The actual state of a race is represented above all by the male individuals. Women have a tendency to manifest the traits of the anterior state; they evolve more slowly because, as a result of sexual selection which distributes hereditary traits according to the result of males’ competition, males are more subject to variation. As a consequence, in a country like the United States of America, which original immigrant stock is predominantly Nordic, blondness is more a woman’s trait, and blonde women in general are blonder than blonde men (from my observations). (For an account of this fact from a slightly different perspective, see my essay Eyes of Blue & Comment #1 here.)
According to the count of Boulainvilliers, an early (17th century) French racialist and aristocratic opponent to royal absolutism, the French nobility of Frank ancestry, blue-eyed and blonde, racially differs from the core population of France. Boulainvillier’s theory was utilized by Cardinal Richelieu to denounce and oppose as mongrelization marriages between aristocrats and rich bourgeois.
Count Arthur de Gobineau, another early racialist (or you may want to call him a racist as he disserted on the inequalities among races), said the same of Germany. He thought that the German aristocracy was Aryan whereas the rural masses were Slavic. Actually, he thought that the European aristocracies were an Aryan ruling class over populations ethnically different.
Later, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, a Social Darwinist (and Socialist), considered France and Germany almost equally poor in Aryan blood. He considered as the only Aryan nations of his time (end of 19th century) the Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Yet, as the following letter will show, a historical dichotomy between Saxons and Celts, apparently based on anthropological differences and akin to that between Frank noblemen and Gauls in France and that between German noblemen and Slavs in Germany, seems to have been overlooked by this scholar in the case of the British Isles.
A Controversial Letter on Celts
A couple of days after I had published in a paper some considerations on the use of the Celtic cross by people calling themselves ‘white nationalists,’ questioning the symbol’s relevance as the Celts were only a part of the white peoples and not the whole of them, I received a letter from a distant relative who took the opportunity of his having read my paper to air his ideas on the relationship between Saxons and Celts through the ages up to our day. The perusal of his letter provoked such a strong impression on my mind that I could not stop thinking about it for days. Eventually, I asked him if he would allow me to share it on my blog.
He agreed with two provisos. First, his identity would be given through his title, Lord of Saxy-Beaulieu, and the following true biographical elements made public: “A member of the highest Saxon and Norman nobility with relatives in the U.S. and the British Isles (including Jersey & Guernesey, the Isle of Sark and the whole of France since Joan of Arc, who was burnt at the stake as everyone knows).” Second, he asked me to apologize in his name if his English was found faulty: He has stopped practising modern English because Celts are speaking it as a language of their own, and he now only uses a local old Saxon that he learnt in family registries from the early Middle Ages. He has no social life any longer, being satisfied with giving orders to his Celtic servant by handsigns in the family manor of Saxy-Beaulieu.
Here’s the letter:
Despite the fact that you have been neglecting a relative for an unduly long time, especially with regards to my quality, I take the opportunity that is given me of reading your public prose to share with you the thoughts that have been the substance of my soul for the last decades, on the particular topic that you touched, namely the relationship between the Celts and us.
You are right to stress that we Saxons and Normans will never place ourselves under a Celtic banner of any sort [I never stressed this, actually]. However, you are wrong not to acknowledge publicly your own ancestry, as you are wrong to have anything to do with Celts at all. ‘Tis your parents’ mistake not to have taught you with due clarity the rank that was ascribed to you in this life, and each time you and I met I did my best to correct the pernicious influence of that modern education that is levelling everything, but that was only from time to time and unfortunately not enough to root sound principles in a young soul bewildered by a machinery of perversion.
Celts have always been our slaves and servants. They have been given us as such by God, as is clearly laid down in the Scriptures. To every place we came, spreading from the Womb of Nations, we found them, along with other species. They seemed to us the most suitable people for serving us, and we chased the others away.
Every European nation is no nation in the meaning that you and your so-called white nationalist acquaintances ascribe to it. There is no nation, only households, with masters – the Saxons – and servants – the Celts. In the same way that they deceive you with their idea of nation, they deceive you with their idea of a white race and civilization. These people say they want to save the Western civilization, but before talking like this they should learn that Western civilization has always meant for them to serve us. Only their rebellion has been the cause that others came to do their task. They have undermined the foundations that our benevolence as masters had provided them, and now they whine that the world is upside down. They have never been upside but always down, where they belong.
Celts are now living in a Cosmopolis of debauchery and treachery. Is this our fault? We have not changed a single thing in our habits and customs. We see the world going asunder but we will not join their motley, discordant movements. They are not our equals. We know that our time will come again when things get too bad, because we are the only ones who can rule and bring order in this world. In the mean time we will ignore the madness around us and enjoy the company of our genealogical trees and books. We will never be reading a book younger than 215 years old. We will never walk in a crowded street. We will never talk to no one who does not master old Gleeshire Saxon. If we do not find enough of our good people, we will make more of them with our own sisters. We have always done that in the past. The only television noise that will ever reach our ears is at our French Riviera villégiature: It is the Celtic neighbour’s television heard through modern-manufactured partitions – ah, those French would have learnt what a partition is at the Manor of Saxy-Beaulieu! Let that neighbour spend his whole life before his Celtic mirror, that is, television. We do not live in the same world. This is not the same world we are talking about at all.
Always will you be welcome at Saxy-Beaulieu.”
Yet the lord of Saxy-Beaulieu has not always been an old crackpot. On the contrary, he used to be young and learned (I mean in other things than Saxon feudal law). Here’s a story he once told me.
“Many years ago, my dear friend X. was involved in an amorous flirt with the Duchess of W. As things became serious and he, as an educated man, worried about the consequences, he told me that he wanted to break off and wished to know the most appropriate way to do so.
I remembered having found in Kierkegaard the solution to his problem. As the philosopher says, there is a philosophical way to break with one’s lover when the circumstances demand it. In order to depart her without her falling apart, it was necessary to act in such a manner that she could not keep any esteem for him; she would thus believe that her eyes had been opened on the true nature of a man unworthy of her sentiments. Otherwise, if he did not disappoint her and she kept her sentiments for him, she would suffer, and he would be a rascal.
One way to attain this goal, I suggested, was to act in a cynical way regarding her marriage (for she was still married at the time). If he made her an indecent proposal, adding: “Are you ready to cheat now?”, she would definitely think him to be an unrefined person of limited outlook, deserving not the emotions she had thought she had felt for him; she would leave him on her own initiative, a little bit shocked maybe but spared much of heart’s ache. He would thus keep his mind at rest that his conduct had been chivalrous.
He agreed with my plan, thanking me profusely for the good idea. Unfortunately, English was not his mother tongue and, as the moment came, due to his faulty pronunciation he actually said: “Are you ready to sh*t now?” The perversity of the demand was for the Duchess, as the degenerate lady she was, too charming a trait to be resisted, and his attempt to break off failed miserably.”
This being said, the lord of Saxy-Beaulieu has always had peculiar ideas. This from another of his letters:
“Were it not for the social pressure that makes the adolescent feel compulsory to look for a sweetheart even though, in reality, it is not at all aimed at sexual relief in most cases, he would ignore such compulsion to wasting his time and devote his energy to more fruitful activities. Petting is that form of intercourse that is fit for female nature and unfit for male nature. That it has so developed among young people is proof that our culture has become womanly.”
Recently, a Harvard black professor was arrested in his home by a white policeman who had been called by a neighbor alarmed at seeing the black man break open a door. It turned out the Harvard professor had left his keys somewhere and the house he broke in was his.
As the professor saw the police coming, he became angry and offensive, so the policeman manacled him and took him to the police station. Later, president Obama said the Harvard professor was a friend of his and the police had been stupid. The professor said America was racist and the four residents of the White House (the president and his family) the only persons living in a post-racial America. Newspapers around the world told the story of the Harvard professor victim of white America’s bias and prejudice. (I too lost my keys one day: I called a locksmith.)
A so-called specialist in American affairs told the story on French TV. Describing the events, he said the professor “touched the door” and the neighbor called the police. The specialist even illustrated his words with a rapid gesture imitating a man grasping the handle of a door. I guess this is only because it would have been difficult on a TV studio to render the behavior of a man breaking a door open, with shoulders and all – or is it because it would have made the neighor’s alarm appear more understandable and the professor’s behavior less rational? (November 2009)
Eyes of Blue
Fair eyes are depigmented eyes, the fairer the more depigmented, with blue the most depigmented, then grey, then all shades of green and hazel and brown to the most pigmented dark eyes. In the world population at large pigmented irides are the rule rather than the exception. In fact fair eyes are rare, they are virtually inexistent outside the white Caucasian race, which includes Arabs and Indians of India, among whom fair eyes are rare too.
According to Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa, people have a preference for fair eyes: Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters (2007), p. 61. A preference that would be “both universal and undeniable.”
These authors’ hypothesis is very interesting. To be precise it is not their hypothesis but that of an undergraduate student, Lee Ann Turney, “in her term paper for a class that she took from one of us (Kanazawa) in spring 2002.” According to Mrs Turney’s very interesting hypothesis, as the pupil dilates and contracts according to one’s emotions, blue-eyed people are more trustworthy because their pupil is more salient, being seen on a fair background.
That supposes that the eye be wide enough. Many Slavs, albeit blue-eyed, tend to have slanting eyes, so the preference cannot extend to them. This is a way to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.
Twenty years ago, when I started dabbling in physical anthropology, they said blue eyes were recessive (now they say “mostly recessive”). If blue eyes are recessive, and there is a universal preference for blue eyes, then I think the math foretells the extinction of the trait. On a global market, that is. Many a woman, and a man too, will sacrifice their preference for blue eyes when offered sufficient compensation, and if high-status people from all over the world are in search of blue eyes on the mating market, then, the proportion of blue-eyed individuals among these high-status people being small in absolute terms (see first paragraph), generation after generation the recessive trait will find fewer possibilities to be expressed in the offspring. Expect for slant-eyed Slavs, because no one cares about them. Yes, you have read it right: These latter will thrive because of the very contempt they inspire on the mating market.
This is to suggest one should consider recessiveness and dominance in studying behavior. A recessive (selfish) gene has nothing to gain from globalization. On the other hand, a dominant (no less selfish) gene must struggle with such a concept as miscegenation.
To be sure, there is globalization and globalization. In the times of the British Empire, a world empire, high-status men, to be frank, were all Britons. Local (colored) rulers, local elites were precisely that, “local,” and so were their mating markets. Blue-eyed English ladies were not to be touched by locals. The mating market of the British imperial elite was also local but, given a universal preference for the traits present in their market, their situation is more properly described as having being a monopoly.
Perhaps women in northern European cultures have always been freer than in other parts of the world because, being most of them fair-eyed, men feel they can trust them. The Nordic phenotype is also characterized by fair skin, and blushing, on a fair skin, may play the same role as the salient pupil of a fair eye. Ceteris paribus, deception is harder for individuals of the Nordic race.
This leads us to the fact that contract polities as opposed to despotism, that is, societies relying on interpersonal trust rather than on top-down power, originated in the same European regions where women have been the freest. For such societies to be able to thrive, trust must be more than a vain word. (On the geographic origins of political freedom, see Montesquieu.)
To all intents and purposes, the Wahhabis’ way to deal with their women seems sound from an evolutionary perspective.
A Call to Exceptional Men
In his Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), Darwin writes: “for with man when the beard differs in colour from the hair of the head, as is commonly the case, it is, I believe, almost always of a lighter tint, being often reddish. I have repeatedly observed this fact in England; but two gentlemen have lately written to me, saying that they form an exception to the rule. One of these gentlemen accounts for the fact by the wide difference in colour of the hair on the paternal and maternal sides of his family. Both had been long aware of this peculiarity (one of them having often been accused of dyeing his beard), and had been thus led to observe other men, and were convinced that the exceptions were very rare. Dr. Hooker attended to this little point for me in Russia, and found no exception to the rule. In Calcutta, Mr. J. Scott, of the Botanic Gardens, was so kind as to observe the many races of men to be seen there, as well as in some other parts of India, namely, two races in Sikhim, the Bhoteas, Hindoos, Burmese, and Chinese, most of which races have very little hair on the face and he always found that when there was any difference in colour between the hair of the head and the beard, the latter was invariably lighter.” (Chap. XIX)
As can be seen from a picture of my younger days, I have got brown hair and black beard. (Look here, the 9th from the top; the picture is black and white and perhaps the evidence not as clear as one could wish, but you can enlarge the picture by clicking on it to get a clearer view of the contrast.)
I hereby make a call to all men in the same exceptional situation to reach out and share their experience for the purpose of forming a club. There’s not even a word to name us. One of our first tasks will be to invent one.
To think that it has been more than a decade since I read this in Darwin and I never had the idea to make a call to such exceptional men before! (Darwin’s calling it a “little point” is wrong.)