Of Sex, Sex Education and Society

Is the way society perceives sex today “healthy”? Or does it have negative results which if left unchanged, could cause harm to society? It is argued by many that the promotion of abstinence had detrimental effects, that it, leaving people ignorant of sex played a key role in unwanted pregnancies [1]. It is believed that sex education plays a crucial role in the development of responsibility [2]. And since the parents fail to teach their children about sex [2.1], (at least according to social psychologists) it graciously accepted the responsibility of doing so. Very well then, I believe its high time some one review the progress we made since society talked about sex more openly. And see what this has accomplished. We will firstly examine what it is Sex Education achieved , then look at Society to determine the results.

Sex Education.

Sex Education, as previously mentioned, claims to provide a means for children to understand the responsibility and consequences of sex. But how necessary is it for a child of five [3] to know about sex (even if it is claimed to be a mild form of education)? Very, they would have you believe, because children are curious about the nature and composition of the opposite sex. Hm, yes but where from is this curiosity borne? A desire to mate? Is it perhaps an indication that he or she is mature enough to make these decisions? I doubt anyone would say yes to either of these questions. So why then, does this natural curiosity prompt the justification for introducing sex-education?

It is they claim, shown to be, that introducing children to the subject at an early age, has positive effects on such things as teen pregnancy rates. In other words the entire system of sex-education is not built around abstinence but rather around teaching the youth in having sex. In a safe way, I am sure they would be eager to point out.

It is absurd to suggest such a thing, you may think, but when one reads that 1000 children under the age of 13 [4] are prescribed tablets to prevent pregnancies, you quickly come to the realization that the function of sex education is precisely that. Sex education teaches our youth to be sexually active in a safe way, and society with the blessing of Government nurtures this position. It nurtures a false sense of security, by calling the “preventative measures” during sex “safe”, which by its very meaning implies fool proof. This is leading children into committing acts that have consequences that are not fully within their means to handle. Naturally one would first ask what sort of parent would allow this sort of thing to happen. But these prescriptions are given with no requirement for parental permission at all, in fact, there is even no need for the parent to be aware of this. It in other words offers complete anonymity to the child.

It is said that the period of puberty provides a curiosity of a different nature. Because at that stage in life one develops the means to reproduce. True enough perhaps, but should wisdom not dictate that one should teach them to act responsibly? At the moment we're teaching the youth not in responsibility but rather irresponsibility. Since we teach them of sex in terms of options they have in doing so without responsibility. If the condom fails then you always have the option to abort, we even teach them how to allegedly “prevent” STD's of which none are (as previously stated) fool proof. These all encourage promiscuity rather than behavior that exhibits control which is the function of acting responsibly.

So, how then will we resolve this issue? What can be done to ensure that we return to a healthy well functioning society? How do we resolve the problem of teenage sex? Do we give power back to the parent? And trust that they would educate their children properly regarding this matter? It could be and is often argued that many fail to educate their children in sex at all [See earlier reference]. But even so, should we leave the parent to be irresponsible and educate their children on this matter in their stead? Or should we perhaps look toward creating a society of responsible parents instead? Parents not only have a responsibility to themselves, but to their children and the community as well, just as the community has a responsibility to each and every member therein. We should do more to make more enlightened and responsible parents, rather than to accept that there are irresponsible ones and we'll just have to carry their weight for them. Even so, there is no sure way even if we make it mandatory for parents to attend classes, that they would fulfill their obligations to their children. However, to do so would unquestionably improve the amount of parents who do since it would make it easier for them to approach the subject, furthermore, to better understand how to instill responsibility in their children's character. Lastly we must put an end to educating the youth on having sex, and opt instead on teaching about sex and the need for abstinence.

There are those who'd say : “kids will find ways to have sex, you can't stop them” kids want to find ways primarily because of pressure groups, it is today considered an insult to be a virgin and people often mock others for being one. It is human nature to want to fit in. Even we adults have that compulsion from time to time. If we are to change the stigma, more will aspire to be better. We will continue discussing this matter later on when we deal with the issue of society. I will restate however: Just because a problem cannot be resolved to a 100% certainty, doesn't mean we have to accept that some are flawed, therefore we must encourage all to be so, as long as they are safe and reduce the risks attached to their actions.

The code society functions under is one of pleasure and in pursuing that but this is not conduct that is positive for society and it will never be, because society by its nature, requires responsibility in order for it to continue to exist. And as we will see, there exists no such thing in society today.

Society.

Since the morality of self indulgence entered the foreground, society increasingly perceived of sexual relations as something to be pursued for the sake of pleasure. But this is not all, women we are told, have been made to feel shame for her body in the past. So she now, through the lies of the foreign elements within society “empowers” herself by means of loose behavior. The spring break events being indicative there of, among many other forms of behavioral patterns that developed. Today one often hears the phrase “one night stand” and often sexual acts are entered into by the first week What a stark contrast to the past, when man had to court the female, he had to prove himself worthy for her hand in marriage. Today on the other hand we see a complete transformation. These views (a foreign moral code) which the foreign element (Jews) implanted into the mind of our female folk, do not exist to free them from the so-called “oppression” of their male counterparts, they exist solely to cheapen them, and make them feel unworthy of more than being used. I'm sure that by now some one would think to themselves that its unfair for me to have such a bias view of the matter by solely “targeting” the female behavior in society today. I assure you it's not the case, it is not my desire to target our women folk, but to demonstrate how much more they are worthy of, beginning with being respected as had been done in the past not perceived as mere sexual objects. The manner in which we of the West perceived of relationships, was not in order to make a female feel shame, it was an indication of mutual respect and worthiness. Shame was reserved only for those who exhibited a behavior that is equal to what we see today. And as far as my views on men are concerned, I'm well aware of man's role in this society, as I am well aware of his childlike nature this day. Man no longer desires to be a man, he desires to remain a drunken party boy. The very idea of commitment threatens him as though his life was truly in danger. Marriage is perceived as a “finality”, the proverbial nail in the coffin of his childish gallivanting. I'm also aware that man also perceives of having multiple partners as a “right of passage”. These all, also idea's planted into the folks mind by the same foreign elements within our society. We see this in their propaganda (what they call movies) as well, the man is always conflicted about the idea of marriage, there is always a suggestion that it ends his life, and the female is always encouraged to “experience more men” because she couldn't possibly know that she had found the right man for her. This aside, does it make sense to say that...because man perceives of sex in this way, it is dictated that woman should do the same? After all that'd surely change the stigma right? I never understood this special breed of stupidity. No sooner do they demand the right to say no than do they throw it out of the window entirely! Man won't be “stud” if woman says no!. But instead of women demanding more of man, we see today women bragging in the media of having had five thousand sexual partners [5] and for no reason other than self gratification. It's alright though because “men are called stud's if they do so”, it simply will not change the stigma at all. It merely confirms that society has a backward way of perceiving things. Some even sell their virginity (which in itself is a rarity these days) for the sake of paying off debt [6]. When man offers her a way out to not lose dignity she refuses stating that she wants no knight in shining armor. Treating her male counterpart as a common enemy, some one that tries to deny her, her unique form of “empowerment”.

Of course some would argue that society has always had prostitution, nudity etc as a response to most of what I said. We must ask ourselves whether this doesn't say more negative things of society, that we consider this an issue that shouldn't be addressed as much as possible. It is true that some prostitute mainly for the money, while others do so because Government failed them. It is also true that there are many ways prostitution could be kept alive. But the manner it is handled is not effective enough to discourage this behavior, stricter means must be employed. Harsher penalties not only to the female but to the customer as well, as he is the one that rewards this behavior. “As long as there are people willing to pay there will be prostitutes”. This is a statement one often comes across and it is indeed the case, but as long as there are harsh penalties for behavior that is destructive to the community, the less people would be willing to take the risk. Of course, I am not suggesting public hangings, but rather harsher fines, prison terms and the utilization of community pressure. The latter should do enough to dissuade most. What is meant by community pressure? Shaming them, when one looks at the Amish and also the Mormon one sees the effectiveness shaming troublemakers has. No one likes being ostracized this much is true. We've also seen this method's effectiveness during the so-called civil rights movement in the sixties. Labels were used to mock and deride the racially aware of the folk in the United States. They were called backward, ignorant, trailer park trash, people with a narrow world view and we continue to see this method employed daily even today. How often have I not heard these very words used to describe me, and how many times have people told their friends to not approach me, or to not speak to me. They do this because it is the very method that worked to turn their opinions from a racially healthy view to self hating. And it works, so long as people have the desire to not be alone, it truly works, having the approval of others is every average persons desire.

Of course, having said this we come once again onto the subject of free will. As is to be expected in this day and age; “Who are you”...they would say...”to force people to do what is against their will? Or even “people have free will to decide what to use their money on” But one is always subject to the will of the community as well as that of the Government. Allow me to take you back to 1957 so I may better illustrate my point. When the racial integration scheme hit a snag in a few of the Southern States. The USA which up to that point and to this day prides itself on its “free will” decided to send its troops to enforce its desires at gunpoint.[7] The now famously known “Little Rock 9” being an example there of another would be the incident in September of 1962, when White students refused to accept James Meredith on their campus, then Attorney General Robert Kennedy dispatched 400 US Marshalls, and after it turned violent, then President John. F. Kennedy dispatched 3000 troops to quell the White man's resistance to integration [7.1]. Is the desire to associate and live among your own, not an act of free will denied by your system? Does your egalitarian system not oppress, discriminate and shame individuals who are racially aware? Do you not punish those who have a view that threatens the very foundations of your multiracial society, by denying them equal right to be published and marketed? Instead these people have to self publish their work, which of course gives the illusion of freedom of speech, but in reality it puts a firm muzzle on many individuals who can ill afford to do so out of their own pockets. No, we would not be doing anything untoward if we are to suggest that people who exhibit behavior that is undesirable, should be shamed and ostracized. Its benefits would be felt all the way through society, from the teenager to the adult. As reference [5] demonstrates, the lady in question felt shame for not having had sexual relations during her early teenage years, students and friends mocked her, pressure groups are the main cause for behavioral tendencies, and should this turn, less would be so willing to give themselves so cheaply.



Notes:

[1] See: ,2007, “Sex Abstinence Programs Have No Impact On Preventing Unwanted Pregnancies Or Stopping Risky Sexual Behavior”. Medical News Today, 3rd of August 2007. [Online] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78751.php accessed: 30th August 2010.

[2] “Sex Education”, Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Date last modified: 29th August 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education accessed : 30th August 2010.

[2.1] Rosemary Bennett, 2008, “Parental Failure to Confront The Problem Is To Blame For Abortion Statistics”, Times Online UK, 19th of June 2008, [Online] available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4171322.ece date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[3] See: Graeme Paton, 2008, “Children Aged Five To Get Sex Education”, The Telegraph, 22nd October 2008, [Online] available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/3242919/Children-aged-five-to-get-sex-education.html date accessed : 30th August 2010

[4] Hilary White, 2010, “1000 UK Girls Under Age 12 Prescribed Hormonal Contraceptives Last Year”, Life Site News, 3rd August 2010, [Online] available at : http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080303.html date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[5] Tiffany Wright, 2009, “I've Slept With 900 Men – So What?”, News Of The World Magazine, 25th October 2009, [Online] Available at: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/fabulous/features/561491/sex-addiction.html date accessed: 30th August 2010. Also see

Daily Mail Reporter, 2010, “I've Had Sex With 5,000 Men in 9 Years”, Daily Mail News, 13th August 2010, [Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302744/Ive-sex-5-000-men-years-boasts-beauty-therapist-25.html date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[6] Carol Driver, 2010, “18 Year Old Auctions Virginity For 200K To British Bidder”, 6th August 2010, [Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300843/18-year-old-auctions-virginity-200k-pay-family-debts.html date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[7] “Little Rock Nine”, Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Date Last Modified 25th August 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[7.1] “John F. Kennedy – Civil Rights”, Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Date Last Modified 27 August 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Civil_rights date accessed: 30th August 2010.

Supremacism And Its Relation To Man

Whenever there is talk of race, the need to preserve it or for that matter the desire to be part of an organic homogeneous community. One often finds in close company the accusation of being a supremacist. The popular tactic these days, when being confronted with this accusation, is to outright deny any hint of a desire for supremacy. Both the accusation and the denial is an absurdity, because both of these consider supremacy to be an inherent evil or something that is against nature. I suppose one cannot fault them for doing so, especially when they play by the rules of the belief the accuser has of the word. It is believed by the Egalitarian, that supremacism is an “evil belief” that one is superior to another race, religion and what have you, and not, that it is actually a natural predisposition. It may be true that they do not perceive themselves as superior in this context. But it is not borne from a rational position, or a clear understanding of the world and the manner in which it operates. For even if they do not perceive themselves as supreme, they all work inextricably toward being supreme.

It is with this view in mind that I've decided to write a small piece on supremacism, and its place in human nature.

On Supremacism And Its Relation To Man.

Supremacy is the end goal of all manner of organic life, each and every organism strives to attain this goal.. Each one adapts, not just for the purpose of survival but for the function of being supreme over that which previously endangered its existence. One could even say that survival implies the attainment of supremacy over that which threatened its existence. The process of self perfecting will always lead to the result of the one being supreme over the other, even if just momentarily. We see this example with numerous virus': the moment man had found a solution to this problem, it gradually adapted itself into a new strain, ensuring its chances of survival against this solution, thus making it supreme above the solution itself.

So considering this, whenever accused of being a supremacist, one must always affirm that they are, for it is natures law that they should be. We see ample examples of what failure to adhere to this principle does. Civilizations, which are in themselves designed by organic lifeforms for the purpose of fulfilling this goal, have both risen and fallen. The minute they ceased to have any interest in supremacy they stagnated, withered and died. For it is a constant truth throughout history that each civilization was forged out of the need to survive, whether to defend or to obtain land, it all had the desire to be supreme above those that endanger them, and those who stand in the way of materials necessary for their survival. One such example being the British Empire, which grew out of its industrialization and subsequent collapse in agricultural land mass. It is not just the need for land that pushed the English into colonialism. It was also a desire to be supreme, to enforce its will wherever it desired, often at the cost of others. It was the same for Rome, as it was for Egypt, and many other Empires that had existed in the past. Each one perceived himself supreme in relation to its enemies, each one concerned itself only with its will and not that of others. We today perceive this past (colonialism) to be an “evil” but as I already mentioned before in my article; “on the issues of Abortion” [1] nature has no capacity for evil, it only has a capacity for what is right. And the need to survive necessitates doing what is necessary. This much is true of all organisms: when it comes to the point where survival necessitates certain adaptations, there are none, upon being aware of their own survival being at stake, who would hesitate to put them to use.

There are may today who love to delude themselves into thinking that we can give up this desire for supremacy. But this is borne, rather from emotion, which bears no merit on the rule of life. It is necessary though, to address some of these issues so it may be better illuminated:

There is frequent talk among egalitarian minds, that “co-operation” between the different sub-species is a far more desirable option than that of supremacy and struggle. This however, is just wishful thinking, because even today when we not only “co-operate” but endanger our own existence at the benefit of others, we come to find that life is filled with discriminatory practices, as well as the desire for supremacy. For instance we find that governments do discriminate in the sharing of information or technology that invariably equates to power. There exists no nation on earth who would share armaments among other nations on an equal footing, because doing so would immediately remove their superiority over what may be a potential enemy in the future. What is exported or traded with foreign nations is only that which would ensure that the stronger maintain its position of strength. We also come to find that the importing and exporting of goods other than weaponry contains within itself a struggle for power and superiority over others. It certainly is often argued that this co-operation in terms of imports and exports of goods, is done for mutual benefit. But this is not the case - trading by its nature is an act which expresses supremacy over another, there is no fair trade, since there is competition among both the buyer and seller, regarding the pricing of these goods. One will always try to extract the maximum out of it while the other tries to pay as little as is possible. Each one viewing his product as better to the one offered in exchange. What effects the outcome, is power in the form of demand, there is nothing fair about it. One will always leave having given out more than was actually necessary, one will always have the power over the other. Outsourcing and Globalism I am sure, will be perceived as indications that it is shifting toward mutual benefit, but is this really the case? Can there be a strain of this inherent superiority found within this modern method?

Outsourcing they say, provides jobs in underdeveloped regions, thus creating a viable economy within these nations, uplifting everyone gradually toward a common economic stability. This however, is another false claim. Since outsourcing by its nature is the exploitation of cheaper regions, to maximize profits, it not only does nothing in terms of economic development in the undeveloped regions, but it does equal damage to the nation it abandons, since it is causing severe unemployment in an already existing market, losing itself its only loyal and secure market base. Furthermore the education, financial injections and support from G8 nations toward Africa is not done for the sake of mutual benefit, but because of a desire on the part of the ruling nations, to reinvigorate its former colonies into a viable export for produce, which it previously had under its control, but can no longer obtain through means of trade, it cannot obtain it by means of trade, because the African hasn't mastered agriculture. At the moment the relationship is not even reciprocal since Africa is a beggar, and offers nothing even remotely close to mutually beneficial. Ah but I am sure, there are some who'd say, that it is in fact for mutual benefit because the African would have what it didn't have before: - a constant supply of food, which is beneficial to them as well. If only life were so simple, we seem to forget that we all feel that those we aid are in debt to us when they've found their feet. Not only will the G8 nations obtain its produce it lost through the end of colonialism, but it would gain a market for its industrial products, and furthermore, Africa would be in a position to repay the debt it incurred through decades of begging, exercising its power completely. And should we as we have done in the past, write these debts off, then it is not beneficial to us, as we've lost billions in investments with no return on the capital.

There is also another ugly aspect to “trade” which most people tend to forget: It is often used as a weapon to enforce the will of the Democratic West upon others. As it is currently done in Zimbabwe, and as it has been done in the past against Apartheid South Africa and many other nations both past and present. So there is an element of constant power in it. And this perhaps is an idea to consider in and of itself. That Ideologies themselves have the desire for supremacy, and use whatever is at its disposal to enforce its will upon others. But it is not something I wish to elaborate on here, as it will, detract from this particular essay, which deals with supremacy in a different context.

That aside, we must explore the “Globalism” aspect of the claim to mutual benefit. It is true that the current establishment desires to create an international “one world” that it calls Globalism, and it uses the notion that all people of all walks of life will be “brought together” as though this is a longed for occurrence. But life shows that this can never be, it is inevitable that different races will ultimately seek to obtain the advantage over others. In Multiracial society today we see the ample indications there of. In European nations, the Arab, Jew, Negro among many others, all see to their own interests, each one has a group that represents their interests and theirs alone, not the interest of some “higher purpose” or some “higher goal”. “But they stand against racism which is a factor that divides humanity”....That they stand against “racism” is no indication of their desire to “breach the gap between the different peoples” as is commonly believed, but is more an indication of their desire to maintain their survival, and the positions they obtained through anti-racial laws. Which serves to curtail and shackle only European man.

If they truly were against racism, would they not stand against all forms of it? And not as they do today, only target the European and label him a racist, whenever he desires to see to his own interests? It is a means to defend themselves and maintain the status quo, that is: working toward the displacement of the European and the empowering of their own kind, and not as is popularly believed, an actual indication of their desire to do away with racism. Displacement? You may wonder, “how precisely are they working toward the displacement of the European”? Affirmative Action is a policy not designed to “right previous wrongs”, or to “do justice to those whom injustice was done to” as is commonly believed, it is a policy that place all manner of non-White on the top of the preference list for occupation, to work, which is the means with which to secure ones existence and to provide for one's family. It is a policy that shifts the balance of power gradually away from the European, nullifying his influence in society.

Co-operation can only truly exist among those who share the same hereditary traits, because it is mutually beneficial to do so, and not those who compete against you so that they may increase the reproductivity of their own. In other words, true co-operation can only exist between the Europeans, for they all share the same hereditary traits, they are not in competition with one another to perpetuate their own racial hereditary traits. The same cannot be said for the non-European.

All manner of life is a battle for supremacy, to either get to the top or to maintain that position. This is the way the world functions, and while we may live in a world where humanity today denies any notion of “color” or of “race” the reality of the matter, as is demonstrated, is vastly different. The only one foolish enough to adhere to “tolerance” and forsake the natural strive for supremacy is the European, and it is costing him his very existence.

[1] See my article on Abortion : http://nationalsocialistletters.blogspot.com/2010/08/issues-of-abortion.html

The Issues of Abortion

The matter of abortion has always been a topic of contention. Throughout the ages it has been brought up – accepted – and then rejected. Each period brought about a resurgence of either one or the other sphere of thought, it was either deemed to be a Godless act or a divine right of women to “do as they please with their bodies”. In the past there was a constant fixture in this debate, and that is religion. This was to say, it was primarily a question addressed by means of theological disputation. However, it is now the subject of philosophy. That's not to say that it never had an element of philosophical contemplation to it, that of course it had, at least in so far as discussions around the subject always considered it either a good or a bad action as well as its moral (and theological) implications, but the modern era reached a certain ethic behind the concept of abortion which is in itself a unique thing. Furthermore since the advance of science and the subsequent insignificance of religion, science itself now plays a role in the question of Abortion. At least as far as trying to justify abortion by means of science is concerned.

It was argued by the theologians of the past that such an act is an affront to God, that taking what was deemed a gift from divine Providence amounted to a sin, a sin which man cannot allow himself to partake in. That each life first conceived is endowed with a soul, and that the termination of this soul is an act against the wishes of the Higher power. Now granted, it isn't what one would today consider a reasonable defense for denying a certain action, considering how our knowledge evolved throughout the years, and the failure of the Church to in turn adapt to the arguments presented against them. But it was effective at least, in ensuring that the continuation of the folk, remained in tact and as nature dictates. For those who do not procreate, or fail to provide an ample quantity of future generations to increase positive adaptability, cease to live at all, they become extinct, mere remnants of the past, examples of failures.

In contrast to Pro-Life arguments which today is (or rather is believed to be) soundly refuted by science. It is believed among certain philosophical circles that a fetus “is not yet a person/human being and as such they do not yet have a substantial right to life” [1] On the face of it, this might seem reasonable, but the absurdity of this statement becomes ever more apparent when we dissect it and ask of it some pressing questions. At what point do we consider something to have a substantial right to life? The period described by science as the term where a fetus can be considered as “not having a right to life”, isn't one born from fact but is rather a subjective value judgment born from the common belief that we must accommodate our world view with that of the wish and desires of the current establishment and not, as is usually the case, shape it in accordance with what is positive. It is admitted, that the fetus is indeed a life, and that it does indeed have a genetic system [2] but this according to the subjective analysis of the pro-choicers, doesn't suffice as a reasonable enough argument for constituting it a human being. What is neglected and I suspect deliberately so, is the fact that a present genetic system in and of itself, does in fact make it a human being. What is defined as an individual in biological terms, is unique genes, because what its genetic system is composed of, is those same genes you and I contain in our human body. The period up to its birth is a process of gene selection from an already present human genetic pool. To state that its not a human being because, at that point in time its selection process did not create X amount of limbs or what have you, isn't a reasonable argument to make. For then any human being with a genetic defect is not a human being on the basis that its gene selection process was disturbed and resulted in an error or an omission. For that matter to argue (as they do) that it is not a human being on the basis that its not separate and independent of its mother, is simply not a reasonable argument to make either. Would it be reasonable for us to suggest that once a man loses his independence whether through war injuries or other misfortunes, that we abort him from society for not having that said independence he previously had? Of course, people would be upset at such a suggestion, one could already imagine the cries of condemnation you'll receive for even thinking such a thing. And yet it is dependence that is the determining factor for aborting a life not considered human because of its dependency on others. Are we not all to some extent dependent on others? What sort of imbecilic criteria is this? Who in their right mind would use this as a basis on which to determine life or death? And who, for that matter, would even find this suggestion agreeable?

Ah yes! But feeling!, now there is a popular and frequently used justification for terminating a life, it doesn't feel anything, they say...therefore its not doing actual harm to the fetus, this is of course if we neglect the fact that it is the termination of a life form containing all the genetic composition of a human being and thus doing harm not only to it, by ending its life, but also to the folk. The subjective nature of this statement becomes even more apparent if one takes this argument further to suggest that one could for the same matter then simply shoot a paralyzed individual. No! They would emphatically exclaim, I'm certain, at the mere mention of such a thing, what then makes this so different? Why does the one provoke public indignation while the other doesn't? I am sure there are some who would argue that one lived a life but for the same token we could say that another is denied a chance at resuming life! And for that matter, everything lives a life up to the point it dies, even a fetus lived a life up to the point of its abortion, its an absurdity to argue in these terms, or to apply such an infantile explanation to such a serious issue. Clearly the claim to have “lived” a life isn't an appropriate justification for denying one the chance at resuming its life coming into this world, and becoming a contributor to the folk and fulfilling its part in nature. For that is ultimately what birthing and procreation is intended for, to ensure the survival and continuation of the folk.

Of course we run into a wild fool every now and then who claims as our friend [3] does that : “ it is necessary for the health and survival of the individual, the families and society” that we should allow abortion. Imagine that, what a fine reason to do so isn't it? Not only is abortion done without the individuals life being in danger, contrary to what is suggested there, but it goes completely against the survival of society! Procreation, as already stated, exists to ensure the survival of the organic community, and not as our friend claims, to endanger it. Yes of course we could at this point expect the popular claim that the world is over populated. Which is a popular statement to make during discussions of this nature. It is simply another asinine claim made by the hysterical quacks just itching to get their names etched into history. It's not the world that's over populated, China and India may be, but they don't even begin to make up the vast landmass that is known as earth. Even so, should we consider this a serious statement, there is nothing that prevents man from adapting. Already we have the means with which to do so. In Japan for instance, we see the Asian building upwards to make land available, we see science manipulating and engineering foods. Western man is no exception. We Europeans have the means with which to adapt. Not that we would be pressed to do so anytime soon, considering our spectacularly low birth-rate. But enough about this subject. We must press on and continue our exploration into the question of Abortion.

If, as we have done here, we find these gospels of pro-choice to be lacking, we arrive at the last method of enforcing sympathy for the sake of executing life:

Pro-Choicers claim that “ it is impossible to give equal moral rights to fetuses without denying those same rights to women [4]. While this at first glance may appear to be true, we quickly realise that this statement again, implies that the woman's life is in danger in all cases. I.E. That throughout the first trimester all women who abort do so because their lives are in danger. Since the only right we speak of is the right to life. It's absurd to suggest that this would put the woman's life in jeopardy. Unless of course the “life” spoken of in reference to the woman, isn't the same as that which we speak of in reference to the fetus. But that her “life” being in danger is in fact the selfish belief that a child “ruins lives” and that she will be “enslaved” and “chained down” by this infant. That she...would no longer be able to do as she pleases, but would have responsibilities of her own. Its not far fetched to consider this selfish perspective as the motive for continuously referring to the endangerment of the female's “life”, it is often a popular claim to make in this day and age.[5] That this absurdity is even considered a legitimate argument boggles the mind, and more so demonstrates how poorly society treats this subject matter. Its quite obvious that her life is not over. That society frowns upon pregnancy is not an indication that its a sickness, or an undesired condition, but that society itself is sick and in an undesirable state. There is also one other angle we have to consider and address, and that is the popular appeal to emotion, as it is often the last resort in justifying the murder of ones own:

What if...they ask...”the child is not wanted by the mother? You would subject an innocent child to a life where he is not wanted and is abused?” Not in the least, there are people who can't conceive out of their own, who'd love the opportunity to raise a member of the folk. And should the mother so decide to act a child and flee from her responsibilities. Then it becomes the concern of the State. Who will then take on this responsibility. If for no other reason, than because the child is a member of the organic community, and as such, is a vital part of the survival of this community. It (the State) is bound by the natural instinct to survive, to ensure its safety and well-being. Since the State serves the role of co-ordinating society in a way that will ensure survival and continuance into the future. Naturally we must consider the possibility that the woman was taken against her wishes. But even so, does it justify an abortion? If in a society that takes a pro-life stance, we consider that such cases are exempt from this view, we will undoubtedly have numerous cases where false reports are made in an attempt to do away with the child. Should we decide to make this an exempt case, it will require a far more rigorous investigation, so as to prevent an outright and shameless abuse of the law.

Of course (and this is to move away from our original question) at this point, one could ask “why not just let women have the right to abort if you know they're going to endanger themselves?” and the stories of the alleged “countless” women who put their own lives in danger doing back alley abortions before its legalization would pop up again, in an attempt to make it justifiable. Forgetting all the same that most women opted to give birth and accept responsibility for their actions, the amount of illegal dangerous abortions were minimal in comparison with the 49 million [6] abortions performed as of 1973 in the United States alone.


That aside, returning to our original question: I have spent some time deliberating on whether or not abortion, in the event of rape should be permissible. Should it be that it is not considered exempt from the law, it would perhaps still be the best course of action in certain circumstances. It may well make me appear hypocritical to say so. But the reasons for my stating thus are sound when looked at from the perspective of evolution. Should the fetus be the product of another race then it is mandated by the principle of evolution....that is...discrimination, to secure ones own survival and permitting an abortion. It may seem “evil” to some to state it so bluntly...but nature has no capacity for evil, only that which is right – to secure survival and grant your organic community (racial sub-species) the best advantage possible. Besides, it would be an ironic thing to behold, those who do so for selfish reasons, lecture me on the evils of arguing the very thing they use to get free from responsibility, as a justification for fulfilling natures rule. Can termination be justified in this instance where the perpetrator is in fact European? There were many factors to consider during this deliberation. The fact that the female did not consent to it, her emotional state, the emotional toll the pregnancy may have on her. All of these very reasonable considerations. But one must also consider the innocence of the life inside her. Whether or not it should be punished for the sins of its father. Also, should this be permitted, how many would claim to have been raped, in order to get an infant aborted? Which is of course, always a possibility. One could argue that stricter investigations should solve this problem of false claims. But for the same account one could argue that so would counseling in the proper sense, assist the female throughout her pregnancy. There are reasonable arguments to consider on all sides of the issue. And ideally we would want this to not be an issue at all. Its the responsibility of the state to do all that it can to make it as less of an occurrence as is humanly possible, however, some individuals even on pain of death cannot curtail this animalistic behavior. Unfortunately this scenario, is completely unavoidable.

However, keeping in mind these rare instances under harsher penalty (with the required proper investigation) We cannot find reason to suggest that we ought to set a standard that would in the future, provide an argument in favor of the same indiscriminate exterminations we have seen today. It cannot be considered permissible to continue as we are today or to set grounds that could lead us back to that point, and set our birth rates to a point where it is below that of our death rate (as it is today) ipso facto, endangering the very existence of our folk . And with these considerations all kept in mind, what we can do, is to attempt as best we can, to first and foremost try and save this life, by providing proper counseling and proper support for these few women, who we failed to protect. If, however, she is weak of will and fragile of constitution, we must make exemption, for to lose two lives in the process is not a rational nor a reasonable expectation.

The other special instance, would be in the case of severely malformed infants, there is nothing more cruel in this earth than to prolong and inflict more pain on these people, all for the sake of mere curiosity and some parents even allow this birth for the sake of their own vanity!. Of the countless times, I paged through magazines and found one or other couple, enjoying the publicity they get, and the admiration from others for their “hard life” in rearing these poor souls who's sufferings cannot so much as even be uttered. They fuel their vanity by calling these souls “happy”, “blissful” and what nonsense else, the pain they conceal within their mute bodies, not even remotely fathomable to these imbecilic parents. I am sure this provoked at least a frown to some, its a strange bit of contradiction in modern society, that when one aborts a healthy life it was a “choice” yet should you do so for the reasons stated above...you are a monster.

As far as choice is concerned, women often exclaim its my body its my choice. While one is an individual, one is only ever an individual part of a whole, that whole being the organic community And it is the responsibility of this organic communities Government to guide them into the pathway that evolution dictates: survival, expansion, supremacy. As this is the function of Government, not to turn against its own survival and endanger its peoples future as it has done in the past and is doing today. All for the sake of phantom choices! It is the heir who will take the struggle of the folk forward once more, to ensure survival of the racial community. As far as choices are concerned...one was made knowing full well of the result. All actions have outcomes, we cant terminate every perceived negative consequence in our lives, all simply because we do not like these outcomes or because we are conditioned to be as children, woefully crying at our lot as though some injustice was done to us. Every action will always have a reaction. Once we stop acting like children and accept this, we will no longer frown upon life as though it had given us a raw deal...or foolishly think that its conspiring against us.


Special thanks to Lawrence Good, for his contributions and patience during my assessment of this article.

[1] Warren, Mary Anne, Essay on Abortion, P. 303, The Blackwell Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1993.

[2] For instance see: “What Is an Abortion and Why Women Must Have the Right to Choose,” by A.S.K., Revolutionary Worker #1265, January 23, 2005.
[3] Warren, Mary Anne, Essay on Abortion, P. 304, The Blackwell Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1993.

[4] Ibid, P. 311.

[5] For instance see: Lionel, Shriver, 2005, “Why Ruin Your Life”, The Guardian, Friday 18th February, [Online], available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/18/gender.uk1, accessed: August 11th 2010.

[6] The National Right to Life, [Online], available at: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html, accessed: 11th August 2010.

Of Temporealisation and Tempocognition

As an individual that is primarily concerned with the issue of race and the apparent differences in Governing between the European and Negro races (irrespective of its alleged Democratic universality), I always strove to understand what precisely it is that caused these differences and in some cases clear inability to retain that which had been provided for by another race of people. I've always considered it a practical concern to attempt and understand what precisely the alteration may have been to make this such a fundamental gap, a gap; which to this day cannot be bridged, either by education, or by environmental change. There are many issues raised on this matter, in an attempt to reach an understanding of these quite apparent differences in ability. IQ and Brain size being one such example. Environment and its influence another: I.E. the need for continued advancement to combat the colder climates gave the European the upper hand over the African who enjoyed a tropical climate. The problem with these explanations is that they all have a sort of dual purpose or function to them, as it is always the concern of those of the liberal persuasion to use precisely these arguments in defense of their positions on society.

The Negro for instance, the Liberal would have you believe, has a lower IQ because education had been denied him I.E. that it is directly proportional to knowledge. Or the socio-environment wherein he lives is one that is not cohesive enough to support continued education. That the Negro is in essence completely equal to the European and the only thing that prevented a civilization on par with that of Europe was that socio-environmental factor so frequently abused. Neither explanation therefore, provide any definitive solution when it comes to understanding these differences in development. But what if there was a third option to consider? an option that might account for the above as well? What option? you may ask yourselves at this point. Well, quite simply put: it is Temporealisation and Tempocognition. I have mentioned these two points previously in my review of Jean Jacques Rousseau's “The Origin of Inequality”. But didn't endeavor to explain them in full, the reason for this is because it is an idea that is too expansive for a review on a booklet of such a small size. And it is also one that deserves attention of its own. I stumbled onto “Temporealisation and Tempocognition” after having read "Now Men and Tomorrow Men" by Dr. G.M. Mes. And I had an epiphany of some sorts, after reading this highly recommended book, all the pieces came together and explained in unison what it is that is the central cause of this substantial difference. It is of course demanded that I explain these two concepts of “Temporealisation and Temporecognition”, but I wont be so prudent as to steal the limelight on an idea that is not my own, I will explain these to you in the words of Dr. Mes and provide a brief explanation as to what they entail:

"I take Temporealisation to mean the quality of the awareness of location in time - or- the inclusion of time in the conception that a living thing has of its world". [1]

In other words: Temporealisation relates to the depth an organism is aware of itself and its location in time, either past, present or future. Having all three of these, being of course the more desirable and more complex of the organisms that exists. Different creatures have a different sense of time, this sense of time is not equally developed among all, which everyone would naturally agree to, if you are to suggest that the way he perceives the present and utilizes it for the purpose of the future, is not equal to that of a Lion or a Deer.... the more we go back in the chain of evolution the more we realise that lesser creatures...in so far as they are compared to us...have a sense only of the present (in other words immediate survival) and in rare circumstances have a small sense of the past (able to retain a certain amount of information acquired for survival), and naturally the higher we go the more developed this awareness becomes. Until finally it reaches man and where we simply refuse to even discuss the notion of inequality in any respect, or if we do, its in the most ridiculous fashion humanly possible, this of course to make it appear a trivial and insignificant part of life.

That aside, we must put into these terms the idea of tempocognition.

"Tempocognition is an ability allied to intelligence and, as such, largely genetically determined" [2]

Meaning in other words that Tempocognition is a cognitive ability and by being so it is a factor of intelligence. That is to say that: it is the analysis and application of knowledge for the future combined with the ability to make or build those future images into reality.

Now that we have explained these two concepts, we must examine how these two elements effected the evolution of man. Let us begin by the very point at which we recognize the rise of man:

The turning point for man had for a long time been considered as the day he decided to keep his weapon and put it to future use, rather than to throw it away.[3] This is in fact an indication of a developed future sense, albeit not an advanced one, but at that point man foresaw that he would have need of this weapon again. His future sense continued to develop through his experiences in the present, and, with the constant use of his weapon he foresaw future ways in which he could obtain superiority over his foe, using as little energy as possible and with more effectiveness than his current weapons permit. Thus he fashioned for himself different types of weapon for different functions (to defend himself with and to hunt with). These armaments were by no means perfect, and by using the same realisation and cognitive abilities he fashioned them from stones and from bones, firstly to give him better piercing and secondly to make it last longer. These new weapons required less frequent sharpening and provided a more ready usability. The process was repeated numerous times, over millions of years, continuously advancing the design of the bow and arrow, the spear and eventually the sword. And it was precisely this process of Temporealisation and Tempocognition that played such a crucial role in the development of Civilization. The Neolithic period ushered in a primitive concept of farming, I say primitive because irrigation, manuring and rotation of crops was not something early Neolithic man did, in fact the planting of crops was not even done on what one would consider a farm it was quite similar to that of the Bantu which continued to be at random. This however does not take away from the significance of the period when man used his Tempocognitive ability and realised that seed turns to plant, nor the temporealisation in the understanding that this could in fact be used to ensure a more steady source of food at a future time. And as with all things, the more man observed nature the more his understanding of it grew, and the more he absorbed the more methods he contrived for himself using his creative mind to extract the maximum from nature and even at times, against nature to maximize his survival. Solving the riddle that rain was not the only source that nourished plants he created irrigation, figuring out that manure made the soil fertile he made use of it to serve his goal, he set aside land for this very purpose...a land mass to be nurtured specifically to function as a source of permanent food.

We could set numerous examples that would indicate that at one point man realised the need of something, or that a certain thing fulfills a certain role, or for that matter that there is a problem that requires addressing and that he used his cognitive ability to solve it. But I think that I have used a prime example to demonstrate this very small detail so frequently overlooked. It may already be obvious where this article is heading, and what it is that I'm about to suggest, however, for those who don't quite yet know, I will non the less put the puzzles together.

There exists a popular belief in modern Western culture, that all Africa needs is an injection of funds, and the creation of educational systems to restore its nature to that of the Colonial period. This belief, is based on a poor understanding of the Bantu, of his history and the quality of his Temporealisation and Tempocognitive ability. People need to realise that Governments grow out of the people, they are a product of the people, they aren't separate from the people. Democracy is something that has not lasted in Africa for even as much as a quarter of a century, it has always reverted to a savage system of brutal Tyranny, concerned only with its leaders wants and needs, their natural form of Governing was very much the same, where the concern of their King was the only thing that mattered. This aside though, let us return to addressing this popular claim. As previously mentioned, the Bantu had no clear understanding of farming, he had up to the 1600's maintained only an understanding as far as early Neolithic man, his continent had the fortune of influence from various Civilizations all exceptionally advanced for their period. Egypt, the Middle East and Europe, and at no point throughout the thousands of years that had passed, did the Bantu retain the knowledge of any of these Civilizations. Instead he reverted back to that quality his temporealisation is capable of, to that range his tempocognitive ability could make use of. He saw no future use for writing, education that is the passing on of knowledge, of using the cognitive function to improve it...nor for any of the wondrous things provided, for his observation, during this long period. Just as he reverted back to a substandard life after Egyptian and Middle Eastern influence, so he reverted back to this self same substandard way of life after Europeans ceased to become an active part in their day to day life. In former Rhodesia the Negro man howled to give back his land, he kicked the European off the agricultural soil, and took it for himself, he failed to make any use of land which throughout European existence on it provided an abundance of agricultural foods. In South Africa, the land reformation process serves the same function, virtually all (if not all) of the land previously owned by Europeans and currently in the hands of black individuals, turned into barren wastelands, countless funds spent with no return on investment.[4] Ah but one must educate them!, the staunch egalitarian exclaims. And here is where we address the source of the socio-economic environment or “culture” that exists within the Negro that frowns upon education:

In order for education to be received, one must realise that there is a need for it, and as can be seen throughout Africa there simply isn't much emphasis placed on it, just as before there was no emphasis placed on its importance. Even in America they frown upon education and label their fellow blacks as “exhibiting behavior that is of a White tendency”. First one must perceive that a problem exists, then one must labour to fix it. As Mes aptly stated : “Solving the problem was not difficult, seeing it is”.[5] Even if we force education and make it compulsory by death would they fail to achieve anything, because there is no desire for it. And desire is one of the key requirements necessary in order to develop knowledge it is also a fundamental necessity in realising the value of something. Even if we are to assume that he retains grades, and attends school like those who “exhibit a behavior that is of a White tendency”... must we ask ourselves the question on whether or not the Negro man is in fact capable of making full use of the knowledge he is taught. Does he in fact have the means with which to take that knowledge and create something out of it? That is to apply it for the purpose of benefiting him in the long run (the future) or is it just a matter of mimicry? When a problem completely unrelated to his education (which will always serve as merely a guide to common problems and solutions in your area of expertise) occurs within the field of his expertise would he in fact place two and two together and solve the problem? In my experience it has never been the case, I have observed countless Negro individuals that have done a specific occupation for years on end, observing what is done by the European but never being fully able to innovate solutions to irregular problems. If told what to do they do it without problem, but do they actually understand what they are doing? Why it is necessary to do it? What could happen if its not done? That they fail to do these tasks without supervision, indicates the opposite to be the case. This is why despite having an exceptionally long period side by side with Europeans they aren't able to perform the rudimentary tasks required to maintain a civilization at the standard of the European.

Negro man is concerned mainly with the present the “Now” he has not the quality, scope or the intensity in Temporealisation and Tempocognition required for him to be equipped with a long future sense and more-so to make use of it in the present for the future. It may at first appear reasonable to suggest, that should they obtain enough experience they could in fact acquire a more developed sense, as European man had through his experiences with weaponry and agriculture, industrialization etc. But this is not the case, as had been demonstrated before: They were provided with ample opportunities to take note and through experience with others, adapt and apply the knowledge to serve this function, there must exist a biological propensity for this scope and quality. It is not the vast gap from the 14th century onto the present that creates this inability to make use of what had been learned by others through trial and error, for we see in the Asian the clear example that it must be biological. It took note of Europe's fast progress that left it in the dark, and more importantly, it realised its own need for it (seeing the problem) and why it is necessary.


Certainly one could point to this or that Negro, that managed to do something meaningful with his life, depending on ones subjective view of a “meaningful life”. But in the end this does not negate the trend, an exception to the rule does not in all instances make the rule flawed. There may be a Negro or two out there that would in fact contradict what it is I am saying, but the capacity for this type of ability is not commonly found among their people. While it is liked to believe that we all have the means to be a Gauss or a Leibniz, perhaps a Tesla, if we really put our minds to it...it remains merely a belief borne from hope rather than from knowledge. We are governed by our biological limits, we may dream of glory, fame and wealth, but if it is not within our biological capacity to obtain these, these dreams will always elude us. I am as can be seen, no proponent of equality, and I will not even venture to suggest that Europeans all have the same quality, scope and cognitive processes. But.... I will venture to say that if the same questions are posed to each European in their respective fields, they would in fact be able to understand what they do, why they need to do it, what could happen if its not done, and can in fact react to unforeseen circumstances by putting two and two together. Each one has a future sense, each one has a cognitive function what differs is its quality and its scope. Negro man, however, is simply a being concerned with the present and a future sense with at best only a few months.

[1] Dr. G.M. Mes, “Now Men And Tomorrow Men”, 1964. P 5

[2] Ibid. P.6

[3] Ibid. P18

[4] For instance see, Dr. Philop Du Toit, “The Great South African Land Scandal”, Legacy Publications, 2004.

[5] Dr. G.M. Mes, “Now Men And Tomorrow Men”, 1964. P 25

A review of Jean Jacques Rousseau's On The Origin of Inequality

As I read through Jean Jacques Rousseau's "On The Origins of Inequality", I came to realize just how much of the fundamental tenets of "equality" today, derive from this small booklet written by the French Philosopher in 1754. It is therefore with this in mind that I find it of pressing importance to address specific claims made by Rousseau and thereby individuals in modern society today.

Rousseau attempts an explanation of man in his natural state [1], and the state which he describes man in, is a condition that is void of all Government, of all civility and stripped of all signs of modernity...a cave man in other words. It is the contention of Rousseau therefore that institutions are the primary cause of inequality since it requires mankind to adapt in a way that is not natural to his predisposition. [2] This perspective on man and the origin of inequality, remains as can be seen, to this day a popular one. Countless times I've heard it claimed, that if two individuals of two entirely different races are born in the wild and left to fend for themselves void of education, civilization and other "luxuries" there would be absolutely no distinguishable difference between these individuals at all. That, they, would in fact be completely equal. The suggestion however, is a flawed one, one which we might be able to forgive Rousseau, but not modern man for accepting it as being an evident fact. What modern man conveniently forgets (and what Rousseau may not have known) is that man's natural state is never a constant, we are organic creatures and like any other organism we adapt and evolve with one single purpose in mind - survival. Thus to state that our "natural condition" is that of the caveman is an inaccurate estimation, institutionalizing and organizing ourselves into a community exponentially increased our ability to survive whatever may come our way. Of course even this is an imperfect method and it can in some cases even threaten the survival of the organism, that aside man has laboured throughout thousands of years, to find out the best way to Govern, that is to say to extract the absolute maximum from the community and thereby to ensure maximum survivability of the organism.

More astonishingly is the fact that Rousseau makes note of the fact that the Negro man in the Caribbean has no future sense at all[3], stating that he would sell his cotton in the morning then come back later crying for it back the afternoon, not having realized that he may have needed it later on. This Rousseau believes is man's natural predisposition, based on the notion that the negro man is closer to man's natural state than the European. The issue with this however, is that there is little consideration placed on the fact that different races have different temporealisation and tempocognition, that is to say that each one perceives things differently and in different time spans. If our natural predisposition is, as Rousseau contends, to have no sense of future needs and wants, then European man would never have foreseen the need for cultivating crops, or for storing large quantities of food, or for preparing proper housing for the winter. It could be argued that, the increase in population demanded that we create these sort of preparations, and that it was only as a result of this that man foresaw the need to store. However, this contention is flawed as well, it was through agriculture that our population expanded rapidly, and if not for a future sense, we'd have had no way of foreseeing the future starvation that would result from a lack of proper preparation. It is not "civility" the arts or "education" which created this future insight, but the manner in which European man's mind biologically functions.

In support of the contention that any perceived natural differences are merely institutional, Rousseau cites an example as evidence [4] It is his contention that, if man is to forsake all inclinations and behave in a sheepish manner (to do precisely alike with no variation) man would immediately be far more equal than he is in a society. But this in itself suggest a contradiction of his previous assertions, because it would indicate that man would have to actively force himself to forsake such things as communication, behavioral differences, likes and dislikes, and behave in precisely the same manner as all others. Thus making this an unnatural condition, and not a natural state. That which is natural comes without force, and is a logical sequence of adaptations that lead inextricably toward a single harmonious goal.

As can be seen from this brief review, there is a lot of Rousseau's beliefs that still remains pretty common in modern society. It is commonly believed by people, that institutionalizing is the cause of the inequality between European and Negro, that it is "Socio-Environmental" factors that create this rift between the success of one and the failures of another, the argument remains to this day that, when placed in exactly the same environment, both will have equal success and thrive equally. And as I've shown this is a flawed manner of thought. It is man that creates his environment not the environment that creates man, and it is precisely because of the biological differences between them that this rift exists. Whether you build up one area or not, the end result will remain the same, one due to a lack of future sense, would see no need for improvement and only concern himself with issues that relate to the present, the other will always seek to advance, always finding a need for it. I am certain that there are those who would argue that it would be the case, because the one group lacks the proper education that the other one has, however, consider why this is the case? It is not as though they have been denied this opportunity. "Yes, but they have a culture that attacks education" indeed! why's that? Perhaps because they see no need for this? Different races - different values. Not even compelled education at Harvard would create a "socio-environment" that is equal to that of European man.

[1] Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Discourse on The Origin of Inequality, Dover Publications Inc, 2004 P. 4 - 6
[2] Ibid. P. 24 - 25
[3] Ibid. P. 7 - 12
[4] Ibid P. 24 - 25