Hello, and welcome back to another edition of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America’s foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I’m your host and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.
In 1859, the Englishman Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species based largely on his observations from his travels to the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America. In his book, Darwin offers strong evidence that, firstly, species are not static entities – as was thought at the time – but that species are undergoing constant change in response to their environment. In addition, Darwin offered his theory as to HOW species change; he called his idea natural selection.
Despite the profound influence Darwin’s idea of natural selection had on all areas of scientific thought over the last 150 years, the idea itself is fairly simple. It starts with the obvious truth that the various members of a particular species are born with a range of traits, such as various shades of fur color in mammals, various lengths of legs, various thicknesses of bones, and so on. In other words, virtually each individual organism possesses its own unique set of traits. This range of traits appears to be due to random chance; certainly, we have no scientific evidence to the contrary.
Because of these natural and unavoidable differences among individuals in a given population, it is also inevitable that the natural gifts of some individuals will better fit them – as opposed to others in the population – to survive in the environment in which they find themselves. As with the range of traits, what constitutes a “better fit” individual in a particular environment is largely a matter of chance. Thick fur on an individual mammal who lives in a population in the tropics might make that individual “less fit,” while the same fur on an individual born among a population living in polar regions might make him “better fit.”
Darwin then took the next logical step, which is that the “better fit” individuals in a given population are more likely to survive into adulthood than are their “less fit” contemporaries. The “better fit” ones are therefore more likely to produce offspring who, of course, are likely to possess a combination of traits similar to their “better fit” parents. If the environmental conditions are still favorable, then more of the “better fit” offspring will survive and pass their genetic heritage on to their own offspring, and so on. There will therefore be a tendency for the average traits of the population to shift to more closely resemble the “better fit” type.
This shift in population traits is further induced by what happens to the “less fit” individuals. Being “less fit” for whatever reason, these individuals are less likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. So, not only does a shift in traits occur because some individuals are, by chance, favored within the parameters of the surrounding environment and so will grow in numbers, but also because the “less fit” ones will decrease in numbers. Gradually, the larger fraction of the population begins to take on the traits that best fit such individuals to survive in that locale.
This process – that Darwin called natural selection – sounds very methodical… and it is, until the environmental conditions change. Then, and possibly suddenly, traits that proved beneficial for the survival of an individual become detrimental or perhaps disastrous. That is, what constitutes a “better fit” individual could change on a dime; nature has its own way of keeping all of its participants on their toes.
The classic evolution-by-natural-selection example is that of the peppered moth in 19th Century England. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, a light-colored variety of the peppered moth predominated in England. The light-colored moths blended well with light-colored tree bark, which made them difficult to see by predators, namely birds. Dark-colored peppered moths were rare, and the theory is that they didn’t blend in with the light-colored bark as well, were therefore spotted more easily by birds, and were promptly eaten.
Then, during the Industrial Revolution, vast amounts of coal were burned across Britain in fueling the new factories. Black soot from the consumed fuel adhered to the trees, making the light-colored moths much more visible than they had been before, and the dark-colored moths were much better hidden than before. Within a few short years, the advantage held by the light-colored moth had become a disadvantage, while the former disadvantage of the dark-colored moths had turned into an advantage: the birds started consuming the more-easily-seen light-colored moths, overlooking the dark ones. It wasn’t too long before the vast majority of moths in the areas of industrial England were dark, while in more rural regions of the country the light-colored moths still prevailed.
The evidence cited by Darwin and his line of reasoning made an immediate impact on the scientific thinkers of his day and, predictably, enraged the leaders of organized religion, whose worldview was based on the notion of a static, unchanging universe created by an all-powerful deity. If populations could change based on the surrounding environment, as Darwin suggested, then the idea that God had created each type of creature to be unique was open for debate, and THAT the religious leaders didn’t want. After all, if populations changed, then who can say where human beings came from?
And that is just where the evolutionists went with their arguments. That is, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection didn’t stop with the genetic makeup of a population of, say, ground squirrels changing over the course of two or eighteen or a thousand generations. Darwin’s ideas led to the speculation that new species can form from other ones, leading to drastic change over time. That is, a creature at one point in time with a particular set of physical characteristic and later – perhaps thousands or millions of years later – a descendant of that creature being totally different from its remote ancestor.
How could that happen? Well, we all know that the changes that occur when a parent’s genetic material is transmitted to the offspring are sometimes subtle and sometimes clearly noticeable. The subtle changes we don’t much notice, but the noticeable ones are very evident; sometimes we call them deformities.
Deformities happen throughout the natural world in all living organisms. Now, most deformities hamper the chances of survival for the individual; given that the parents of the deformed organism are probably well-adapted (through natural selection) to their environment, the odds are that the deformity will, in some way, make the individual less fit to survive. Most likely, it will be killed and eaten before it has the chance to produce offspring of its own that possess the same deformity. However, as true as this is, it also is obvious that the laws of probability dictate that a deformity can very rarely prove to increase the organism’s chances of survival.
Consider, for example, a time when there were no land creatures, only sea creatures. This would have been, say, 500 to 600 million years ago. At this time in geologic history, the sea would have been teeming with life, with virtually every creature both a predator to some species and, conversely, prey for others. Suppose a sea creature that can absorb oxygen through its skin – as well as through its gills, like all the rest of its kind – is born in a shallow-water region. The trait of oxygen-absorbing skin would, of course, have been a deformity for that fish. But assume this fish came in with the high tide and got caught in a sandy basin as the tide receded. As the water level sank in the porous sand, the fish must have sensed that the end was near. It must have thrashed wildly in a desperate effort to find its way back to the sea. But to no avail; the sand basin hemmed him in.
But what happened? Surprisingly, the fish didn’t die; his deformity saved him. His skin absorbed enough oxygen through the air to keep him alive until the high tide returned and took him back to the sea. In the time he lay helpless on the sand, metaphorically gasping for air, many of his fish comrades met their end, food for larger predators at sea. But he was safe, because there were no land creatures to gobble him up. When he returned to the sea and produced offspring like himself, there was the tiniest nudge of natural selection toward the creation of creatures that could acquire oxygen from the air.
And so on. Once a creature could absorb oxygen from the air (which, remember, was a deformity at first), another deformity might have appeared: a front fin that was too stubby and too hard to be an effective fin… but which made an excellent prop for dragging the creature around on the land on which there were no predators. The impetus to populate the land would have been irresistible, and new and rare “deformities” that led to further advantages on land would have ensued: four feet rather than two, longer legs that allowed for speed and maneuverability, lungs that efficiently brought in oxygen from the air, and on and on.
In short, a scenario very similar to the one described is how scientists believe that land creatures, and eventually humans, came into being. And it is all derived from Darwin’s very simple theory of natural selection. When environmental conditions change, there is a natural tendency for organisms to adapt to suit the new conditions.
Now, how does all of this relate to what we White racialists want for our people in the foreseeable future? Well, first of all, there is a very big difference between the evolution that goes on in the rest of the natural world and that that is relevant to us humans today. And that is that, in the rest of the natural world, evolution is largely an unconscious phenomenon; that is, organisms evolve without conscious thought on their part. There is what we might call an AWARENESS that all creatures have that relates to the instinct for survival, but – we believe – little or no thought is involved.
Of course, that isn’t the case with humans. Humans, for better or worse, are both blessed and cursed by their minds. On the one hand, the human mind is able to discover and learn about history and science and art and literature; it can plan and build and protect humans from all sorts of dangers. But on the other hand, it can be so active that it distracts us from our true purpose. Furthermore, rather than be subject to the forces in the surrounding environment and thereby becoming stronger through natural selection, the mind has allowed humans to manipulate the environment to suit our tastes. In other words, the mind has enabled humans to shield themselves from any forces that might cause us to change and improve. Finally, the powerful human mind has given us technologies that have allowed the weak and ill-fit of our species (in an evolutionary sense) to survive and to pass their “less fit” genes on to future generations.
No one has any good answers for addressing the problems I just cited above. What we CAN DO, however, is to choose to change ourselves in an effort to give our people the best possible chance to become the ancestors of better humans down the road.
There are many in the White racialist Cause who look to the past for their inspiration. They sometimes wear authentic cultural garb that is unique to their particular European ethnicity. They revere the Norse gods of old, perhaps, or venerate the music of the great White masters of classical music. They read the tales of heroism that date back to the great Greek or Roman civilizations, or of the untamed barbarians of Northern and Western Europe who tore down the decadent polyglot nation of Rome in its last days.
All of that is fine and good; no people can know itself without some familiarity with its history, its native religious traditions, and the artistic expressions of its race-soul. But the path for us now must be MORE than all of that. In other words, we must EVOLVE, and – unlike the rest of the natural world – we must change with conscious effort. Barring some natural disaster, on the order of a worldwide pandemic or an asteroid colliding with the Earth like the one that took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the only way for us to change – to evolve – is to do so consciously. With effort. By choice.
I would be pleased if you would join me and the other members of the National Alliance in our efforts to achieve a new world for our race, a world that we can only achieve by conscious change.
I’m Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.
