Anthropologist Peter Frost writes: [Frans] Boas didn’t really change his mind on race until the 1930s. The cause is not hard to pinpoint. When he died in 1942, an obituary mentioned his alarm over the threat of Nazism:
Dr. Boas, who had studied and written widely in all fields of anthropology devoted most of his researches during the past few years to the study of the “race question,” especially so after the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Discussing his efforts to disprove what he called “this Nordic nonsense,” Prof. Boas said upon his retirement from teaching in 1936 that “with the present condition of the world, I consider the race question a most important one. I will try to clean up some of the nonsense that is being spread about race those days. I think the question is particularly important for this country, too; as here also people are going crazy.” (JTA, 1942)
Hitler’s rise to power created a sense of urgency among many academics, both Jewish and non-Jewish, thereby convincing fence-sitters like Franz Boas to put aside their doubts and take a more aggressive stand on race. Thus began the war on racism, which foreshadowed the coming world conflict. -30-
* Three quotes by Hitler:
You know, it is really unbelievable that it was possible to preach this insanity of internationalism to millions of people and people believed in this idea; incredible that the Jew who has been in our midst for thousands of years and yet remained a Jew, has managed to persuade millions of us that race is completely unimportant, and yet for him race is all-important. What would that really mean,—that race does not matter? That would mean that if today I was to remove the Germans from here and take them to Central Africa and brought the Negro here, things would look the same as if the Germans were here.—Adolf Hitler, 1927
First, a people has intrinsic value in its race. That is the primal value. A people that has the best blood but does not understand it, squandering it, receives no protection from its intrinsic value. And the purity of blood means nothing if the nation can be persuaded of the absurdity that its blood is worthless. Such a deepest value can be present, but not recognized. Individual people today are placed in large groups that no longer enable them to see this value. To the contrary, their program almost claims that there is no value in blood. They see race as completely insignificant.—Adolf Hitler, 1927
It is maintained, in a general sense, that peoples have no innate values; rather, at most, there may be manifestations of temporary differences as a result of education; but there is no essential difference in value between Negroes, Arians, Mongolians, and Redskins. This view, which constitutes the basis of our entire international body of thought today, is so far-reaching in its consequences that ultimately a Negro will be able to preside at the sessions of the League of Nations.—Adolf Hitler, 1932
* Hitler seemed to think the anti-racist falsehood of the unimportance of race was extant in 1927. One might say that Nazism was partly a reaction to, and caused by, anti-racism. Nazi anti-semitism likewise to the (percieved) Jewish role in anti-racism.
Furthermore, being against slavery and the maltreatment of other races no more inevitably leads to it being considered a sin to think Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, than being against the maltreatment of animals inevitably leads to it being considered a sin to think men are more intelligent than pigs.
* The League of Nations after WW1 for example refused to include a racial equality clause in its principles. And all the major powers back in the day held to and defended racist policies, including the United States, and Japan. International anti-racist initiatives were heavily monitored, infiltrated, undermined and stifled by those powers. See stymied initiatives of WEB Dubois, and various other African colonial activists.
Even the Soviet Union, while paying lip service to the “brotherhood of proletarian peoples” was racist, and only tolerated blacks as long as they could be used as a propaganda handle to expose the hypocritical democracy of the capitalists. See the book Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by black machinist Robert Robinson, who went to Russia to help set up machine tooling and training during the 1930s and got trapped there. The regime benefited from his technical expertise and he quickly became a symbol of minorities oppressed by the capitalists when 2 white American workers assaulted him. But once political turmoil and purges made foreign experts suspect and WW2 started, the regime got his US passport. His propaganda usefulness faded and he endured daily racism. This same pattern of racism continued into the 1960s as African students to “fraternal universities” found out, and with the end of the Soviet Union, white Russian racism is alive and well, and notorious.
Time and time again prior to WW2 Communist party operatives tried to recruit US blacks alongside white workers and failed to gain widespread traction over the race issue, despite antiracist agitation. Time and time again internationalist projects on racism turned out to be little noticed conferences, or just lip service- additional propaganda levers deployed in the interests of the Kremlin, though within NATIONAL minority communities some genuine leaders and groups emerged- the Pan Africanists for example, but they had trivial impact. In short, internationalist anti-racism was a shaky or minor force during Hitler’s rise to power.
Interestingly enough, during WW2, German propaganda attacked the US for hypocritical democracy, based on its treatment of blacks. Below is the text of a German propaganda leaflet addressed to blacks.
are created free and equal
Yes, that is what the declaration of Independence says.
Well, it’s just Ballyhoo, always was. The white bosses want your peace-loving, hard-working colored boys just as
In World War I they promised your father’s racial equality as a reward for fighting the war.
What did they get? What did you get?
The lousiest jobs.
The lousiest flats.
The lousiest pay.
The lousiest chances.
Poverty, Unemployment, Race, Riots, Lynching, Hanging and Burning!
The general contempt of all Whites in the U.S.A.
RICH (WHITE) MAN’S WAR
POOR (COLORED) MAN’S FIGHT
(–When Jim Crow met John Bull: Black American soldiers in World War II Britain, by Graham Smith)
When it suited them, the Nazis could play the “antiracism” card pretty well. The overall thrust of many such messages is that the United States is hypocritical in complaining about Nazi treatment of the Jews, given what it does to American Blacks.
* I would say that Germany had a mix of views. Certainly one can find the hard core racists and anti-Semites, some a mix in the middle, but Germany also had a distinct liberal tradition. The relentless Soviet propaganda assaults against all Western democracies from the end of WW1 did not bode well for that liberal tradition, admittedly, nor did the threat from the right. See for example Liberalism in Germany by Dieter Langewiesche 2000. An exclusive “German” position on these matters may be stereotyped extremes. It may be possible that Boas and his followers traded at times in some unfair stereotyping
And everybody beats up on Germany for racism, often justifiable so. But much less known is how racist Russians are, and have been since Soviet times. Brutal suppression of Crimean Tartars, Uzbeks, Chechens and Ingush never got, and still don’t get much press from the “politically correct” set. Why haven’t they jumped on this, rather than perennially bashing Germans? Could it be that certain forces want an eternal German whipping boy? I am not forgetting a horrible German history but where are the legions of anti-racist indignation when the scene moves further East? This racism continues unbroken since the fall of the Kremlin bosses. Behavior is much more civilized in Nordic Germany these days on may counts. People may not like you but they are relatively polite and decent. No so further east on many counts. See for example how one American reporter learned the hard way.
* Q: Why is “diversity” and “multiculturalism” demanded in All white populations & Only white populations?
A: Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.
Q: Why don’t Self-Proclaimed “anti-racists” attack the “racist” immigration and social policies of, say, Japan? Korea? Mexico?
A: Anti-racist is a Codeword for Anti-White
* “The [French] FN has many Jewish members, including the well known writer and essayist Eric Zemmour. There are very few neo-nazis nowadays, in the FN or anywhere else. That term — like the term “racist” — is now used to assault and intimidate people whose only crime is to be opposed to levels of immigration that amount to population replacement.”
* I live in LA and believe me, whites are marginalized in the extreme.
UCLA is a particular cesspool of anti-white Marxist / Zionist racism.
The city government is just sucking the public tit dry and constantly raising taxes and building trains to nowhere.
It’s just too risky to even drive through some neighorhoods. Mexicans, forever imitating blacks, have become savage. Or were they always that way?
Of course the movie stars and the limousine leftists all segregate themselves in secure areas far away from blacks & Mexicans. You won’t see George Clooney hanging in the ‘hood’.
* “To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism” was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities, character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists…”
In reality, the “struggle for dignity” was a struggle for power. Which is why it didn’t stop when the “struggle for dignity” was won; victory in the “struggle for dignity,” in fact, was taken as a sign of weakness in their enemies, and thus a signal that it was time to pile on.
If a country fights a “defensive war,” then goes on to occupy the enemy country for generations (while decrying the very idea of an end to the occupation as villainy), then obviously no one’s going to buy the “defensive war” thing. Everyone will realize the “defensive war” thing was just a pose, a way to characterize the war as “just” and mobilize its own population.
Non-whites behave like sociopathic grifters who have found a target with a vulnerability to exploit – because they are sociopathic grifters, at least in this context.
* A libertarian society cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a certain behavioral foundation. Otherwise, it will liquidate itself; it will revert to a kind of society where kinship and physical force are the main organizing principles.
No human society has ever been fully libertarian, but Northwest Europeans have come the closest to that ideal. They have a long history of weaker kinship and, conversely, greater individualism that goes back to at least the 12th century and probably earlier. As a result, they have been able to create larger, freer, and more open societies, which in turn have made possible the market economy. Markets, in themselves, are nothing new. People have known them since prehistory, but the market mechanism could produce its benefits only within small points of space and time, i.e., marketplaces. It was only with the creation of freer, more open societies that markets could expand beyond the confines of the marketplace and eventually encompass most economic transactions.
But freer, more open societies cannot exist in a vacuum. They require certain behavioral adaptions. For one thing, kin-based morality is no longer sufficient to enforce social rules, since the threat of kin retaliation is no longer sufficient. There has thus been a shift from kin-based morality to universal morality, and this shift has been accompanied by a greater willingness to identify and enforce the rules of universal morality. A related adaptation is a greater capacity for feelings of guilt and empathy. Finally, there is a greater willingness to exclude, punish, and even kill people who break social rules and are judged to be morally worthless.
This is the foundation of a libertarian society, or rather the most libertarian society that humans have evolved. If you allow that foundation to disappear, libertarianism will disappear too.
…But now things are trending in the opposite direction. I saw this when I was a student in Russia. There, libertarianism meant that much of the population was free to engage in self-destructive behavior: alcoholism, sexual amorality, and a disastrously low fertility rate. Today, Russians are moving away from the libertarian model. They have no choice. It’s either that or collective suicide. The same trend is starting to happen elsewhere. Our model of extreme libertarianism, which doesn’t work very well for ourselves, is proving to be disastrous for most societies on this planet.