead ought to be considered as standing above this distinction. This most certainly was a step in the right direction, but at this time and within the context of the current struggle it might, however, be a good idea to reconsider the whole question about political wings and make a few points clear concerning the meaning of the terms “right” and “left” and their application to today’s political scene.

Historically, the words “right” and “left” in reference to political views originated in pre-revolutionary France, where those who wanted to preserve the system of government, more or less as it was, sat to the Right in the National Assembly, whereas those who wanted more radical changes sat to the left. Hence, the term “right” for the reactionaries and “left” for the revolutionaries— terms that have since become universally known and used. Neither the word “reactionary” nor the word “revolutionary,” however, says anything universal about the particular views in question. They are both relative and receive their specific meaning only within a given historical context. The revolutionaries of former times, as for instance, the European National Liberals of the 19th century, do not seem very revolutionary today—quite the contrary!—just as today’s reactionaries would have been considered very revolutionary 200 years ago. When the Communists took over in Russia in 1917 they did so as revolutionaries out to overthrow an ineffective and corrupt regime, whereas today they represent the reactionary establishment facing a new revolutionary challenge.

In our time the traditional left wing is predominantly Marxist —even to such a degree that the very term “left wing” is thought to be synonymous with the word “Marxist.” This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger—it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The right-wingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: they are good Christians and good citizens who defend the Constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one. They are willing to go to war against any other nation to assert the greatness of their own—even if it means waging a nuclear war against another White country if they think its system of government threatens their own domestic order, no matter how corrupt and degenerate it may be. They are for an economy based on unrestricted free enterprise, regardless of the consequences, but they resent the Liberal trend in politics as well as immigration and racial integration, because they fear any changes that could upset the order to which they are accustomed.

Where National Socialists are to be found in this spectrum seems quite clear: We are left-wingers—no doubt about it! We do not want to preserve the present system or any part thereof. We do not believe in the foundations of a system that has led our people into the misery of the present time! We do not want to support any institution which is responsible for two world wars between White nations as well as countless minor wars; nuclear rearmament; the pollution of the environment; unemployment; the total disillusionment of young people, who have lost all faith in the future; drug abuse; pornography; and all the other forms of complete degeneracy which are displayed today. We National Socialists want the most radical change of all: we want the complete overthrow of the entire Old Order!

Whereas Marxism shares a basic egalitarian philosophy with the Old Order and defines itself as a materialistic movement aiming at the mere redistribution of the material goods. National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century—and thus very much left-wing!—and it certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea, invented by Christianity and upheld by Liberal Democracy: If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.

If National Socialism is, in its essence, a left-wing movement, it is, of course, paradoxical that National Socialists should have devoted so much time and energy to catering toward traditional right-wing attitudes, whereas they have shunned all openings to the left. Is it any wonder that all attempts to create a National Socialist movement on this basis have been utterly unsuccessful?

The first precondition for creating anything in this world is that one has a clear idea of what one wants to achieve and how one can possibly achieve it. A sculptor who wants to create a work of art starts out with a mental concept, and then sets out to realize it in his chosen material. He does not just dabble around casually with his chisel on a piece of marble, wondering what the final result will be.

Thus, it is crucial to realize that National Socialism is not just a form of extreme rightism. Anybody within our ranks who still has such notions should devote himself to studying the idea of National Socialism to find its true meaning and significance—or, if he doesn’t have the energy or ability to do so, he should find another outlet for his activities. This Movement does not have room for frustrated haters or religious dreamers, but only for devoted National Socialist revolutionaries!

* * *

Let us face it realistically: The right wing is mostly a pitiful conglomerate of people with very unclear ideas. They realize that something is wrong. But they refuse to leave the Old Order. Instead they cling to it with all their might and wish to revert to the situation as it was 75 or 100 years ago, thinking that this will solve all their problems. They simply fail to see that the mess we are in today is a logical result of the system we had 100 years ago—that the foundations of that system were not good and stable enough to safeguard us from the present development. The father of most of our problems is to be found in that very Christian idea, whose egalitarian philosophy and alien and unnatural teachings have robbed our people of its soul, but which they continue to praise as the very shield against the decline they see all around them. When all their futile attempts to halt the development fail, they become frustrated and turn into mere haters, because they have no real vision and no ideology.

It is a historical fact that nothing good has ever come out of the right-wing. If it had not been for such revolutionaries as Copernicus, Kepler, Giordano Bruno and Galileo, we should still believe that the earth is flat and the center of the universe. When capitalism developed, the establishment made no attempt to solve the social problems resulting from the industrial revolution, but went on to exploit the new working class mercilessly— thus giving rise to revolutionary thoughts as expressed in Marxist ideology. And all the necessary and just social improvements we have seen during the past 100 years have only been introduced after hard pressure from the left-wing, with right-wing conservatives in constant retreat, pitifully trying to preserve as much as possible for themselves.

This does not mean, of course, that any effort to overthrow an established system is, per se, good. If man succeeds in creating a new natural order which does not fossilize but remains a living organism and develops within the boundaries of natural law, adopting new scientific and philosophical insights into the nature of life without clinging to outdated conceptions, it would, indeed, be a most serious offense to try to uproot that order and revert to egoistic materialism, Christianity, or any other unnatural philosophy. What is good and bad can solely be judged on the basis of natural law—the closer to it the better.

It is almost universally accepted that there is a gulf between National Socialism and Marxism. By the same token, however, National Socialists are certainly not right-wingers either. The only common ground National Socialism seems to have with the right-wing is the racial issue; but here too there is an extreme difference in the outlook. The right-wingers believe that being White holds an absolute value in itself, which elevates the Aryan race over all other living organisms and gives it a right to do with the world what it wants to. As National Socialists, however, we are not just concerned about the life and immediate well-being of our own race. We see the White race as part of the whole natural order of the universe and our wish to preserve it is linked with our wish to preserve the entire natural environment—including other human races—out of a deep respect for the inscrutable wisdom of Nature.

No doubt, our race has great possibilities in its intellectual capacity, but its abilities have absolutely no value as such, however, if they are not put to the right use in accordance with the laws of Nature. For much too long we have joined in the chorus claiming “White Power,” and ignored the sad fact that our race has had the absolute power for at least 2000 years. And it is exactly this power that has led to the kind of society we have today. Thus, we do not share the right-wing belief in continuous technological and economical expansion, which has already led to the pollution of air and water and has made huge areas of the world unfit to live in for all species—a development which means that the ozone layer in the atmosphere is systematically destroyed so that coming generations are going to be exposed to life-threatening radiation, that tropical forests which had supplied us with oxygen, are cut down to make room for industrial growth, and that the deserts are irrigated so that the ground water level sinks in fertile areas, which then become deserts in turn. All this is the result of Aryan genius, without which it would not have existed—genius which has not been put to work to build a better world for our children and grandchildren, but only to satisfy the human greed of the moment, to secure a pleasant life now without regard for the future. This fatal trend, which by the standards of natural law, has most certainly turned the industrialized White countries of the West into a far more degenerate state than any so-called primitive society of the Third World, is violently supported by the right-wing, which seems to think that everything would be just fine if only the Blacks, the Jews, and the Boat People were expelled. We know that in itself this would not change anything at all.

Our aim is a complete spiritual rebirth, and it is our immediate goal to define and build the foundations for this rebirth— which is the only thing that can give the racial struggle any meaning. And this struggle should not be understood as a struggle against other races, but as a relentless fight against the decadence of our own race. The isolated appeal to Race as the basis of a new society is meaningless, unless we can overcome this decadence and find our way back to natural values. If our race can only survive within the context of the present system, we do not want it to survive, because then it would represent nothing but the grossest form of anti-natural degeneracy. The claim for “White Power” can only gain any meaning if, by that, we mean the wish to reactivate the power of Nature as it rests latently in the genius of the White man, whose duty it is to put this power to use in order to uphold the very principle of life.

Of course, this does not mean that we are in favor of any kind of multiracialism. Race is one of the cornerstones of the natural order, and thus must be defended like all other natural principles. It certainly does not mean that the white color of one’s skin is necessarily a hallmark of human quality. The White race has allowed the world to slide to the brink of disaster, and unless it can be brought to realize that the quality of life can be improved by replacing the materialistic consumer’s society— which is the supreme goal of both Marxism and Liberalism— by natural and spiritual values, it is doomed and will only be destroy the whole planet in the process of its absolute decline.

Naturally, National Socialists do not think that we should go back to the Stone Age caves; But we do think that we should never take more out of Nature than we put back into her. The quality of life should mean more to us than the quality of material goods.

In today’s disillusioned society, growing numbers of people realize this and, what is more, they protest against the ruling order. They do not become National Socialists, however, for one simple reason: They are not aware that National Socialism—and only National Socialism!—can solve today’s crucial problems. Instead they allow their protest movements to be taken over by the Marxists, who are better at selling their product than we are, despite the fact that no Marxist government has ever made the slightest attempt to tackle these issues—simply because the very concept of Marxism is materialistic, and at no point concerned with natural values. The Marxists merely use popular dissatisfaction with the establishment to promote Marxism. The dissatisfied individuals themselves are not at all Marxists to begin with.

While National Socialists run around trying to win over small fringe groups of traditional right-wingers with all their political and religious hang-ups, their notorious megalomania, and their lack of commitment to a cause—resulted from their being constantly on the defensive trying to save what has to go—the Marxists get a foothold among concerned citizens who renounce unlimited materialism out of an idealistic concern for the future of our planet. For the most part, these people do not realize that preservation of the natural order calls for more far-reaching measures than the control of pollution and the abolition of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. They do not see that it also demands racial separation and a general spiritual revival that can lead Man back to the sources of life. They can also learn this, however—or rather, they cannot help but see it— if they are provided with the necessary information and insight and not left exposed to the exclusive influence of asinine Marxist teachings. These people are idealistic and for Nature, and thus they really belong to us—and they are generally far more valuable as fighters than a good many disillusioned youngsters who call themselves National Socialists in an attempt to boost their egos and hide their personal problems and insecurity behind a self-styled uniform and ludicrous ranks and titles. But the environmentalists are not attracted by storm troopers or by hate propaganda, all of which just confirms their negative impression of National Socialism. Nor does it help to talk to them about the significance of Race, because they have not yet come so far in their development that they can see the relevance of the racial issue. They must be approached where they are and on issues that concern them here and now. To do this, it is necessary to produce good material on the environmental problems as seen from the National Socialist point of view, and to go into the groups where these people gather in protest against nukes, pollution and nuclear warfare. We cannot expect the environmentalists to come to us, because they have no way of knowing what National Socialism is all about; and if we fail to get in contact with them, they will be lost to the Marxists, in whose hands they are never going to realize the full consequence of their own attitude.

These new protesters are hostile to us—simply because of decades of enemy propaganda, which has not only alienated sound and intelligent people from any kind of movement which overtly expresses National Socialist ideas, but which has also succeeded in attracting a large number of individuals to our movement who suit this propaganda image of National Socialism only too well, and who come to us simply because they want to live up to this image. They want to be such murderous, bloodthirsty beasts as they have come to know from countless Hollywood productions and yellow-press accounts of the terrible “Nazis.” For far too long we have welcomed such psychopaths into our ranks and for far too long we have failed to dissociate ourselves from other organizations which do the same. Because people call themselves National Socialists and wave the Swastika does not make them our comrades! Many organizations still do not realize this, and as long as they do not do so they are doomed—and, unfortunately, so are we, if we do not take every opportunity which offers itself to denounce them in public. It has often been said that we should not “wash our dirty linen” in front of our enemies and that all “internal strife” should be kept within our own walls. However, this is not our linen and it most certainly is not “internal strife”—it is a necessary cleaning operation, and it must be carried out in public. Our worst enemies are not the Jews or the Communists, but the very people who while calling themselves National Socialists debase the fundamental concepts of the National Socialist philosophy through their behavior, thus confirming the distorted impression of our Idea conveyed to the public by our enemy. Indeed, we can feel no loyalty towards such people and no friendship. On the contrary, we have to rid ourselves of any connection with them whatsoever, and go out of our way to show people that they do not belong to us. Above all, we should take great pains to do exactly those things that are not expected of us. We are expected to embrace just about any right-winger who waves a Swastika—and we are most certainly not expected to be found anywhere near the left-wing, simply because people have been told over and over again that we are right-wingers . Consequently, we should deliberately show them that they have been misinformed. The surprise effect will be likely to make at least some people listen to what we have to say. Furthermore, it is going to make people think twice about what they are told concerning National Socialism when they realize that they have been lied to once on this subject.

* * *

In this connection, it should be noted that we are not a historical association. Many National Socialists seem to think that we are going to revive National Socialist Germany and transplant it to other parts of the world. This is the way our enemy would like to make us look, but this is not the case! National Socialist Germany represents an attempt—and a not altogether successful attempt!—to organize a National Socialist community at a given time and in a given historical context. It can inspire us and we can learn from it—but we cannot revive it—nor should we ever try to. It was an experiment designed to deal with a set of problems that were of major concern to the German people at the time, but which are not necessarily felt as equally important by people today.

When Hitler set out on his historical mission to reorganize Germany about 60 years ago, the entire German nation was at its knees economically, militarily, and politically. After the defeat in World War I, Germany not only lost all its colonies, but an enormous part of its European territory settled by several million Germans who found themselves cut off from their mother country, living a miserable life as minorities in foreign countries that only wished to wipe them out. What was left of Germany was totally demilitarized, and the weight of outrageous claims for reparations put forward by the conquerors caused the most hideous inflation in world history and crushed any possibility of economic recovery. In this situation a small minority of Jewish immigrants from the East slowly gained control of the shattered economy, as well as the entire cultural and political life of the country. Compared to this situation, all talk about a present economic crisis is ludicrous. Materially, any country of the West and most Communist countries are far better off than Germany was in the ’20s. Today it is a matter of selling the family car and perhaps moving to a cheaper apartment. In Germany it was simply a question of surviving.

* * *

Morally, however, we are faced with a much graver threat than Hitler was. His Germany was still a fairly homogeneous country, where most people shared a set of common values and norms and a common belief in the cultural tradition of the nation. They wanted to regain their former power—they wanted to be strong and respected by other nations. Hitler did not have to tell them to love their people and their race. He could take it for granted that they did. Their values and norms were not necessarily all in accordance with National Socialist philosophy, but they were a sound basis on which a National Socialist state could be built without too many difficulties, and thus Hitler could concentrate his political propaganda on more mundane things.

He was living in thoroughly revolutionary times, in which the need for work and food was of paramount importance, and he knew that a program which could secure these things would give him the support of the voters and thus enable him to gain power so that he could try to realize his political vision which, of course, went much further than the immediate need for material things.

However, as we all know, National Socialism was not the only revolutionary force in Germany at that time. The Communists had exactly the same advantages as Hitler: a starving population willing to try almost anything to survive. They also had the advantage over Hitler that they could point to the successful revolution in Russia. Hitler had nothing of the kind to which he could relate his struggle. And it is noteworthy that he did not link his movement to any of the powerful right-wing ideologies of the past such as the monarchy or the churches. His approach was thoroughly left-wing and equally opposed to the Establishment and the Communist Party. When, at last, he won over the Communists, it was not by beating them into silence, but by draining away their support by taking up the same issues as the Communists and pointing out a better solution—all of which convinced the German worker that he could be a better and more competent leader than Thaelmann, who was head of the German Communist Party, would be. He talked to people about what concerned them in the language of his time and adopted a military style, which was popular in a country full of ex-servicemen who had any reason to feel betrayed by the government and which was also useful in a situation where you had to fight the numerous Communist murder gangs, who used very much the same style and language as Hitler.

To try to imitate Hitler’s style today would be political suicide. As a matter of fact it has been the end of every group which has tried it so far. Nor can you take over Hitler’s propaganda material. To translate it, reprint it, or imitate it in a different context as anything but historical study material is ridiculous. Hitler was catering to the German masses of the 1930s. Apart from everything else we must realize and accept that there is no way to win the masses in the present situation. Today, we are looking for a small ,number of idealists. To find them, we have to turn our attention to problems that concern exactly the type of people we are looking for: pollution the nuclear threat, the curse of multinational Capitalism, etc. Most of these problems were unknown to Hitler’s contemporaries—but that is no reason not to tackle them! Our world has become much more complicated than it was 50 years ago, and any political movement that fails to take this into account reduces itself to an anachronistic fossil.

We must admit that generally we have tended to speak and write too much about National Socialist Germany. In spite of all the good we may be able to show that Hitler did for Germany, the people we are looking for today are not really very interested in what happened 50 years ago. They are concerned about their own time—and the future.

When we cling so desperately to the past, one of the reasons is, of course, that National Socialist Germany is the only example of applied National Socialism the world has ever seen and that those 12 short years represent the only glory and ’success our Movement has ever had. This is understandable. We need it in these difficult times of humiliation and persecution. We need it to show to ourselves that National Socialism once was victorious—in spite of all adversity.

However, it is extremely dangerous when this respect and admiration for the past, instead of being a productive inspiration, becomes a nostalgic fixation on a bygone era, a blind, love for the paraphernalia of the NSDAP, the uniforms, the symbols, the ranks, the haircuts, and even for the linguistic style of the ’30s. Not the outward appearance but the inherent idea is important, and we have to get on from there. Like Hitler, we must avoid being trapped by history. In other words, we must show how National Socialism can solve the unemployment problem today—not merely how Hitler solved it in 1933.

The idea behind National Socialism transcends Hitler and Nalional Socialism itself. Hitler applied it to an earlier time and place; we have to apply it to our own. It is timeless, because it represents the very principle according to which Nature lives and creates. It has existed since the beginning of time and is going to exist forever, as long as the universe exists, no matter whether the Aryan race—or mankind as such, for that matter-exists or not. Man has abandoned this principle, and it is our task to show him that he cannot do so unpunished, and that all his present problems are caused by the insane belief that man is elevated above Nature. In doing so, we should be as little tied with National Socialist Germany as the other leftists are tied up with the Soviet Union.

* * *

We should also learn a great deal from the way the other leftist groups are organized. It is commonplace to claim that Marxist organizations consist of human waste. This may, of course, be true of the followers of some groups, but the hard core of the serious Marxist organizations is organized along lines that are certain secure quality and devotion. Members are very ofter tithed and they are required to spend a certain number of flights every week with ideological training and practical activities. Altogether, the demands put on a Marxist far exceed anything we have ever dared to expect of our members. This says something about quality, and it also explains why the Marxists are doing so much better than we are— despite the fact that what they preach is utter nonsense.

Among National Socialists, however, taking stands or adopting methods which are normally considered to be Marxist seems to be met with a good deal of fear of somehow being “contaminated” by Marxism. It would give us a bad name among both friends and enemies, they claim. Now, we certainly have a bad name already—to be quite honest, it could hardly get any worse. But as we are not too concerned about winning over traditional conservatives, what does it matter? If they cannot tell the difference between Communism and National Socialism, it is their problem, not ours! In that case, they show a lack of intelligence that makes them useless for us in any event. We cannot allow our enemies to determine what is a National Socialist viewpoint and what is not, and we sure cannot leave all the good causes to the Marxists, just to please people who have proven to be totally useless to us anyway. We have already done that for far too long—and that is another reason why Marxists have been so successful and have been able to take over vast segments of our culture and intellectual life, while National Socialists have allowed themselves to feel obligated to say “yes” to NATO, the European Common Market, the bomb, Capitalism, unlimited “free enterprise,” etc. It is time that this be changed! Let us not continue to do what people have been led to expect of us. Let us do what National Socialism teaches us to do—not what people think it ought to teach us.
In this connection the sad truth, is that many National Socialists in their traditional thinking have fallen victims of the worst kind of right-wing anti-Communist propaganda. The main threat against Man most certainly does not emanate from Moscow, Peking or Havana. There is absolutely no way you can blame the Communists for the sorry state of the world today-for drug abuse, crime, pornography, nuclear rearmament, racial integration, pollution and so on. It is our own present system of government that is to blame—neither the Communists, nor the Jews! We have to realize that these evils have been created by our own corrupt and morally depraved politicians and stockbrokers and that we, the Aryan peoples of the world, have ourselves allowed it to get this bad. It is not a foreign government but this present system which is a threat to the existence of the planet, and without this system there would not be any Soviet Union or any other Communist state today. Communism would have been wiped out during World War II if the West had not given the Soviet Union the necessary arms and technology. Even today, all Communist states would immediately disintegrate if they were not constantly supported by Western governments and bankers, who earn fortunes on trade with these countries—and on lending them money. The Communists certainly know this, and they have more than enough to do keeping Eastern Europe in line arid securing the Communist regime in Afghanistan to constitute a serious danger to the West.

Interestingly, the same multinational corporations which generate huge profits on trade with the Communist bloc, make another fortune on the production of arms our politicians try to persuade us are necessary to defend ourselves against the Communists—as if you can defend anything by destroying all life in a nuclear war. This is, of course utterly ridiculous—but it is nonetheless the political and financial system so vigorously supported by the right-wing.

No doubt about it: Communism would most certainly be a very unpleasant thing, but it would not be the end of the world. Christian liberal democracy most likely would! There is far more racial purity in Eastern Europe than anywhere in the West—simply because their inefficient economic system does not attract large-scale Third World immigration; and the racial consciousness of the Russians, who are the dominant nation in the Soviet Union, definitely promises a better prospect for the survival of the Aryan race than the visions of liberal and conservative American politicians. It is true, of course, that Communism does not support racial principles in theory—but with Communism theory and practice are two very different things. No doubt the materialism offered by the West is more attractive here and now, but this pleasant life is more likely to be followed by a deluge that might well wipe out all life on earth. However, with a sound political system in the West, Communist states could not exist. They simply would not be able to survive on their own, and their hungry populations would rebel. Very much the same thing would happen if the Communists were to take over the West—their regime would not last very long.

* * *

At this point someone might venture to ask whether we should not then abolish all talk about National Socialism and the Swastika and disguise ourselves as “real” left-wingers with a new idea that could easily be sold to people under a different name. This, of course, is not possible. To try such an approach is to underestimate our enemies. They really do not mind the name or the symbol. What they mind is the idea, and you could not disguise that beyond recognition. Our enemy will always oppose anything that is good for our people, and they would— rightfully! —claim that we are just “Nazis.” Then we would have to devote a lot of effort to “proving” that we are not. This would be ridiculous. Many organizations have tried it; none has ever succeeded.

There is only the difficult way: to prove that National Socialism is not what people think is and that it is the only way to secure the survival of life on this planet. We know that we are in a weak position, but quite frankly, we should rather be glad that we do not have to worry about taking over power right here and now. We simply would not be able to handle it. This is one of the unpleasant facts that many National Socialists—and people who call themselves National Socialists—seem to overlook completely. It would be of little use to us to win over the masses tomorrow, when we do not have the necessary number of National Socialist experts to make a National Socialist state work. We need economists, jurists, administrators, biologists, etc., who are also National Socialists. Power must never be an aim in itself. We want to create a New Order because we want a better world, but a better world cannot be created just out of the blue sky. It takes a lot of dedicated people with thoroughgoing education to carry out such a task, and right now it is more important to win over a number of these people, than to fight a losing battle in the streets to impress a number of bigots and losers.

Again National Socialist Germany furnishes us with a very instructive example. One of the reasons why the experiment to create a National Socialist order right from the beginning could not be completed and a new state could not survive the pressure from the outside world was that Adolf Hitler had to rely on a large number of experts who had nothing but disdain for National Socialism. He simply did not have the time to train and educate enough National Socialists because he had to concentrate on winning the people before the Communists could take over. We should be grateful that we have no such worry. We could never win a revolutionary victory under the present circumstances anyway, so let us concentrate on establishing a sound foundation for a future mass movement.

However, let us be realists. This, too, could be a losing battle. We have no guarantee that we are ever going to win. To be quite honest, we have nothing but a very vague hope to support the belief that we can win. However, Nature herself may wipe mankind from the surface of the earth because it has neglected the laws of the universe. This may be what is in store for us. We National Socialists, however, have decided not to accept such a development without a fight—even against all odds! But we have no desire to be martyrs for a lost cause—and that is exactly what we are going to be if we stick to the old ways. As a Movement we have been notably unsuccessful so far. It is time to wake up and recognize the true significance of our ideas. A first step is to become revolutionary professionals. We must leave all half-cocked right-wing attitudes behind us and realize that we are left wingers. Furthermore, we should stop blaming others for our misery. We have been our own worst enemies in all respects, and we need no scapegoats! Any change we desire has to start as a change in the basic attitude of our own people. This is a heavy task—but the thought of what is going to happen if we do not win makes it worthwhile to give it a try!

His claim that his uncle liberated Auschwitz must be false because there were no American troops there. Americans did free Buchenwald. If George Bush made a similar claim, he’d be derided by the Left as a stupid liar. Obama says this and nobody says a word. Just as they let him slide when he said that he visited 57 states and has a couple more to go.

Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign for the Democrat nomination deliberately appealed to white supremacy, fear and anxiety, charged longtime Barack Obama colleague and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers and wife, Bernardine Dohrn.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115923

I’ve always thought that the people who get abused are those willing to take the abuse. The kid who gets beat up in 3rd grade isn’t weaker than others. Kids are kids. Until testosterone kicks in during puberty, there really isn’t a big difference in power, nor can serious damage be caused.

I see the same with accusations of racism. The leftists who are most politically correct are those most likely to to face accusations of racism. We constantly hear how the media is racist. Really? That outpost of leftism is racist? And who faces even more accusations of racism? Universities, which make the media look conservative.

Despite minority outreach, affirmative action, racist scholarships for blacks and tutoring for blacks, universities are allegedly keeping minorities out and failing them because of racism.

Consider big business vs. small business. Small business actually does discriminate (not just white owners, all races). Big business does many of the things that universities do. Who gets sued?

In part it’s a matter of economics – big business has more money. But big business also has the means of defending itself. Small companies often simply can’t afford to pay legal fees to defend themselves and have to settle.

Big corporations can fight to set an example that they won’t be abused. They did it against personal injury lawyers. They used to sue over the smallest accident where nobody was injured. Insurance companies one day just took a stand. They said that they will pay any amount of money to defense lawyers to defend them just to stop the assault from plaintiffs with no real injuries.

It worked. Within a year, law suits for minor accidents with no injuries largely stopped because plaintiffs’ lawyers did not want to take on cases where they wouldn’t get paid. Insurance rates dropped dramatically in some states where such abuse was rampant.

Corporations can similarly afford to take a stand. Spend a couple of million on defense lawyers and end this civil rights crap. Just as insurance companies said that they will pay anything to defense lawyers, but nothing to plaintiffs’ lawyers, corporations should take a similar stand.

People who get Watsoned deserve to be Watsoned. Look at the cop who stood up to the onslaught from the Black President, the Black Professor and the traitor media.

Suddenly it wasn’t the cop who acted “stupid”, it was our Black President.

It’s time to take a stand. Hillary is the farthest thing from a racist. She’ll kiss any black’s ass who offers her to do so. And that’s why she and her last year her husband were attacked.

If the Clintons don’t want to be called racist, they should stand up for themselves, and when they will, most of the nation will be behind them. The vast majority of whites are sick and tired of racism accusations against people who don’t deserve it. But nobody will defend you if you won’t defend yourself.

If Hillary just accepts this, she deserves to be Watsoned.

Let me give a quick overview of how Alexa rankings work because there has been some confusion.

Alexa doesn’t rank your traffic directly. There are some people who willingly allow Alexa to track all their online movements. Those people number 10 million, but they are still only 1% of the total number of internet users.

Alexa judges your ranking based on those people, not what you really get. They also base their rankings on the number of pages they view. Thus, an Alexa-tracked person who comes to your blog and views 3 pages is “worth” more than a person who views 1 page.

There was some confusion on Prozium’s blog (complete with conspiracy theories about Israeli intelligence Mossad secretly boosting my rankings) as to why this blog is ranked almost as highly in the United States as Steve Sailer’s. Obviously his is much bigger. And Alexa does show that Steve gets 2.5 times more traffic and also that he’s ranked much higher globally. But my blog gets more page views. It’s possible that a one or two of the people who visits here a lot let Alexa track their movements, which skyrocketed the page view total.

Alexa openly admits that it cannot accurately judge your rankings unless you are in the top 100,000.

For your rank to go from 2 million to 1 million (globally, not just in the US), you only need one Alexa-tracked person to come to your site daily. (Anyone not ranked in the top 2 million is probably not getting any Alexa-tracked visitors.)

To get to #100,000, you need 15-20 Alexa-tracked visitors to come every day. However, as you enter the top 100,000 (globally), the number of Alexa-tracked visitors has to skyrocket to increase your rankings in any significant way. With hundreds of tracked visitors, the rankings become much more accurate.

The rankings, therefore, are particularly inaccurate in the 75,000 to 1 million range. You can be pretty certain that web sites that are ranked 2 million or below are read by very few people. If a web site is ranked in the #50,000, you can be certain that it is popular because even cheating would have only a mild effect on your rankings.

Cheating, such as letting Alexa track both your home and work PC, will boost your rankings from 2 million to 1 million or even less, but it would have no noticeable effect on a web site ranked in the top 100,000.

My blog is ranked 212,036 globally and 41,621 in the US.
Sailer’s blog is ranked 139,821 globally and 39,434 in the US.

But my blog is visited only by people in the US according to Alexa. This is obviously false. Not only do I know that people outside of the US are using it, but I travel regularly for business and frequently come to my own blog from foreign computers.

But no non-American who comes here is letting Alexa track them, so my US-rank is out of step with my global rank.

Meanwhile, Sailer has high rankings in Canada, Mexico, even Cyprus.

That this blog is close to his in the US is the inherent flaw in Alexa rankings… or maybe it’s all Mossad’s work.

Furthermore, my blog is showing a much higher page view count per person. This could be simply that one of the people who comes here is visiting more often than one of the people who comes to Sailer’s blog, and since the total number of tracked people is only a dozen or two, it skyrockets the page view count. Or could be a conspiracy Mossad conspiracy…

You decide: could it be that Alexa rankings are inherently inaccurate because they track only 1% of internet users or is it a global conspiracy by the Mossad to promote this blog.

This is why I said before that anti-Semites are a deranged embarrassment. Everything is a Jewish Conspiracy to them. There’s never another explanation that one needs to look for. The anti-Semites are embarrassing not because they are attacking the Jews, real or imagined, and philo-Semites, real or alleged, but rather because the AS are usually mentally ill. If they didn’t believe in a Jewish Conspiracy, they’d believe that someone else is doing the exact same thing.

They are no different from the crazy black men standing in the middle of the street screaming that whites are out to get them, or crazed feminists who go hysterical, complete with tears, in arguing that men are all out to abuse women.

P.S. Some shameless bragging: According to Alexa, this blog has the lowest “bounce” rate of any other web site I checked. This is almost impossible to cheat (you have to go on different computers on different internet connections [IP], downloading Alexa software and then coming back on all these computers again and again) and should be relatively accurate even when you are checking just 1% of the visitors on a blog with half a million page views so far.

Only 26% of those who come here for the first time look at one page and never return. For most political magazines and blogs, that rate is 70-80%. And that 26% is actually up significantly recently because Prozium’s people come here, send me hate mail and leave. Until 3 months ago, the “bounce” rate was under 18%. This explains the constant rise in this blog’s traffic with no advertising, no network, no announcements.

In the last half a year, this blog’s traffic was boosted 300%. There are now nearly half a million page views on this blog. (Look on the right below the Blog Roll.) Only about 32,000 came from search engines or links from other blogs. The average new person who comes here views 13.5 pages (usually in repeat visits, obviously).

The only reason to watch CNN is over. Besides Lou Dobbs, there is nothing on that channel. Larry King is so boring I want to fall asleep just hearing his name. Come on, Larry, I really don’t care how Tom Cruise felt when he chose which pair of socks to wear that morning.

Anderson Cooper has nothing interesting either. Same old mainstream liberal nothing. I haven’t watched his show a single time in years.

Campbell Brown is an idiot who is there to look pretty. She is very interesting to watch after you press the mute button. Someone should move her show to NakedNews.com.

All the other shows like CNN Newsroom and the Situation Room are similarly boring. Maybe they can fact-check a Saturday Night Live skit on Barack Obama. Oh wait, they already did that.

The only show I ever enjoyed on CNN was that of Lou Dobbs. For a mainstream journalist, he took a very hard line on immigration. Now that he is gone, I think it’s pretty safe to say that I will never again watch CNN.

I hope FoxNews hires Lou Dobbs and puts him in the 6 pm spot right after Glenn Beck. I think a lot of people who like Beck would like Dobbs. The man deserves a TV spot and would probably be very popular on cable’s most popular channel.

Today is Rhodesia’s Independence Day. A great country grinded into dirt by Robert Mugabe.

I thought, in the light of Robert Mugabe’s unending fear of the rise of Rhodesia from the ashes of his rotten Zimbabwe, that I’d remind everyone this is also 11th November. On this day in 1965, 44 years ago, Ian Smith rebelled against the British Empire in the same way the Americans did in 1776. Rhodesia was the only British Colony to rebel against Britain since the Americans in 1776 (to my knowledge).

On this day, Ian Smith mentioned that his motivation was to fight COMMUNISM.

Today, 44 years later, Robert Mugabe, the ultimate communist dictator stands over the ruins of Zimbabwe, which once was great. Robert Mugabe stands for everything and every reason why Ian Smith rebelled. Ian Smith did not believe that communism would h!
elp white or black people in that country… AND 44 YEARS LATER IN 2009… on 11th November… I CAN SAY: IAN SMITH WAS COMPLETELY RIGHT.
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=63698&

Not one feminist will come after this guy, just as they failed to out against OJ Simpson in 1994. As one liberal explained to me when I asked why it’s ok for college students to assault Ann Coulter, “but she’s a conservative!”

In defense of blacks, very few of them act this way, and this behavior is more common among whites trying to prove their non-racism. I blame white professors at Columbia for inciting him.

Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, [a prominent Columbia architecture professor] for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, [a university employee] filed charges.

McIntyre and Davis, who works as a production manager in the school’s theater department, are both regulars at Toast, a popular university bar on Broadway and 125th Street [in Harlem], sources said.

The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about “white privilege” with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said.

McIntyre, who is known as “Mac” at the bar, shoved Davis, and when the other patron and a bar employee tried to break it up, the prof slugged Davis in the face, witnesses said.

“The punch was so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise,” bar back Richie Velez, 28, told The Post. “I was on my way over when he punched Camille and she fell on top of me.”

The other patron involved in the dispute said McIntyre then took a swing at him after he yelled, “You don’t hit a woman!”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prof_busted_in_columbia_gal_punch_JmsXQ3NzaAt8uG6uUySGTN

A key U.S. senator said Sunday he would begin an investigation into whether the Army missed signs that the man accused of opening fire at Fort Hood had embraced an increasingly extremist view of Islamic ideology… attended the same mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers… Classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master’s program at a military college complained repeatedly to superiors about what they considered Hasan’s anti-American views.
http://news.aol.com/article/alleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik/758172?icid=main|htmlws-m

… And yet, despite whites ignoring signs of his radicalism just to avoid being called racist, the liberals are back to slandering the “right-wing”. But it’s not the right-wing who is responsible here. Let me make a quick prediction: there won’t be any counter-attacks against Moslems as a result of this, but conservative white men will be slandered preemptively as if we are all sitting here trying to plan an assault against Moslems.

In the mind of the liberal, nothing is what it seems. A Moslem attacks due to his religious beliefs, but Islam has nothing to do with the violent act. White men do nothing, don’t even demonstrate peacefully and yet they are called violent.

I’ve ridiculed the AS for claiming that Jews attacked the Third Reich. But isn’t the argument that white right-wingers are the real concern just the same, except that it’s propagated by the mainstream media?

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday’s massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama’s transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115230

Hope. Change.

Arthur Kemp’s book “March of the Titans” is the first racialist book I ever read. My only issue with it was that it was written as a long blog rather than a scholarly book, but otherwise, I liked it. He didn’t attack Adolf Hilter, but I never felt it was due to his support for Nazism. Others, like “Irish”, disagreed. I couldn’t really argue for or against it because I really didn’t pay particular attention to the Jewish issue at the time, and I originally found the book while looking for something about South Africa from the Boer perspective.

But from what I remembered, honest people could disagree if he’s a Nazi or just politically incorrect.

With his newest book, “Can American Be Saved“, I think the question has been answered clearly.

Kemp identifies two primary problems:

1. The Extent of the Problem: Demographics;
2. The Extent of the Problem: The Failure of White Politics in America.

His solutions:

1. The Need for Real Political Action;
2. Get rid of the anti-Semites (called “cancers”), such as “Christian Identity Madmen” who believe that Jesus wasn’t Jewish (whom he calls “deranged”), Klansmen (whom he calls ‘weirdos”), the Nazis, National Alliance, “The Skinhead disgrace” (“sick aberration”);
3. Embrace the political process and democratic national.

Basically, Kemp calls for the movement to become normal. The present state of White Nationalism is no different from that of the Communists, often with many of the same issues, such as the 9/11 Conspiracy.

Whatever questions that may have existed about Kemp should now be erased. He’s most certainly not a Nazi.

Most of what he says now and his opinions in March of the Titans is what I’ve written too. Maybe SPLC considers me a Nazi, but not too many others do.

Let me elaborate on why anti-Semitism is the dividing line between sanity and derangement, and why it is seen as such by Kemp, among many others.

It is not because the topic are the Jews, but because of how “out there” the AS tend to be. Similar views on anyone would provoke the same reaction.

• If Jews were shot or starved to death, rather than gassed, it proves that there was no Genocide. This is the same as arguing that if someone is stabbed with an icepick as opposed to a knife, it proves no murder.
• No Jew ever did anything positive and if they did, it’s insignificant. Thus, the Polio vaccine, Penicillin, the technology behind the internet, the cell phone are all not significant. Any Jewish genius is discounted if the person ever made a mistake. Even if someone merely doubts a Jewish scientist’s ideas, that’s proof that he’s a fraud. This is radically different from the way blacks are viewed by WNs. Almost nobody claims that no black person has done anything useful.
• Every person with any power is Jewish: Joe Biden, Tim Geithner, Friedrich Engels, Queen Elizabeth, George Steinbrenner.
• And most of all: 1) Jews control everything, even countries where they do not live; 2) they always agree on everything; 3) they dedicate their lives and money to “getting us” because their interests are so radically different from everyone else’s. Meanwhile, though generally speaking we may acknowledge that everyone acts out of self-interest, it is “hate” to suggest that any non-Jew acted out of such self-interest in any specific incident (rather than as a general statement that everyone can be self-interested).

I never see the same level of derangement towards blacks. (Neocons are sometimes similarly deranged about Moslems.) Fred Reed wrote: “people who merely dislike blacks hate Jews.” I would take it a step further. Some people hate blacks. But they are absolutely deranged about the Jews.

The difference between realism and derangement is that the former cites overall statistics and the latter goes nuts at the slightest bit of evidence. Had the argument been that Jews are overrepresented among high-level fraudsters, it would have been legitimate because it’s statistically true. Instead, I have to read about every Jew who got arrested for rape, drug dealing, burglary and other crimes that are less common among Jews than others. (Is your heart gripped with fear when you walk on the Upper East Side?)

Likewise, you can acknowledge that Jews have more power than their percentage of the population, which would be factually true, without getting into insane conspiracy theories about our government being under “Zionist Occupation“.

The Nazis – I am sorry, the people who repeatedly said that the Third Reich was the best regime ever and wish it had defeated the US during WWII – read their own blogs and just cannot understand how someone who’s not a Jew (or married to one) could be opposed to them. A while ago, the New York Times ran an article on pedophiles. These people similarly get their “information” from like-minded chats and blogs, and they are convinced that they are right to such a degree that they can’t understand the opposition.

“Why are posters THAT young so angry about it?” he asked. “It is after all THEIR rights that they are pushing for.”

Just as the Stormfronters are convinced that Jews attacked Germany (citing that they were unhappy with the author of Mein Kampf rising to power), the pedophiles see themselves as “victims of predatory minors.”

A little girl in a skirt reveals her underwear by doing a cartwheel; a boy in a bathing suit sits on a bench with his legs spread apart; a child playfully jumps on a man’s back — all of these ordinary events were portrayed as sexual come-ons.

No doubt Prozium will pick a fight with this article (that’s how he gets traffic: by attacking other bloggers, hoping to get links back. After his last fight with me, he finally cracked the top 1 million websites on Alexa), incorrectly quoting me as saying that the AS are the same in every way as pedophiles.

But the argument is merely that they are just like any fringe movement, whether political like the Communists, sexual like the pedophiles, medical like “Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About“, etc. People get information from like-minded blogs where they hear what they want to hear.

From there, they move to the same formula: ‘I found The Way because I am smarter than 99% of the population, and anyone who disagrees with me is lying in order to harm the masses so he must be exposed and destroyed… oh, and the government is controlled by a special interest (pharmaceuticals, corporations, Jews) that is out to get you.’

Conspiracist web sites of all types are always the same: a group that is highly dedicated, but tiny.

Prozium’s is the best anti-Semitic, anti-American blog as far as I am concerned. (But most of his commenters – “Joe Biden is a Jew who voted in Iraqi elections!” – are good only for comic relief, unless they actually try to be funny, in which case they inevitably confuse a stupid pun for a joke.) Yet, his blog gets fewer than 2,000 readers according to Quantcast, which does not measure traffic until you hit that benchmark. (He may have more unique visitors because a single person coming daily is 30 unique visits, but is obviously only 1 human being.)

According to both Quantcast and Alexa, this blog gets more traffic than Kevin MacDonald’s, National Vanguard, Vanguard News Network, Western Voices World News, Aryan Nations, Occidental Observer, etc.

While some of these are legendary names within the AS community, I do without any advertising or a “community”, and yet this blog is already in the top 40,000 of all websites among American readership.

According to Quantcast and Alexa, this blog gets 50-75% of the traffic that DavidDuke.com gets, and that guy has been a household name for the last 30 years. (Obviously outside of blogging, he has enormously more influence, but I never sat out to run the Klan or appear on TV, and even when Al-Jazeera tried to interview me, I referred Jared Taylor to them.)

Running the Jew Power series alone brought 1,400 new individuals to this blog (Quantcast shows the number of individuals coming here as 8,500 now, up from 7,100 two weeks ago, and Statcounter has the blog up 300 unique visitors per day). That’s probably more than the total number of visitors by what the guy I consider to be the best AS blogger. (This is where Prozium will write that he finally discovered the reason for my alleged philo-Semitism.)

Compared to other non-AS blogs, mine is not big by any means. Consider Fjordman’s spectacular international fame. Half Sigma and Gates of Vienna get a great deal more traffic than I do. Dennis Mangan is about the same.

One need not be philo-Semitic, just not insane. Consider Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor. Both oppose some Jewish issues (Sailer domestically, Taylor on Israel), but neither is making insane statements about the Jews. Even Peter Brimelow, who’s clearly hostile to the Jews, stays away from crackpot theories and is much more popular than those searching for Jews under their bed.

Whatever conspiracies the AS come up with, the problem they are facing is that Americans just won’t take you seriously if you spend your time arguing that Albert Einstein was dumb.

I never set out to lead any movement, and even if I could, I never would. While Prozium is convinced I am trying to get the attention and the approval of the ADL, the reality is that I want this blog small, obscure and anonymous because it allows me to speak my mind.

What you say in a privacy of your home with a few friends is very different than what you’ll say to thousands of people with several TV cameras in your face. Similarly, a small, anonymous blog allows you to vent in ways that a large enterprise never can.

Others, however, may be interested in growing and leading White Nationalism. Subscribing to anti-Semitic crackpot theories won’t help in a country that is far more philo-Semitic than I am. (In fact, more philo-Semitic than even that media that is Jewish-owned.)

Consider the popularity of the Danish People’s Party and the Belgian Vlaams Belang, which cleansed themselves of insanity. The BNP similarly made whatever gains it made by first cleaning up its roster and language.

Compare the Swedish Democrats, which is “clean” nationalism, to National Democrats. The clean nationalists got 15 times more vote and won seats in the parliament.

Even the French National Front is much different today than 20 years ago.

The only AS party that performed well is the Freedom Party in Austria, and only because it is popular in one region there. Elsewhere in Austria, it is a minor, inconsequential party.

And that’s in Europe, which is rabidly anti-Israel. The issue is that whether or not someone likes Israel, they don’t want to hear completely crazy theories. Europeans may see Israel as the world’s worst country and biggest threat, but they do not want to hear conspiracies that are laughably implausible. Opinions are one thing, facts are another.

It’s true that an occasional nut will win an election. David Duke did. I submit to you, however, that had there been a better nationalist alternative, he would have outperformed Duke. (This is why it makes sense for WNs to heed Kemp’s call to get more politically involved.) I’ve been to Louisiana several times, and I never heard a single person so much as mention the word “Jew”.

Among Stormfront types, David Duke is easily the best option. He’s articulate, attractive, and wears a suit rather than a white Halloween costume. When he appears in mainstream media, the man does try to sound reasonable to appeal to the broader population. If I saw Duke on TV without reading the stuff he’s written, I’d have thunk that he was reasonable. That’s what I think the Louisiana voters in saw. Kevin Alfred Strom, on the other hand, couldn’t win a quarter of Duke’s vote. Look at his picture. Now there’s a manly man!

If the AS canards were true, I could see fighting for the truth. You may upset the ADL by talking about high-level Jewish fraudsters, but it will be true so the topic is legitimate. But you are merely making a fool out of yourself when you argue that Jews control the world to such a degree that even China – a nuclear power with a billion people, none of whom are Jewish – is forced to submit to Jewish power and lie about the Holocaust. Nobody will believe you that Jews control the world, nobody will believe that the government in Beijing is afraid of the Jews, and nobody believes that European Jews just disappeared without explanation (nor that they didn’t exist and centuries of demographic data, synagogues, cemeteries and other evidence is all a lie).

I expect the response to this to be: “but the Left won’t accept WN’s no matter what they do”.

Who cares about the Left? If the Left could, it would get rid of both political parties and we’d be ruled by dictator Ralph Nader.

The goal isn’t to appeal to SPLC. It’s to appeal to Joe The Plumber.

And on a personal level as a blogger, it’s to speak the truth, rather than confusing a crazy conspiracy for the truth.

The AS will read what I wrote and conclude, “see, he wants us to lie because it will be more popular.”

No, I don’t want you to lie. I know you believe what you say. But you are wrong. Not morally wrong, you are factually wrong. That’s why all your citations come from Hitler-admiring blogs – you don’t have any real data to back up anything you say.

I am not calling for the deranged to change their mind. I just want the rest to see the difference between those willing to see the unpopular truth and those who are just plain crazy.

Kemp is right about what he terms “cancer”. The deranged wing of White Nationalism must be eliminated or at least isolated. The Progressives on the Left couldn’t move forward until the Communist extremists were isolated and largely taken out of their movement. The WN on the Right will similarly never move forward until the extremists are no longer able to speak for the movement.

Jordan

If x and y are real numbers and the square of y is equal to the square root of x, which of the following must be true?

1.x = y4
2.x ≥ 0
3.y ≥ 0

That’s a question i pulled from the “practice” at the college board website.

Until the early 1990s, the SAT used to correlated closely with the person’s IQ and less actual knowledge was required. One had to show that he’s capable of learning, not what he actually learned.

Blacks would complain incessantly that they do worse because their schools are bad. (Who makes the schools bad if not the students themselves who destroy books and drive away teachers who have other career options?)

But upon testing, it was found that the race gap is smaller on questions that require knowledge rather than intelligence. Everyone takes more or less the same curriculum. The black curriculum is easier, but they learn to calculate, read, write just as others do.

The difference in the difficulty is most present in high schools. But the SAT does not require High School level knowledge. Most of it is elementary school education with a few Middle School questions. Even if black-majority High Schools are 4-5 years behind white-majority High Schools, they will still be advanced enough to know enough math for the SAT.

The more knowledge-based the test, the more likely blacks are to do as well as whites.

For that reason, the test was changed and now includes some Middle School questions. Blacks complain that they now have to deal with knowledge-based questions, but that’s like the Menendez brothers complaining that they were orphans.

You caused this problem. You demanded it. You got it. You benefited from it. The least you can do is not complain because we gave you what you wanted.