Letter To A Turncoat -The Lone Haranguer

Letter To A Turncoat

[The letter is addressed to a man named Tom Leyden, who back in the 90s betrayed his former comrades in the Skinhead movement for money and tried to garner his 15 minutes of fame by going the liberal talk show route telling stories about his life among the wicked racists, almost all of which appear to be fabrications and do not stand up to factual analysis. Leyden failed to "take off" because he was so obviously bogus, but he simply cannot accept that his 15 minutes is over, and he still pops up from time to time. - HAC]

Hey Leyden,

How the hell can you justify turning your back on your own race, and denying the blatant reality of black and mestizo evil in this country? What…did you get in a car wreck and suffer brain damage?

You were actually among people that could see the truth, and yet you went back to your old, ignorant ways, like a dog returning to its vomit. It takes a man to face hard truths about himself and the world he lives in. It’s easy to go along with the crowd and get the approval of other fools and corrupt idiots, but in the end you only end up going down with them. Diversity is a lie, and the greatest evil ever to hit our culture, race, and nation. It’s tearing the US apart at the seams. I predict that this country doesn’t survive in its present form another two years, tops.

There’s a huge difference between racism and realism. According to the liberal propaganda dictionary, racism is anything that doesn’t like people of other races, no matter how justified it is. The truth is far different. Webster’s defines it as an “unjustified” bias against a race, person, or philosophy, without proof, reason, or merit.

The key word here is “unjustified.” Even as twisted as your own thinking has become, you know the meaning of that word, and you know very well that any racism toward these other races is more than justified, it’s demanded.

Black-on-white crime in this country has literally reached genocide proportions, and yet the liberal media flatly refuses to air any news clips of the tens of thousands of attacks that occur each and every day in this country. A fat 88% of all black males in this country are either in prison, in jail, on parole, on probation, wanted for a felony, out on bail, or have just been arrested. And those are only the ones we know about. The figure is closer to 98% according to law enforcement. Want to know the percentage of white crime in the US? 3 percent!

That’s right, I didn’t stutter. Three percent! If we could deport all invaders and get a handle on the blacks in this country that are running amok, we could fire 97% of all cops, close 97% of all prisons and jails, and tear down 97% of all courthouses.

You think about that. Think hard. These are facts. They’re not “unjustified bias” or racism. Diversity is a lie. It doesn’t work. It’s a tool for the liberal elite to destroy our race and nation, and it’s working. Fools like you only make their job easier.

And in the end, after they’ve turned this country into a communist police state, what do you think they’ll do to you? Think you’ll be given any special treatment for turning your back on the truth and your people? You’ll be executed just as ruthlessly as the rest of our race. In fact they’ll laugh at the dupe that used to help them.

True, the skinheads are too radical, but it’s a reaction of the young to this hypocrisy and the evil of diversity and integration. Just because you don’t want to be one of them doesn’t mean you should deny the truths that created them. There are now literally thousands of white activist groups out there now, that are expanding exponentially, and many others are merging into larger, more powerful organizations.

Revolution is coming. And if we should win the day, you, and people like you, will be on the short end of the stick. Either way you lose. Your only hope is to stand up and be a man and face reality. Stop craving pats on the back from people I wouldn’t hire to drive a trash truck.

Get your priorities in order. Do some thinking for once in your life.

-The Lone Haranguer

Frequently Asked Questions about Biological Races among Humans

Frequently Asked Questions about Biological Races among Humans


This FAQ is current as of [see bottom right for date]. It will be revised and updated depending on newer studies and feedback.

What is a biological race or subspecies and how is it determined?

A biological race or subspecies of a species is a population that is distinguished from other biological races/subspecies of this species by the following criteria:

  • Each race has developed in a unique geographic location. Uniqueness does not imply non-shared environmental variables with the geographic location of other races.
  • Each race has a unique natural history.
  • Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary relationships; the more recent the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behaviors and other manifestations of gene expression.
  • There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the races.
  • Evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically-based traits.

The above criteria are the standard phylogeographic criteria for race or subspecies assignment.1), 2) “Subspecies” implies a greater level of differentiation than “race,” but these words are often used interchangeably, which will be the case in this FAQ except as otherwise noted.

How many races or subspecies exist among humans?

At least five subspecies exist among humans: European or white, sub-Saharan African or Negro, Mainland East Asian, Australo-Melanesian and Native American. Evidence supporting this notion:

  • All five groupings have historically differentiated in unique geographic locations.
  • All five groupings have unique natural histories.
  • The vast majority of individuals within any of these groupings can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of individuals in other groupings by a) a visual examination of overall physical appearance; b) multiple, say 21-24, craniofacial inter-landmark distances;3) c) 20 discrete cranial traits,4) etc. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history.
  • There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the five groupings in the form of overall physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers.5)
  • Concordant evidence for the classification of these five groupings as separate subspecies/races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers,6) b) 79 autosomal RFLPs,7) c) 8 Alu insertions,8) d) 40 biallelic slow-evolving insertion-deletions,9) etc.

At least 5 races?

One may wonder why a more definitive answer has not been provided. One could also ask how one can be confident that the final word on this topic will not be fewer than five races or no races.

A more definitive number requires more research. Consider the following issues that need to be clarified:

  • 24 largely selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances unambiguously result in eight geographic clusters: European or white, sub-Saharan African or Negro, Mainland East Asian, Australo-Melanesian, Native American, South Asian Indian, Eskimo-Siberian and Jomon-Pacific.10) Five of these groupings have already been seen to comprise of races, but what of the three additional groupings? The Eskimo-Siberians are closely related to and derived from the mainland East Asian group, and it not clear whether they should be designated a separate race. The South Asian Indians cluster together before joining the other groupings, clearly forming a separate cluster based on 199 ancestry-informative markers,11) a combination of 471 insertion/deletion polymorphisms and 729 microsatellites,12) and largely selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances.13) However, south Asian Indians are known to result from the mixing of several geographically distinct populations. For instance, see this example of populations affinities based on ancestry-informative markers (DNAPrint genomics). Whereas South Asians from different parts of India craniofacially cluster together based on largely neutral inter-landmark distances, it is an easy matter to come across individual south Asians leaning more toward Southern Europeans or East Asians or aborigines in looks. Therefore, should South Asians be classified as a separate race or a people to whom the concept of race does not apply as per the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment? People in the Pacific Islands are a mixture of Asiatic and Australo-Melanesian stock. Are the Pacific Islanders classifiable as a separate race?
  • Multiple, largely selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances show that southern Europeans cluster with Middle Eastern populations prior to joining the cluster comprising of the indigenous inhabitants north of Southern Europe.14) An analysis of 5,700-plus SNPs also reveals a north-south distinction in Europe, the north group comprising of the indigenous inhabitants north of Southern Europe.15) Therefore, is it meaningful to talk about a Euro-Mediterranean subspecies comprising of a northern and a southern race, each blending at its boundaries with other groups, or a single Euro-Mediterranean race?
  • American Indians form North American and South American clusters based on 993 microsatellite markers.16) Is it meaningful to talk about two races among American Indians?

On the other hand, the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment make it clear that the number of races will not go below five.

What is the race of racially-mixed people?

What is the race of someone who is half Nigerian, one-fourth Chinese and one-fourth Dutch? Answer: none.

Offspring born to two parents of different races are not assigned a race as per the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment. For instance, the mestizos (white-American Indian mixes) of South America do not have a race. The inability to fit racially-mixed individuals or populations within a racial classification scheme does not undermine the concept of race. For instance, mixing a Great Dane with a German Shepard (dog breeds) does not produce a dog that belongs to either parental breed and does not undermine the fact that the parental breeds exist. On the other hand, a racially-mixed population could, with sufficient time, evolve into a separate race.

How well do self-identified ethnicity or “socially constructed racial categories” correspond to genetic reality?

Very well. For instance, Tang et al. assessed 326 microsatellite markers in 3,636 individuals from 15 different regions within the U.S. and Taiwan. Cluster analysis assigned all but 5 individuals to their self-identified ethnic group.17) We know that American Hispanics are usually mixes of some combination of Europeans, American Indians and black Africans, but still, dividing the data into 4 clusters produced a cluster, 99.8% of whose membership comprised of Hispanics.

Genetic Cluster Analysis versus SIRE (self-identified race/ethnicity)

CAU= white, AFR = black, HIS = Hispanic, CHI = Chinese, JAP = Japanese, OTH = other. In Cluster D, 8 of 9 individuals classified as “other” had self-identified as Hispanic.

One may still object that different types of mulattos (black-white mixes) such as quadroons (one-fourth black), octoroons (one-eight black) and quintloons (one-sixteenth black) may all be classified as black even though their genetic affinities to whites and blacks are substantially different. However, no one would have any difficulty telling which is which with respect to a group of quadroons and a group of octoroons, and neither would genetic tests have any difficulty in distinguishing these groups. For instance, consider the following correspondence between self-identified ethnic group and the assignment of ethnicity based on 199 ancestry-informative markers (AIMs); the probability of concordance was > 99% for most samples:18)

Self-identified ethnicity and ethnic affiliation based on 199 AIMS.

Abbreviations: EUA = European American, AFR = West African, AMI = American Indian, EAS = East Asian, SAS = South Asian, AFA = African-American, PRN = Puerto Rican, MXA = Mexican American.

For mixed-ancestry samples such as African-Americans, most were readily distinguished from West Africans, and the minority of African-Americans most likely assigned to the West African group by the AIMs simply reflects the fact that some African-Americans have little European ancestry. Therefore, since the mixing is not uniform in mixed-ancestry groups, some individuals will not be assigned by AIMs to the mixed-group but nevertheless they will be assigned to the related group contributing the majority of the genetic material. Of course, if, after familiarizing oneself with West Africans and African-Americans, one were to assign African-Americans and West Africans to their respective groups based on looks alone, a similar result will be obtained. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there is lack of correspondence between perceived racial composition/affinities and genetic reality. Black African and white European mixes usually produce a brown person with Negroid facial features rather than a brown individual with European facial features. This is a major reason why mulattos have often been classified as black along with Negroes with no significant other-population admixture. Of course, presently, black leaders encourage all people with any amount of black ancestry to self-classify as black so that the number of blacks remains high enough for political purposes. Just because terms like quadroon, octoroon or equivalent nuanced terms are not used presently in the U.S., it does not mean that people perceive no differences between black West/Central Africans, East Africans, African-Americans and different types of mulattos when all these groups are called black.

How appropriate are terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, etc.?

These terms are rarely used in current anthropology. “Australoid,” when used, is unambiguous. “Negroid,” when used, is typically unambiguous since people take it to mean sub-Saharan African, but some people may classify numerous populations in East Africa as Negroid, too, which is problematic. Excluding skin color, East African populations with a non-Negroid facial features central tendency craniofacially cluster with Europeans before joining the sub-Saharan African or Negroid cluster.19) Similarly, genetic analyses of East African populations such as Somalis and Ethiopians reveals major affinities to both Euro-Mediterraneans and sub-Saharan Africans.20), 21), 22), 23), 24), 25), 26) See also the following principal components analysis of African populations and neighbor-joining dendograms from Cavalli-Sforza and others’ 1994 book on the history and geography of human genes:

a) PCA b) neighbor joining dendogram c) neighbor joining dendogram

Therefore, numerous East African populations are not classifiable as Negroid or Caucasoid, and they certainly didn’t end up as they are via a simple admixture scenario.

“Mongoloid” is a more ambiguous word. Mongols, Chinese, Koreans and Japanese would be unambiguous examples of a Mongoloid, but a popular early-to-mid 20th century tentative racial classification scheme proposed by Carleton Coon classified northeast Asians, southeast Asians, Eskimo-Siberians and Native Americans all as Mongoloid, which may make it difficult for individuals harboring a relaxed or a strict definition of a Mongoloid to effectively communicate with each other.

“Caucasoid” is the most ambiguous word in this group. It is frequently encountered in the non-anthropological scientific literature, where it refers to whites but not a biological race. “Caucasoid” in colloquial usage in Western societies also refers to whites. However, Carleton Coon’s popular tentative racial classification scheme included people as far south as North Africa and as far East as India in the Caucasoid group. We have seen above that East Indians and whites cannot be classified into the same race as per the phylogeographic criteria. There is also clinal variation from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. Therefore, caution is required when using formerly in vogue racial terminology, especially “Caucasian.” One could talk about Caucasoid features with less ambiguity than talk about who or what is a Caucasian. For instance, a Somali or Ethiopian could be found with a Caucasoid basic face design, but whereas his facial features could be said to be Caucasoid, the person himself could not be classified as a Caucasoid in a meaningful manner.

What are some common race denial arguments?

Some common arguments that deny racial reality among humans and responses to them are provided below.

The racial classification schemes proposed by different authors have been inconsistent with each other

There has certainly been a great deal of inconsistency with respect to the number of races, but then the formal, standard phylogeographic criteria for assigning races date to around 1990. Different criteria will yield a different number, but not if the criteria are well-defined and widely accepted as the phylogeographic criteria mentioned in the beginning are.

An important issue that seems to have escaped the attention of those harping on the inconsistency of the number of races in different racial classification schemes is that no serious scientific attempt at racial classification has classified any two of the following groups into the same race: Danes, Chinese, Congolese. Therefore, there is some consistency. This can be depicted in more detail as follows.

The following comparison is of Coon’s 5-race system vs. Brace’s zero-races system comprising of 8 geographic clusters.

Two racial classification schemes compared

Now consider Glowatzki’s 36 races

Plate Races Illustration
Plate 1 Nordid, Dalonordid, Osteuropid, Alpine, Lappid, Dinarid Glowatzki plate
Plate 2 Mediterranid, Berberid, Orientalid, Indid, Indid (Gypsy), Armenid Glowatzki plate
Plate 3 Turanid, Weddid, Polynesid, Ainuid, Mongolide: Tungid, Sinid Glowatzki plate
Plate 4 Palaemongolid, Sibirid, Eskimid, Silvid, Zentralid, Brasilid Glowatzki plate
Plate 5 Lagid, Andid, Australid, Neomelanesid, Sudanid, Kafrid Glowatzki plate
Plate 6 Nilotid, Palaenegrid, Aethiopid, American Negrid, Bambutid, Khoisanid (Bushman) Glowatzki plate

Look at some of the details underlying Brace’s dendograms (based on 24 largely neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances):

Brace dendograms

What is the take home lesson? It is obvious that the differences between the three classification schemes involve the level of grouping that constitutes the race taxon, but the structure of the groupings is similar, i.e., it isn’t the case that one scheme is classifying Swedes and Eskimos together before they join other groups whereas another scheme is joining Eskimos and black Africans together before they join other groups. This is an example of broad consistency. The decisions regarding which level of grouping to consider as a racial/subspecies taxon will be consistent if there are agreed upon well-defined criteria for species, which have been in place since around 1990. There is no reason why humans should be exempt from these criteria. Indeed humans aren’t and manifest racial divisions.

Inconsistent classification trees/patterns depending on the trait chosen

This is a common argument, some illustrative examples of which are shown below. Race deniers take features like skin color, frequency distribution of the Hemoglobin S gene, tooth size or frequency of O blood group and show that the classification based on any of these individual traits produces a grouping that is strikingly different from a classification based on another individual trait:

a) Skin color distribution in the Old World., b) Frequency of Hemoglobin S gene distribution in the Old World., c) Tooth size distribution in the Old World., d) Distribution of the O Allele of the ABO blood system.

This race denial argument is very lame. As the phylogeograhic criteria show, race is not assigned by a single trait but by a set of phylogenetically concordant traits. In addition, there is a geography requirement, i.e., one cannot go around combining populations that have historically developed in well-separated geographic regions.

Three of the images on the left above are from C. Loring Brace. On the other hand, Brace himself has show that the use of 24 craniofacial inter-landmark distances makes people cluster with others in their geographic region of origin before they join other such clusters, the clusters being along geographic lines. Brace then tells us these regional clusters of populations owe the similarities in their appearance to the perpetuation of traits that are shared by virtue of kinship but which have no other biological significance. Well, Mr. Brace, race is shared by virtue of kinship and need not have any other biological significance.

Races blend into each other and hence are not non-overlapping discrete entities

Races do not need to have zero percent overlap in order to be valid taxonomical categories. The statistical tools used to examine whether a given distribution is of a categorical or continuous nature – e.g., cluster analysis, taxonometrics, discriminant analysis – do not require no overlap between categories. An example can be roughly visualized in the form of a rainbow where each color band blends into its adjacent bands, yet distinct bands are clearly visible.

So-called human races can successfully reproduce with each other

Some authors like Joseph Graves have argued that valid racial categories would exist if “pairs of individuals from different races either had reduced capacity, or no capacity, to produce viable offspring.” 27) Graves is defining race as species. On the other hand, there is an increased likelihood of negative health consequences from race mixing among humans.

The existence of clinal variation

The clinal variation argument is a variant of the observation that races blend into each other at the boundaries of contact. With respect to one or even multiple markers (anatomical or genetic), one can observe a smooth change over a broad geographic region said to comprise of two or more races. Serre and Pääbo have argued that if people are sampled as shown to the left below as opposed to the sampling shown on the right, then evidence for clustering or racial distinction will emerge as an artifact of sampling in the first case but no clustering will be seen in the second case.28) Serre and Pääbo also argued that evidence for clustering is partly a result of the assumption that the allele frequencies are correlated (alleles are different versions of the same gene or locus).

Sampling populations in genetic studies.

However, Rosenberg et al. have shown that provided a sufficiently large number of markers are used, notwithstanding a) geography-based sampling as in the image shown to the right above, b) clearly observable clinal variation and c) an uncorrelated alleles assumption, population/geographic clusters still emerge.29)

Human populations have been separated from each other over too short a time period to develop racial differences

This belief stems from the “recent out of Africa” hypothesis, which states that modern humans emerged in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago and replaced archaic humans as they spread out, and stems from mitochondrial DNA evidence. However, nuclear DNA data clearly show that the modern humans that rose in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago extensively absorbed archaic humans as they spread out.30) Therefore, differences between human continental populations go back a lot earlier.

John Goodrum compiled the following comparison of genetic diversity, assessed in terms of average heterozygosity of autosomal microsatellites; the heterozygoisty of a population (H) is the percentage of individuals that are heterozygous (have two alleles) at a random locus. H varies from 0 to 1 or 0-100%; the higher the value, the more genetically diverse the population. In the table below, He is the expected heterozygosity and Ho is the observed heterozygosity.

Average heterozygosity in various species.

See Goodrum for the references in the table above.

It should be clear that humans are more genetically diverse than many mammalian species. Protein diversity is also a lot higher among humans [He = 10-14%,31) He = 14.8%32)] than among mammals on average [He = 5.1%33)] as well as most other species with a backbone [He usually less than 10%34)].

The majority of variation among humans is found within populations and only a minority between populations

This is generally true. For instance, roughly 85% of the genetic diversity among humans is found within populations and 15% between populations. However, this does not in any manner imply that races do not exist/cannot be discerned since most of the information that distinguishes populations lies in a correlation structure rather than mere variation of individual factors.35)

Some differences between populations can be larger or smaller. For instance, Relethford reported that about 88% of the variation in skin color is found between populations and 12% within.36) This is an example of how human populations can be substantially different on some counts even though they are less different on most other counts.

Some estimates of the proportion for diversity between populations have improved with time. For instance, Relethford and Harpending’s analysis of W.W. Howells’ craniometric data, published in 1994,37) revealed that 11-14% of the variation was between populations, but a 2002 analysis of Howells’ dataset by Relethford listed this figure at about 19%,38) and a 2004 report by Roseman and Weaver,39) employing a more sophisticated analysis of Howells’ dataset, reported that this figure was 22% for size variation, 24% for the first principal component of shape variation and 33% for the second principle component of shape variation; the principle components analysis excluded the dacryon subtense, supraorbital projection and glabella projection because they tended to dominate the first few principal components.

Two randomly selected individuals from different populations can be closer to each other than either individual is to a random co-ethnic

For one or a few markers, in trials where an individual is compared to a randomly selected co-ethnic or a randomly selected individual from another population, in a minority of cases, the individual will be closer to the person selected from a different ethnic group, but the proportion of such cases will decrease with the use of more markers. However, if the entire genetic information is considered, then an individual will be closer to a random co-ethnic than a random individual from another ethnicity.

When one considers the apportionment of diversity, the proportion of human variation that lies between populations is too low to justify the division of humans into biological races

This is a false notion. At about 15% of the overall genetic diversity in humans lying between populations, this value is more than sufficiently large for racial differentiation if the phylogeographic criteria are met. Indeed, numerous species said to comprise of subspecies or races/breeds have lower values of between-populations genetic diversity. Goodrum compiled the following examples of the proportion of genetic diversity in various species that is between populations (FST). In the table below, note that 0.168 is the same as 16.8%, 0.155 is the same as 15.5%, etc.

Fst for various species.

See Goodrum for the references in the table above.

The interpretation of FST can be seen in the table below, based on Sewall Wright.40)

FST Extent of differentiation between populations
0 – 0.05 small
0.05 – 0.15 moderate
0.15 – 0.25 great
> 0.25 very great

The classification above is not arbitrary given the variation seen in the animal kingdom, though some would like to claim it.

Now consider the following table showing FST between populations based on 150 autosomal genes analyzed by Cavalli-Sforza and others in their book on the history and geography of human genes. In this table, divide a number by 10,000 to get FST value in terms of 0.xxxx or divide by 100 to get FST value as a percentage. For instance, if you see a value of 638 between two populations, the FST or proportion of variation between these populations is .0638 or 6.38%. Note that FST is > 0.15 and even > 0.25 for a number of population pairs clearly belonging to separate races as per the phylogeographic criteria, yet some people deny racial reality among humans!

Fst between human populations based on Cavalli-Sforza.

The following is a summary from Goodrum. A 1998 paper by Templeton41) reported that an FST of 0.25-0.30 is required for racial differentiation, but there is no such requirement. Templeton misunderstood a rule of thumb in early taxonomical studies where it was required that for two populations to be classified as separate races, 70-75% of the individuals outside the zone where they mingle should be assigned to their respective populations upon inspection.42) The 70-75% rule of thumb certainly doesn’t translate to an FST value of 0.25-0.30. Besides, using the mid-facial region alone, if one had a sample of European, Inuit, black African and Australian aboriginal skulls, in any two population comparisons, discriminant analysis will assign 85-100% of skulls to the correct population,43) easily satisfying the 70-75% rule of thumb, and we know that these populations belong to separate races based on the phylogeographic criteria.

Templeton also reportedly showed that FST values for humans were a lot lower than for large-bodied mammals:

Templeton flawed comparison

However, in the figure above, nine of the ten largest non-human FST values, including the eight highest, are based on mitochondrial DNA, whereas the human FST value is based on autosomal DNA. Since mitochondrial DNA has an effective population size one-fourth of autosomal DNA, FST values based on mitochondrial DNA will be much larger than those based on autosomal DNA.

For instance, Goodrum provided the following:

Species FST autosomal FST mitochondrial
Jaguar 0.065 0.295
Puma 0.167 0.467
Gray Wolf 0.168 0.76

Therefore, it certainly does not follow that the proportion of human genetic diversity that is between populations is too low to justify racial differentiation among humans.

Why do people deny the existence of biological races among humans?

There are numerous reasons apart from being genuinely convinced that biological races do not exist among humans, not necessarily mutually exclusive:

  • “Authorities” often teach that races do not exist among humans and that belief in races “logically” leads to gas chambers, slavery and other horrible outcomes. Therefore, some people merely state what they have been told and may be combative because they wish to prevent the “logical consequences” of a belief in biological races among humans.
  • Race-denying scientists, especially those studying population genetics and physical anthropology, may be well-aware of racial reality but deny it officially in order to avoid trouble in the form of funding shortage, lack of study approval because the IRB (Institutional Review Board) deems it tainted by “a racial agenda,” harassment by colleagues/leftists, demonization, trouble getting tenure or more extreme attacks.
  • Leftists are vastly overrepresented among race deniers. Leftists tend to have a strong interest in social engineering and are therefore averse to factors that limit the prospects of social engineering. Leftists will stick to their worldview even if doing so causes more harm than accepting that their worldview is mistaken and subsequently changing it and their behaviors. Genetically-based differences between populations limit the extent of social engineering that is feasible, easily explaining why so many leftists loathe the concept of biological races in humans.
  • Malicious Jews, and there are many such individuals among Jews, have a strong interest in undermining the welfare of non-Jews, especially whites. Malicious Jews have been at the forefront of race denial in academia, and the reason is obvious. By convincing others that there are no genetic differences between populations with respect to behavior, talent, personality distributions, aptitude, creativity, acquisition of culture and other features relevant to social existence, opposition to replacement immigration can be reduced, and replacement immigration is surely an excellent way to harm the cultural and genetic interests of a population.

Why are you obsessed with race? What is your agenda?

We are not obsessed with race. People who are truly obsessed with race are the leftist/Marxist academics who deny the existence of biological races among humans while blaming minority failure on racial discrimination. So what is the need for this FAQ?

Western civilization, particularly America, is reeling under the impact of massive Third World immigration, minority handouts, affirmative action and a high frequency of crimes on the part of numerous non-European ethnic groups. The people promoting this have not only made no attempts to examine whether the Third World masses possess the same aptitude as whites and whether they can be made to behave like whites, but also have attempted to sabotage attempts to answer these questions and persisted with their policies in spite of evidence that decades of affirmative action has not reduced the need for affirmative action for American blacks in the slightest amount, reduced the aptitude/performance gap between whites and blacks, made non-Europeans behave like Europeans…in short make the non-Western populations Western apart from looks. These individuals obviously need to convince Westerners that aptitude/behavior differences between populations stem from the social environment, and therefore need to argue that biological differences between populations are minimal and limited to superficial differences, not aptitudes and behaviors. This is why they are especially motivated to deny the existence of biological races among humans.

Are these people denying racial reality to promote racial harmony? Is it reasonable to attempt to promote harmony between ethnic groups by telling a white person that you cannot get this job because your ancestors exploited the ancestors of this non-white who needs to be compensated in the form of getting your job? Does one promote mutual understanding by insisting that the failures of a non-white group stem from white racism? Is it reasonable to place together in the same geographic region a large number of people from populations having different trait distributions pertaining to altruism, respect for individual rights, criminality and intelligence if the trait distributions are primarily caused by genetic differences between the populations? Obviously not. Therefore, if promoting racial harmony were a goal, these individuals would make sure that genetically-based population differences are ruled out before they implement their grand social schemes, but they have done the opposite, i.e., opposing a proper investigation of group differences. Some of these individuals are obviously malicious and hostile toward Western societies and Western people, whereas the others have good intentions but are ignorant and useful idiots for the malicious ones.

The malicious ones know fully well why they deny racial reality…to minimize opposition to their plans, namely the race replacement and dispossession of whites and the destruction of Western civilization. The irony is that for races to exist, there need not be any genetically-based behavioral or aptitude differences between them. Conversely, the existence of genetically-based aptitude and behavioral differences between populations does not imply that these populations belong to separate races. However, it obviously helps the malicious individuals to minimize populations differences. Therefore, the purpose of this FAQ is to hopefully get Western people to ask whether the behavior and aptitude differences they observe between populations possibly result in part from genetic differences since there are numerous genetic differences between populations with respect to a lot of traits. The purpose of this FAQ is not to argue that since races exist, it follows that differences between the races with respect to aptitude/behavior stem from genetic differences.

When more people start wondering whether genetic differences are involved, there will be a stronger sentiment in favor of a moratorium on the grand social schemes currently in place till it is shown that genetic differences between populations are not involved in the discrepancies regarding socially undesirable outcomes. At stake are the health of Western societies and white people, and these stakes are high. If indeed genetically-based differences between populations are implicated, then the grand social schemes currently in place will simply serve to convert First World productive societies to Third World hell-holes with a large and more crime-prone underclass that one could hardly do anything about. It is fair to ask that a proper assessment of the most likely consequences of a grand social scheme be thoroughly investigated before it is implemented.

A second purpose of this FAQ is to be of educational value regardless of any use that it could be put to.

Don’t you think that belief in race will lead to racist horrors?

In a 1998 statement denying the existence of biological races in humans, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) mentioned the following:

During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of “race” and “racial” differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.

Should we be concerned? After all, The AAA experts know better. Seriously, consider what the AAA or equivalent is saying.

A belief in race leads to a belief in superior and inferior races

Really? A race more susceptible to some genetic diseases is less susceptible to other genetic diseases. A white supremacist boasting about the intellectual achievements of whites will have his skin peeling under the hot equatorial sun in no time. A black supremacist proud of the domination of the 100m sprint by West African blacks will be at a loss to explain the near-absence of blacks among martial art champions…and so on. There is no race that has all the advantages or all the disadvantages. Just because a certain race has some advantage, it does not become racially superior to other races; it just has an advantage with respect to the trait in question or, if one insists, it is just superior with respect to the trait in question. Does one have to have an advanced education to understand this? There is nothing about the existence of races that lends itself to a belief that some races are superior to others. If someone who believes in the existence of biological races among humans also believes that his race his superior to others, then it does not follow that his supremacist beliefs stem from his belief in human races.

Racial supremacist beliefs make one want to enslave, dominate or exterminate members of inferior races

What in the world? Many whites are strongly opposed to keeping animals in cages even though they have no doubt that these animals are intellectually inferior to them. Why do these people not want to dominate/control/manipulate/enslave inferior species? Western nations spend a lot of resources saving numerous species from extinction, including species whose disappearance will not cause any harm to the ecology or humans, and this endeavor is supported by many in the general population. Why are these people not letting nature take its course and working to preserve species that are intellectually inferior and worthless to humans instead of speeding up their demise? It should be obvious that a belief in some sort of superiority does not lead to a desire to exploit others. This is not say that people with supremacist beliefs will not exploit others; some will, but the underlying reason will not be the supremacist belief. For instance, whereas numerous whites are attempting to save the great African apes from becoming extinct, numerous black Africans are merrily killing and eating them. Are these blacks eating apes because they believe they are smarter than the apes or because these apes are a delicacy in their cuisine?

It is a given that if the opportunities present themselves, some people will attempt to exploit others if they can get away with it. Slavery has historically been a universal human institution and is also found in non-human species. If a living organism can get away with exploiting others to his advantage, then some living organisms will be found engaging in this behavior in nature regardless of whether they are capable of higher thought or whether they harbor supremacist beliefs if human…this is a straightforward expectation…even some with an inferiority complex will be found to engage in exploitative behavior if they can get away with it.

If one uses supremacist beliefs to justify slavery, does it follow that a desire to enslave and exploit stems from the supremacist beliefs? What comes first…a desire to enslave or a justification for slavery? Do you realize what fine logic the AAA is using?

As mentioned earlier, some ignorant individuals are opposed to acknowledging racial reality in humans because they believe it will lead to horrors, but not all people in the AAA are this ignorant. A number of them belong to the same group that has been pushing the Holocaust hoax upon us…they are not stupid enough to believe that the “logical end” to a belief in races is racism and crime, and they are not motivated in order to promote racial amity…they want whites to believe that the millions of non-whites flooding their nations have the same aptitude as whites and can be made to behave like whites so that whites offer minimal resistance to their race replacement and dispossession. Do not be fooled by them.

1) Avise JC, Ball RM. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. In: Futuyama D, Antonovics J, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Volume 7. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:45-67.
2) O’Brien SJ, Mayr E. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science. 1991;251(4998):1187-1189. obrien.pdf
3) , 10) , 13) , 19) Brace CL, Hunt KD. A nonracial craniofacial perspective on human variation: A(ustralia) to Z(uni). Am J Phys Anthropol. Jul 1990;82(3):341-360. [Note: It may appear odd that a paper titled ”…a nonracial perspective…” is being cited in support of race, but see the section addressing common reasons for race denial for reasons why Brace's data support the existence of biological races among humans.]
4) Hanihara T, Ishida H, Dodo Y. Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits. Am J Phys Anthropol. Jul 2003;121(3):241-251. discrete cranial traits
5) , 6) , 16) , 29) Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW. Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS Genet. Dec 2005;1(6):e70. link
7) Nei M, Takezaki N. The root of the phylogenetic tree of human populations. Mol Biol Evol. Jan 1996;13(1):170-177. RFLPs
8) Stoneking M, Fontius JJ, Clifford SL, et al. Alu insertion polymorphisms and human evolution: evidence for a larger population size in Africa. Genome Res. Nov 1997;7(11):1061-1071. ALUs
9) Bastos-Rodrigues L, Pimenta JR, Pena SD. The genetic structure of human populations studied through short insertion-deletion polymorphisms. Ann Hum Genet. Sep 2006;70(Pt 5):658-665. I-D
click figure: click diagram
11) , 18) Yang N, Li H, Criswell LA, et al. Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers: application to diverse and admixed populations and implications for clinical epidemiology and forensic medicine. Hum Genet. Dec 2005;118(3-4):382-392. AIMs
12) Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Gonzalez-Quevedo C, et al. Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. PLoS Genet. Dec 22 2006;2(12):e215. link
14) Brace CL, Seguchi N, Quintyn CB, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jan 3 2006;103(1):242-247. Brace
15) Seldin MF, Shigeta R, Villoslada P, et al. European population substructure: clustering of northern and southern populations. PLoS Genet. Sep 15 2006;2(9):e143. link
17) Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, et al. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet. Feb 2005;76(2):268-275. Risch
20) Wilson JF, Weale ME, Smith AC, et al. Population genetic structure of variable drug response. Nat Genet. Nov 2001;29(3):265-269. Paper, comment1, comment2
21) Tishkoff SA, Pakstis AJ, Stoneking M, et al. Short tandem-repeat polymorphism/alu haplotype variation at the PLAT locus: implications for modern human origins. Am J Hum Genet. Oct 2000;67(4):901-925. PLAT
22) Lovell A, Moreau C, Yotova V, et al. Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and western Eurasia. Ann Hum Genet. May 2005;69(Pt 3):275-287. Lovell
23) Poloni ES, Semino O, Passarino G, et al. Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics. Am J Hum Genet. Nov 1997;61(5):1015-1035. Poloni
24) Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET, et al. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jun 6 2000;97(12):6769-6774. Hammer
25) Sanchez JJ, Hallenberg C, Borsting C, Hernandez A, Morling N. High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males. Eur J Hum Genet. Jul 2005;13(7):856-866. Sanchez
26) Scacchi R, De Stefano GF, Ruggeri M, Corbo RM. Genetic variation atapolipoprotein E locus in Ethiopia: an E5 variant corresponds to two different mutant alleles: E*5 (Glu212Lys) and E*5 (Gln204Lys; Cys112Arg). Hum Biol. Apr 2003;75(2):293-300. Scacchi
27) Graves J. The emperor’s new clothes: biological theories of race at the millennium. Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 2001:2.
28) Serre D, Pääbo S. Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. Sep 2004;14(9):1679-1685. Serre
30) Eswaran V, Harpending H, Rogers AR. Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans. J Hum Evol. Jul 2005;49(1):1-18. Eswaran
31) Takahata N. A genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:343-372. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1995;26:343-372.
32) , 34) Nei M. Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York: Columbia University Press; 1987:192-193.
33) Makarieva AM. Variance of protein heterozygosity in different species of mammals with respect to the number of loci studied. Heredity. Jul 2001;87(Pt 1):41-51. Makarieva
35) Edwards AW. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. Bioessays. Aug 2003;25(8):798-801. Edwards
36) , 38) Relethford JH. Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color. Am J Phys Anthropol. Aug 2002;118(4):393-398. Relethford
37) Relethford JH, Harpending HC. Craniometric variation, genetic theory, and modern human origins. Am J Phys Anthropol. Nov 1994;95(3):249-270.
39) Roseman CC, Weaver TD. Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. Am J Phys Anthropol. Nov 2004;125(3):257-263. Roseman
40) Wright S. Evolution and the genetics of populations; a treatise. Chicago,: University of Chicago Press; 1968.
41) Templeton AR. Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective. Am Anthropol. 1998;100(3):632-650.
42) Amadon D. The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies. Condor. 1949;51:251-258.
43) Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB. Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. Am J Phys Anthropol. Jan 2002;117(1):37-48. Hennessy



posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 11:06 PM
Friday, September 25, 2009

A report says that one-third of Mexicans would migrate to the United States if they could. I thought they already had! It’s hard to believe there are any Mexicans left south of the border. The same goes for terrorists! A survey by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based public opinion research organization, found that 57 percent of Mexicans believe those who move from Mexico to the United States enjoy a better life. Of course they do! Free health care, education, food stamps and lots of work without having to pay taxes is mucho better than in Guadalajara! With drug violence becoming a scourge across Mexico, 81 percent of respondents said crime is a major problem and 73 percent said illegal drugs are a serious issue for their country. The question begging to be asked is who is causing the crime in Mexico? Answer: Mexicans! If they continue to come to the United States, we also will continue to have more crime! It’s not really too hard to understand. Asked if they would like to move to the United States, 33 percent of those taking part in the survey said “yes” and 18 percent said they would move even without the necessary visas. Now that’s a surprise. Since 20 million of their compadres are up here taking jobs, living off gringos while robbing, raping and killing them, you’d think that more than 18% would own up to walking across the Rio Grande if given the chance!

“People see the U.S. as a land of opportunity … and they see a lot of problems in Mexico. They are worried about crime, about the economy, drugs and corruption,” said Richard Wike, who worked on the nationwide face-to-face survey of 1,000 Mexicans conducted between May 26 and June 2. Of course they do! It’s an opportunity to mooch off the the hardworking American taxpayer. And with more illegal Mexicans in our country, Americans now too worry about more crime, the economy, drugs and corruption! Just look what the talented Mexicans have done for Southern California!

It is a fact that America cannot take care of the world. The American taxpayer has so much on his plate he can hardly keep his head above water. Our government has failed us in every way possible. We have billions of dollars forcefully taken from us every year to medicate, educate and incarcerate illegal aliens! It is an insult to our Constitution and a crime against Americans that our leaders will not enforce our immigration laws. Everywhere Mexicans live ends up a disaster zone. Again, one need only to look at Los Angeles! America does not need any more unskilled, uneducated dependents. We have 20 million already and that’s more than enough!

Here’s the article:


Idiots On Parade -The Lone Haranguer


Idiots On Parade

Ever taken a good look at Jimmy Carter? The guy looks like a shaved weasel with AIDS. And talk about stupid. This guy makes Gomer Pyle look like Einstein. Come to think of it, I can’t name one Democratic president in the past forty years that wasn’t either a stone moron or more crooked than a boar’s dick.

You’d think the public would learn by now that you do not vote for liberals. I mean Jesus! Carter, Johnson, Clinton, and now Super Chimp? Criminy!

Just yesterday Carter started his usual moronic crap by publicly stating that all the resistance to Obamacare was “racist.” That senile old chimp hugger is a black wannabe. It’s actually beyond me why the media even prints anything that idiot says, anyway. I mean who cares what that retard has to say about anything?

The liberals are already milking his statement for all it’s worth, using it as their new banner to try to get that Obamanation passed. And I can tell all of you right now that no matter how much opposition those idiots in DC get, they’re highly likely to go ahead and pass the damned thing anyway. That’s called hubris. They’re so drunk with their newfound power that they think that we can’t throw their rotten asses out on their ears and arrest them for high treason, which should have been done decades ago.

But then, that’s coming soon enough from the looks of things. I see one hell of a revolt coming down the pipe. It’s going to be one very nasty, bloody mess, and our beloved nigger prez and his commie cronies are going to start it with their attempt at hoisting a false flag crisis to get us all rounded up in camps. Trouble is, too many Americans are now wise to the government’s lies and antics, and most of them..even the idiots among us (and God, we’ve got a bumper crop of those!) have now woke up to the fact that even 9/11 was caused by our own government with the help if the kikes, who we actually have on videotape hooting and celebrating as the towers fell.

The goons are going to demand that “civil order be restored” at all costs, which means they will kill as many Americans as it takes to prevent them from losing power and getting their asses shot for treason. And if you think for one second that this government would have any qualms whatsoever about shooting you, you’re dumber than I look. The really great part about this is that they’ve forgotten just how dangerous a pissed off Aryan really is. Once the shooting starts they’ll head straight for the capitol, and those miscreants will pay hell to escape in one piece. Few know that the White House has a secret escape tunnel with a train in it, just like in the movies, that dumps out at the Capitol building helo pad. I have no doubts the patriots will hit that first to make sure those roaches don’t leave the apartment before the fumigator arrives.

At present however, I never cease to marvel over the sheer stupidity of liberals and their army of brain damaged bootlicks. If you can think of something vile, or immoral, or perverted, or weird, or sick, or silly as a fat middle-aged man in a tu-tu, you’ll find a liberal in the thick of it. Everyone’s a victim except the victim.

Thanks to liberals, the criminals have far more rights and protections under the law than their poor victims. Common sense and life experience are pronounced racism, and any fight with a lowlife black is automatically a hate crime. Never mind the fact that you’d have beat him senseless even if you’d been blind and never seen a black man. You’re supposed to like being victimized by blacks or there’s something wrong with you. Can I get a yaaazzuuhh??

Just the other day we had three public figures, all niggers, go on chimp-outs. And of course the liberal media pronounced that they were being discriminated against for being black, when the truth was that they were simply showing their spoiled, worthless asses like all niggers love to do. Then we had a busload of bucks beat a poor white kid half to death for being white, but no hate crime charges are pending. And yet another murderous coon is due to be executed next month for killing a dozen people.

When I turn on the TV, all the cop shows are starring niggers who have just brutally murdered someone, usually over a few dollars, and the action videos are mostly monkoids committing robberies and assaults. And yet the liberals act as if America is racist for finally waking up and asking “Hey! Where are all the white perps..huh?”

There’s a big difference between being racist and being aware of what’s going on right in front of your face. The liberals want us all to play “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and ignore the murderous monkoids all around us. And they start foaming at the mouth when we refuse.

Tough. If they don’t like it they can resign their positions and move to nigger town. Odds are they won’t have to, because our people will soon have most of them behind bars awaiting trial for treason. Believe me, I can’t wait. I also can’t wait to see the look on their idiot faces when the cuffs are slapped on them and they’re hauled off, kicking and screaming and spouting threats. It’ll be a day of celebration, let me tell you. That Tea Party was just the warning shot across their bow. From this point on, things will get nasty. I hope you’re preparing.

We have a ton of idiots on parade right now, all acting as if there’s never going to be an end to their evil and corruption. This nation reminds me a great deal of Sodom and Gomorrah just before the great destruction. One thing about parades though, is that they all end. And then it’s somebody’s job to clean up the mess.

-The Lone Haranguer

Unrest In Urumqi—A Californian Draws A Dark Lesson For Her Own State

Unrest In Urumqi—

A Californian Draws A Dark Lesson For Her Own State

By Linda Thom

Also by Linda Thom: Tibet’s Turmoil—The Immigration Dimension

Security is reportedly tight in Urumqi, capital of China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region—which is the euphemism for Xinjiang Province, as it is not autonomous at all. Local Uighurs have just been convicted of a wave of “syringe attack” stabbings on Han Chinese in the wake of serious rioting in July. [60 years after revolution, ethnic tension still plagues China, By Tom Lassiter, Miami Herald, September 22, 2009.]

Two years ago in June, my husband and I took a train journey around China. We visited both Tibet and Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. As Californians, we instantly recognized that the unrest and violence in both have lessons for Americans. The story is all too familiar to residents of “Occupied America”—areas suffering from immigration-driven over population and cultural change.

Xinjiang is the northwest-most province in China. In the heart of the province lies the Tarim Basin, which is a huge desert. Along both the northern and southern borders of the desert run mountains. For thousands of years people have traveled this area along the Silk Road.

Sometime around 2000 to 1800 B.C. a group of people lived, died and were buried in an area called Loulan, on the east of the basin and southeast of Urumqi. Other people lived on the southern rim of the basin and were buried in Cherchen. The dry desert conditions preserved these bodies for all posterity.

The mummies are Europeans, not Han Chinese.

Although there are hundreds of mummies, perhaps the two most famous are “Cherchen Man” and the “Loulan Beauty”, which my husband and I saw in the provincial museum in Urumqi in 2007. Cherchen man dates from 1000 BC. He has red hair, is about 5’ 10″ tall and has a decidedly European face. Loulan Beauty, among the oldest mummies, has light brown hair and again looks European, not Chinese.

Beside the Loulan Beauty’s case, an artist drew a picture of how beautiful she may have been because the Uighurs have adopted her as a symbol of their people. She looks like them, not Chinese.

DNA samples do not completely support this view—the Uighurs are a Turkic people—but whatever else they are, the mummies are not Han Chinese. [The Dead Tell A Tale China Doesn’t Care To Listen To, by Edward Wong, New York Times, November 18, 2008].

Nevertheless, the Uighurs believe they have a right to be independent because they arrived in the area prior to the Han Chinese. The Loulan Beauty has become their symbol

Thus, I was not surprised to hear in May—prior to the riots—that only one mummy is now displayed in Urumqi, an infant. To confirm this, I inquired from an expert about whether the mummies had, in fact, been removed. The expert replied:

“The mummies come and go—for various reasons that I’d rather not go into here. I would say that, with the current, and very serious, unrest in Urumchi that is going on right now, the mummies might not be available for viewing for awhile. I hope that nothing worse happens to them.”

For hundreds of years, Uighurs comprised the majority population in Xinjiang. In 1949, Hans began to move west and the Han population now makes up 40 percent of the residents. In the capital, Urumqi, some reports say two-thirds to three-quarters of the population is Han Chinese.

In his book, Shadow of the Silk Road, author Colin Thubron recounts a conversation with a Uighur in a restaurant in Khotan which is on the southwest rim of the Tarim Basin.

“The man says: ‘This is a military occupation. It’s like Tibet. It’s like Kosovo. It’s like. . .’ He runs out of parallels, then seizes my fork and clasps it to his chest. “Could I take this and say it’s mine? No! But that’s what they’re doing.””

The Uighur continues by describing “filthy high-rises” and “cities of smog.” That is precisely what overpopulation and industry have created. I saw it with my own eyes. See it here.

The region reportedly possesses over 30% of the Chinese oil and coal deposits and I have read that the figure is more like 40%. China also uses the area for nuclear testing and has a large military contingent in Xinjiang.

And is this the same as Tibet? Yes, it is. In China’s Great Train, Abrahm Lustgarten states, “Tibet is now said to hold as much as 40 million tons of copper—one-third of China’s total—40 million tons of lead and zinc and more than a billion tons of high-grade iron.” Tibet is also headwaters for some of the greatest water systems in the world. Just look at a map. He who controls the water is king of the mountain.

In addition, the Chinese government needs to find a place for its excess population. Create jobs, housing and educational opportunities or the people get restless.

The Uighurs complain that all the development has helped make jobs for Hans but not for Uighurs. They complain that their children are forced to learn and to use Chinese in school. They say that the Chinese are interfering with their ability to practice their Muslim faith.

Today, the city of Urumqi is culturally Chinese. One of the few places that is still ethnic Uighur is the market—the place where the July rioting started. According to Chinese reports, the Uighurs attacked Han Chinese merchants.

China may have suppressed the riots and blacked out news coverage. But the tension will not go away.

And how is this like America?

In the late 1960s, when my husband and I moved to California, the population was 20 million. It is now 37 million. Whites will shortly be the minority—if they are not already. A California friend said that she felt like a red-headed step child and laughed. Many are not laughing. They are packing up and leaving the state.

Can we talk about this, please?

Can we stand up and say that we have enough people already?

Can we ask why Mexico has the right to export her excess people to the U.S.?

Can we say to our government that we think American jobs should go to our own unemployed rather than immigrants?

Can we say that we prefer to celebrate July 4th rather than Cinco de Mayo?

Or will Congress soon declare it a “hate crime” to complain about the immigration invasion?

Linda Thom [email her] is a retiree and refugee from California. She formerly worked as an officer for a major bank and as a budget analyst for the County Administrator of Santa Barbara.

What Do White Nationalists Want?

What Do White Nationalists Want?

More news stories on Racial Identity

Jared Taylor, Taki’s Magazine, June 1, 2009

Lost in Justin Raimondo’s torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations [see below for excerpts] is one useful question: What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.

Until then, most people believed race was an important aspect of individual and group identity. They believed that the races differed in temperament and ability, and whites preferred the societies built by whites to those built by non-whites. They wanted the United States to be peopled by Europeans because they believed only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they valued. These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”

The national-origins immigration policy that lasted until 1965 embodied this basic understanding of race. As one of the supporters of that policy, Congressman William Vaile of Colorado explained in 1924, “[the United States] is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” I might add that even if this sentiment shocks Americans today, it is exactly the view of their own country held by virtually every Japanese, Israeli, or Mexican.

What perhaps most succinctly characterizes those whom Mr. Raimondo calls “white nationalists” is the conviction that it was a terrible mistake to abandon national-origins quotas and throw the United States open to immigration from everywhere. As Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina wondered at the time: “What is wrong with the national origins of the American people? What is wrong with maintaining them? What is wrong with preferring as immigrants one’s own kinsmen?” There were no good answers to those questions then and there is none today.

I believe Sam Ervin—and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt—shared my desire for a country in which our ancestors were respected as pioneers and statesmen, not reviled as murderers and thieves. I believe they wanted a country in which their children’s children would walk in the ways of their forebears, sing the same songs, worship the same God, revere the same heroes, and proudly carry forward the civilization and culture of the West. I am certain they believed this would be possible only in a nation whose majority people were the biological heirs to the creators of that culture and civilization.

My hopes for the land in which my descendants will live are no different from those of virtually every person who has ever lived anywhere. The idea that nothing will be lost if a founding population is replaced with aliens is a new disease that strikes only whites. Our Mexican neighbors would scoff at the notion that “diversity” is a strength or that millions of English-speaking, white-skinned immigrants were a form of “cultural enrichment.” They would be astonished at the idea of elevating to a position of power a gringa who claimed white women made better decisions than Mexican men. In all these things they could not be more natural, normal, or healthy. It is we who have betrayed the ideals of our ancestors and diced with our children’s future by opening the doors to dispossession.

Is dispossession too strong a word? Just visit Detroit or Miami or parts of Los Angeles. You will not find the civilization Jefferson or Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt thought they were building for their children. There are great swathes of America in which Spanish—or even Chinese—is the lingua franca, and where English-speakers are out of place. At the college down the road there are footbaths in the student union so Muslim immigrants can clean their feet before salaaming in the worship area they demanded be set aside for them. Washington’s and Jefferson’s names are being pulled down from public schools to be replaced with Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King.

I am not certain it is possible to salvage from the chaos immigration is bringing to this country a nation of which my grandchildren can even feel a part, much less be proud. But unless whites wake up from their stupor, unless they—like the white firemen of New Haven—realize they have legitimate rights as a group and are prepared to fight for them, they will be shoved aside by Africans, Asians, Mexicans, Haitians, and Muslims who have, in addition to very sharp elbows, a keen sense of their own interests.

It is certainly true that there are many group identifications besides race. Our deepest ties are to our families, and our loyalties expand in concentric and overlapping circles: clubs, friends, work groups, nationalities, even cities and states. But the largest group to which most people feel a natural loyalty is race. That is because race marks the limit of our extended families, and defines the group to which we are genetically closer than to any other.

Loyalties of this kind are not rational but they are no less powerful for this reason. I love my own children more than I love the children of strangers, not because they are objectively superior but because they are mine. No one disputes my right to this irrational loyalty—nor should they dispute my right to an equally irrational, equally deep and genetic loyalty to my extended family.

At the same time, though I make sacrifices for my own children that I would never make for the children of others, this implies no ill feeling for other children. I can even have great affection for other children but mine come first. It should not require pointing out that, in like manner, loyalty to a race or nation need imply no ill feeling for any other. I can admire and like the Chinese or the Watusi without wanting my own country or my own descendants to become Chinese or Watusi. They, in turn, have no desire to fill their countries with Europeans.

Mr. Raimondo seems to think only a Nazi could oppose miscegenation or care about the racial/ethnic composition of his country. I’m sure we can count on him to explain to Israelis who want a Jewish state, and to the many Jews and blacks who oppose inter-marriage that they are actually Nazis. And, of course, the many Americans who opposed what they called “amalgamation” and even passed laws to forbid it were all Nazis long before Nazism. The Japanese, who would rather invent clever robots than encourage immigrants, and the Mexicans who do not let non-citizens own property are no doubt Nazis, too. This is the sort of silliness that comes from thinking in clichés, from swallowing the mantras of liberal egalitarianism.

Mr. Raimondo seems to insist on looking at everything from a libertarian perspective so let us adopt one. Mr. Raimondo does not appear to understand that I am not proposing a state-enforced caste system; I want to dismantle the one we have, the one that turned the New Haven firemen into untouchables. Likewise, I have always stood for completely free association, and if someone wants to associate across racial lines that is his business. In 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation laws for the same reason I oppose them: healthy societies don’t need them.

Many doctrinaire libertarians think there should not even be immigration control. They argue that in an ideal world of private property each property owner could set his own immigration policy. Until that day comes, I am certainly not proposing an expansion of state power; merely a policy that preserves our heritage rather than devour it.

And what if, like Mr. Raimondo, we are to put libertarianism before the preservation of race or heritage? Perhaps he has not noticed that it is only whites who have even imagined an individualism as pure as libertarianism. How many non-white allies has he found in his battle against the state? Does he really think Mexicans and Africans will help him dismantle state power rather than seize it for their own purposes? By ignoring race Mr. Raimondo is ensuring the failure of what I take to be his most cherished project.

Where Mr. Raimondo and I most clearly part company is that I am in earnest about the survival of my people and their civilization. For that I apologize to no one. If Mr. Raimondo does not see the crisis, he has every right to enjoy his ignorance, but he joins forces with the very multi-culturalists he claims to oppose when he denies to whites an awareness of their group interests without which they are doomed to oblivion.

Original article

(Posted on June 1, 2009)

Nationalists Without a Nation

Justin Raimondo, Taki’s Magazine, May 28, 2009

Jared Taylor’s recent posting on Takimag has drawn a number of a responses, including from Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, both of which make some good points. I’m afraid, however, that neither really hits on the essential problem—although Gottfried does mention it in passing, almost as an afterthought—which is that Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism. His bid to become the white Al Sharpton is not only a massive contradiction, coming from someone who ostensibly opposes privileging individuals on account of their alleged race, it is downright pathetic.

To being with, he avers that “if you can’t beat them, join them”—that is, if you can’t beat the multiculti rules and regulations that increasing afflict our lives, then the best policy is one of . . . surrender. He cites a case where the city of New Haven threw out the results of a test taken by aspiring firemen in which blacks didn’t do as well as the city would have liked. New Haven bureaucrats threw out the test results for all races, not just blacks, and did the whole procedure over again: this, claims Taylor, is anti-white “discrimination.”

While Paul Gottfried inexplicably claims that most of the white nationalists he has met are “libertarians,” it appears that their Maximum Leader is not among them: for the libertarian would argue that the entire procedure and the unfairness inherent in it could be eliminated by simply privatizing the fire department. Of course, it would still be possible to pursue the elusive goal of equality of results through enforcement of the so-called civil rights laws—yet that is precisely what Taylor would do on behalf of “oppressed” whites. This kind of scam is wrong when blacks try to pull it off, but right when engaged in by whites.

The Taylorite commitment to “white racial consciousness” is simply a cracked mirror image of the worst excesses of the “black power” movement—and it is advanced with much less justification. {snip}


{snip} Taylor is dead serious, but what is he serious about? Ostensibly, he’s upset over those white firemen denied jobs in New Haven, but it quickly becomes all too clear that’s not his main beef: what he’s really against is miscegenation, or what his intellectual heirs used to call “race-mixing”:

The real solution may have to wait another generation or two after which, if some who call themselves conservatives have their way, there will have been so much miscegenation there will be no more white people left to worry about.

He then cites a number of commentators who think this trend is desirable, from Michael Barone to the Socialist candidate in the French election for Prime Minister, and then snarks: “If those New Haven firemen got a raw deal, I guess their parents just married the wrong people. “

But what has miscegenation got to do with the issue he supposedly cares about, those poor oppressed white firemen? It’s not clear. What is all too clear, however, is that the real agenda of the “white nationalist” movement has zero to do with legitimate issues, such as the injustice of affirmative action. It is all about race-mixing—an “issue” that, in an age when a mulatto is president of these United States, has a certain explosive quality, as well as an aura of outright nastiness.


As the white-collar wing of the same movement, Taylor and his American Renaissance crowd are salivating as the prospect of massive recruitment because one of “them” is in the White House. They hope to infiltrate what they call the “pseudo-conservatives” with their message of genetic determinism and white supremacy, imbuing the rightist critique of Obama and all his works with a racialist tinge.

This, of course, is just what the Obamaites ordered: they would love to marginalize their opposition and banish them to the fever swamps of race-obsessed neurotics and social misfits. Nothing would please them more than to see the rising resentment of their policies ascribed to the spreading influence of racist agitators. If I were the Democratic National Committee, I’d funnel millions into Taylor’s outfit, and like-minded groups, for the same reason that the interventionists encouraged Nazi infiltration of the America First antiwar movement in the run-up to World War II.


What I don’t understand, and I doubt Taylor does either, is this: what do the “white nationalists” want? What is their program? They are “nationalists” without a nation. Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? Do they want to carve out their own ersatz “nation” in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas? Do they want to create a caste system based on racial heritage, as the Nazis tried to do, with whites on top and the “mud people”—their disgusting term for non-whites—on the bottom? Or do they just want to abolish race preferences in law and custom—in which case they shed their “white nationalist” hoods and morph into white versions of Ward Connerly? Would Taylor outlaw miscegenation if he could? I have no doubt that he would, no matter what he says in public.

Americans don’t like racists, not because they have been indoctrinated by leftist professors and do-gooder social workers, but because “white nationalists” and their ilk are looking for the unearned: they want power, prestige, and money in the bank based on factors over which they had no control, that is, their genetic heritage. That’s why they spend so much time posing as amateur “scientists” and “anthropologists,” extrapolating entire theories of social organization from the results of “intelligence tests” that presume to measure the ineffable. It is a soulless, materialist, dogmatic view of life that has nothing in common with authentic conservatism, and which has all sorts of statist implications—not to mention a history of racialist-inspired statist measures—that make “white nationalism” antithetical to libertarianism.


Original article

The Seeds of Conflict

More news stories on Racial Identity

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, June 1999

Why are bombs falling in Yugoslavia? Why do the Hutu and Tutsi keep slaughtering each other? Why can’t people in Los Angeles take Rodney King’s advice and “just get along”? Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a remarkable upsurge in ethnic, national, racial, and other sectarian conflicts that has baffled liberal policymakers who predicted “the end of history.” To the contrary, a UN study found that if a war were defined as armed conflict that produced more than 1,000 deaths, there have been 82 wars in a recent three-year period, and 79 of them were sectarian bloodlettings that took place within recognized national borders. The current NATO action against Yugoslavia has something of the look of the traditional war that pits belligerent governments against each other, but the real cause, of course, was civil disorder between ethnic Serbs and ethnic Albanians.

The explanations most commonly given for the persistence of this kind of fighting are almost always implausible. Colonialism does not explain why Hutu and Tutsi hate each other any more than slavery explains why blacks rioted in Los Angeles. Liberal sociologists come up with strained, ad hoc explanations of this kind because they refuse to accept the deeper, biological origins of conflict. In explaining why NATO had decided to kill Serbs, William Clinton did mention “nationalism” as one of the causes, but clearly thinks of it as a primitive, even embarrassing sentiment.

J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario has offered an analysis of conflict of this kind that links it to the basic biological mechanisms that govern how people—and other organisms—choose their associates. His analysis, known as Genetic Similarity Theory, is an extension of the sociobiological work of E.O. Wilson, William Hamilton, and others into the ethnic/national sphere. GST is firmly rooted in evolution, but its perspective and insights can be appreciated by people with other views as well.

Ever since Darwin, the willingness of some individuals to sacrifice themselves for others has been a riddle for evolutionists. If only the fittest survive, the genes for altruistic behavior should have been weeded out long ago. Any man or animal so foolish as to lay down his life for his fellows stops the genes for altruistic behavior dead in their tracks. Self-sacrifice should disappear, and evolution should have bred pure selfishness into people rather than mixing it with a dose of altruism.

Animals show altruism too. When a worker bee stings something trying to get into the hive, the stinger tears out of its abdomen and it dies—to protect other bees. If a small mammal notices a hawk or fox nearby and gives a warning cry so that others of its species can run for cover, it calls attention to itself and is more likely to be attacked. The animal’s own chances of survival would be best if it quietly ran into a hole and left the rest of the pack to the fox. Animals share food, rescue each other, and fight as a group rather than run away as individuals. But the most widespread and important kind of altruism is care of the young—and this suggests the evolutionary explanation for altruism.

For parents, children are packets of their own genes, and evolutionary theory has an obvious explanation for parental altruism: At least among the higher animals, parents that look after their young are much more likely to pass along their genes to succeeding generations than parents that do not. The genes that cause child-rearing and child protection are therefore very firmly built into all higher species. But altruism for close relatives serves the same purpose. Brothers and sisters share 50 percent of their genes and cousins share about 12 percent. Crucial human traits were formed when men operated in small, extended-family bands, and in this context it made good genetic sense for a warrior to fight for the tribe, since he was fighting for his kinfolk. When the famous British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane was asked for whom he would sacrifice his life, he replied only half-facetiously, “for three brothers or nine cousins.” Either combination adds up to more than 100 percent of one’s own genes, and from an evolutionary point of view it makes more sense to die if that means the others can live.

This explanation for altruism is called kin selection theory, and there is evidence for it in the animal kingdom. A female squirrel can mate with several males and give birth to a litter that contains the children of more than one male. This mixture of full- and half-siblings shares the same womb and grows up in the same nest but each can tell the others apart. They are more likely to come to the aid of full siblings and more likely to fight and quarrel with half-siblings. Another squirrel study likewise found that females give food to sisters but not to strangers. Similar relations are found in lion prides, where all the females are likely to be closely related to each other, and therefore cooperate to kill game. Chimpanzees occasionally kill other chimpanzees, but the victims are almost always isolated males from other bands.

It is not known how animals tell they are related, but even insects are capable of amazingly fine distinctions. When guard bees at a hive encountered intruder bees of 14 different degrees of kinship to them, the guardians let in those that were closely related and drove off the others. In another experiment, when frog eggs from several litters were put into a single tank, after they hatched, the tadpoles that were siblings congregated together.

Humans show similar behavior. The immediate family is obviously the focus of intense loyalty and sacrifice, but every family reunion ever held is a tribute to the importance of kinship ties that go well beyond the nuclear family. The very idea of relatedness, the building of family trees, the search for ancestors—all these things reflect the importance of blood ties.

Recent research has uncovered less-well-known examples of the importance of kinship. Children who live in a household with a man who is not their father are many times more likely to be beaten or killed by him than by their biological fathers. Men are violent, but they rarely kill their own children. Identical twins, who have exactly the same genes, are willing to sacrifice more for each other than non-identical twins (who share only about 50 percent of their genes). Identical twins also show greater affection and physical attachment to each other, and suffer greater loss when their identical co-twin dies. Parents grieve more for children who appear to share more of their own traits than those of their spouses.

Prof. Rushton and others have shown that unconscious preferences for genetic similarity appear to be at work in human beings all the time. When people choose mates, colleagues, and close friends, they not only show cultural preferences, but genetic preferences within the same culture. Friends and spouses resemble each other in many ways, from their social attitudes to IQ scores to physical appearance. According to one study that determined similarity according to blood tests, couples who produce a child are 52 percent similar whereas couples chosen at random in a population are only 43 percent similar. In another study, best friends were found to be 54 percent similar, whereas random pairs of people were 48 percent similar.

Prof. Rushton offers even more surprising evidence for the power of genetic similarity to draw people together: Often what people have in common are the most heritable rather than the most obvious traits. For example, biceps size is only about 50 percent heritable because exercise can change it, whereas finger length is 80 percent heritable. People may well look into each other’s exercise habits, but probably no one measures the lengths of a potential mate’s fingers. Still, when spouses and close friends are compared on the basis of such measures, they resemble each other more on the traits that are the most heritable.

Twin and other studies show that some personality traits are under greater genetic control than others, and spouses resemble each other most on those very traits. Likewise, when IQ scores are divided into subtests, spouses have the closest scores on the most heritable subtests.

There seems to be a limit to the attraction of the similar, however; the taboo against incest is a near-universal protection against inbreeding. The most attractive match appears to be someone genetically similar but not a close relative.

Genetic Similarity Theory greatly confounds those who believe in the supreme power of social and economic environment. They would expect people to choose friends and spouses for those traits that are most influenced by environment. Body-builders should seek out body-builders and stamp collectors should fall in love with other stamp collectors. Instead, without even being aware of it, human beings gravitate towards others who resemble them in countless subtle genetic ways. Genetic similarity is the glue that binds individuals together as much as it binds nations together. Like gravity, we have felt it since the beginning of time, but we are only beginning to understand it.

Seeds of Conflict

Genetic Similarity Theory has important implications for the larger questions of peoplehood and nationality, and Prof. Rushton has not been afraid to take them up. If people make frequent, unconscious decisions on the basis of genetics when they choose associates from within their own ethnic group, it is impossible for them to ignore the even greater genetic distance that separates them from other ethnic groups.

In 1997, in the face of persistent late-20th century sectarian bloodlettings, the American and Canadian Psychological Associations undertook an “Initiative on Ethnopolitical Warfare” in the hope of understanding the psychology of these conflicts. This is a step forward compared to the purely historical or political-science approach that has dominated analysis so far, and may yield useful insights. In Prof. Rushton’s view, however, the problem lies in the very nature of man, and his biological inclination to identify with the carriers of his own genes.

During the long period of evolution that took place in nomadic, extended-family bands—and during which altruism was a particularly effective mechanism for group evolution—humans and proto-humans might sometimes come upon unknown groups of potential adversaries. It was important to be able quickly to tell if a stranger were one of “our people,” and humans have developed a great many different outward signs of what is, ultimately, genetic similarity. Evolutionists would argue they were developed for the very purpose of magnifying the underlying biological differences. Customs, dress, language, manners, and religion are therefore not acquired directly through the genes but for most people they might as well be. They are passed on almost exclusively from parent to child; someone who does not speak your language is not likely to be a relative. People who are not relatives are potential enemies.

Young children learn very quickly which groups with which to identify. By age four most Americans know what race they are and know that race continues from parent to child. By kindergarten or first grade, children are aware of many of the less obvious social and ethnic differences. They naturally identify with their own group; they do not have to be taught. Children are also famously cruel to outsiders, but in this they are only a little more unrestrained than their parents.

After all, it was not only because there were wild animals that it was evolutionarily useful for people to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the group. Carnivores might make off with a child or two, but the greatest threat was always bands of strangers who might exterminate the whole tribe. What gave birth to altruism, therefore, were the wars and conflicts that are its very opposites. For this reason all peoples practice a morality of loyalty to their own people and a morality of suspicion or even hostility for outsiders. Prof. Rushton calls this suspicion of outgroups the “dark side” of altruism, and sees in it the roots of ethnic conflict.

Political scientist Walker Connor, who has written frequently on nationalism, defines a nation as “the largest group that commands a person’s loyalty because of felt kinship ties . . . the fully extended family.” It is no accident that people speak of the “motherland” or “fatherland,” and why patriotism is often seen as an extension of family loyalty. It is ties of blood that make fellow nationals precious and worth dying for. At the same time, it becomes easy to see the aliens who are threatening our precious nationals not just as strangers but as sub-humans. War brings out the best and the worst; when groups set about killing each other they often try to make it as painful, agonizing, and humiliating for the enemy as possible. At the same time, soldiers in combat sacrifice more willingly and more deeply than at any other time in their lives, and the love they may form for comrades-in-arms often lasts a life-time. Nations always promote patriotism because they know how powerful a force it can be.

(The official exceptions to this rule were the Communist countries, which were supposed to be building proletarian loyalties rather than national ties. However, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union the Communists quickly started encouraging deeply nationalist loyalties to Mother Russia, and officially named the conflict the Great Patriotic War.)

Culture Wars

Prof. Rushton argues that there are many forms of ethnic competition short of bloodshed. He says that what we call “culture wars” can also be seen as “gene wars,” since different genes find different environments more or less favorable. People seldom see conflicts in these terms, but the United States is a perfect demonstration of what is at stake. A culture that glorifies sex and rewards unwed motherhood with food stamps and welfare benefits is a very favorable environment for certain kinds of genes, and those have proliferated prodigiously over the last 30 years. A culture that views crime as a societal failing for which individuals cannot be held responsible is one that has also made choices about which genes to favor. Likewise, there are very substantial reproductive consequences when America glorifies non-whites, reviles whites, and encourages miscegenation.

The debate over immigration is nothing less than a debate over the genetic future of the country. To let in people who are wholly unlike the natives is to accept the genetic equivalent of defeat in war and occupation by aliens. This is why no one has ever done it before and why, now that white nations are doing it, it arouses such heated opposition.

Genetic change brings an infinite number of other changes. In virtually every multi-ethnic society group membership is the key element of individual identity and cultural interests. In America, the audiences for many cultural events are almost completely segregated. In their leisure time, Americans of different races rarely watch the same television programs. Ethnic newspapers write about political events thousands of miles away from America. Housing patterns and school attendance show a very clear form of clustering by genetic similarity.

Prof. Rushton thinks of cultural markers like language, folkways, etc. as providing a “home” for certain genes that find such an environment favorable. In this sense, virtually all cultural and political decisions have genetic consequences—whose group is being favored and whose is not? Most groups view policies almost exclusively from their own point of view and support or fight them on this basis alone.

If follows from Prof. Rushton’s theory that it is folly for any group to cease to act in its own genetic interests on the assumption that other groups will do the same. All around the world, whites are welcoming non-whites into their countries with the implied understanding that because whites have decided ethnic nationalism is bad and diversity is good, everyone else will soon think so, too. By now it is entirely clear that non-whites support diversity only when it can be used to increase their own numbers and power. Once they are numerous enough to remake a locality or institution in their own image, any interest they once professed for “diversity” disappears.

The post–Cold War period had been a showcase for the renunciation of “diversity.” The constituent parts of the Soviet Union decided to become homogeneous units rather than parts of a diverse empire. The Czechs and the Slovaks decided the same thing. A number of peoples—the Kurds, Chechens, and Tibetans, for example—would certainly break away except that their rulers are prepared to kill tens of thousands of them to prevent it.

Yugoslavia has broken up quite spectacularly into ethnic states, and has even drawn the United States into a war that could produce a few more. The usual American policy of promoting “diversity” at all costs is completely at odds with what is gradually becoming the objective of NATO’s war: establishment of an ethnically pure and essentially independent Kosovo. Having gone to war to stop the removal of Albanians from that province, it now feels it can win only if it removes Serbians.

NATO’s early miscalculations about the ease with which the Serbians could be made to do its bidding showed an unwillingness to accept the importance of genes, nationality, and ethnic loyalty. In Western countries, where patriotism is thought a little passé because it might interfere with the higher demands of diversity, it is easy to forget just how passionately a healthy people clings to its land and its heritage.

John Stuart Mill once wrote: “Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. . . .” Prof. Rushton shows why this has always been true. Unfortunately, most Western politicians act as if it were not.

Original article

(Posted on April 24, 2009)

The North Worth Saving

More news stories on Racial Identity

Srdja Trifkovic, Orthodoxy Today, February 21, 2009

We need a paradigm shift in the West that would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance of Russia, Europe, and North America, as all three face similar existential threats in the decades ahead. In an uncertain and ever more brutal world, the Northerners may finally consider banding together, lest they be defeated in detail.


The concept is as old as Sun Tzu (“if enemy forces are united, separate them”) and was more recently restated by Mao (“concentrate a superior force to destroy the enemy forces one by one”). It is highly relevant to the American interest because the civilization upon which this country is founded—usually described as “Western,” although “Northern” would be more accurate—is in danger of being defeated in detail by its enemies, internal and external.


Europe’s demographic self-annihilation is well advanced, from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond, with Russia and the rest of the Old Continent sharing the same downward trend. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s population has fallen six percent, from around 150 million to just over 140 million. The combination of a low birthrate, an aging population, and a public-health crisis may result in the country’s population collapsing by one third, to around 100 million, by 2050. On current form, there will be a 40-percent drop in the size of the core (ages 14 to 25) group, ensuring a continued decline for the rest of the century. At the same time, the number of self-identified Muslims in Russia has risen by 40 percent in the last 15 years to 20 million, partly fueled by immigration from Central Asia and the Caucasus.

In Metropolitan France, an ostensibly healthy birthrate of 12.2 per thousand conceals the fact that, of some 800,000 births in a nation of almost 60 million, Muslim immigrants (predominantly from North Africa) and their French-born descendants account for more than a quarter. Italy will plummet from today’s 57 million to a much older 40 million by 2050. By that time, the continent as a whole will face a net loss of some 150 million people. Europe’s population has aged to such a degree that it will continue to shrink even in the unlikely event that birthrates rebound to the replacement level. This “negative momentum” means that even if women in the future should have an unexpected fertility increase to two children on average, the population would be destined to continue shrinking.

In the 1970’s, the U.S. birthrate not only dipped below replacement but fell below the European rate. In the years since, the American rate recovered modestly to just below replacement level. The fertility rate of white Americans slipped below the replacement rate in the early 1970’s, however, and it never recovered: Today it stands at about 1.8 babies per woman.

Demographers say that the U.S. population will grow by 135 million in the next four decades—a stunning 44-percent increase—but that growth will be entirely the result of immigration (overwhelmingly from the Third World) and increases in the nonwhite population.


Continental conservatives—German Christian Democrats; French, Spanish, and Italian rightists—are natural Northerners even when they are squeamish about admitting it. Members of the dominant European left, however, are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about Barack Obama because they are ashamed of their own roots and looks. The sentiment is becoming all-pervasive: Even The Economist opined that Obama’s victory “would salve, if not close, the ugly wound left by America’s history.” The left flatly denies that a common Euro-Russo-American civilization exists, let alone that it is worth preserving or jointly defending.

It is in the United States that the obstacles to a northern paradigm are the most formidable. Opponents are present, to some extent, in every influential segment of this country’s foreign-policy community.

American exceptionalists believe that the United States differs qualitatively from Europe (not to mention Russia) by virtue of her “propositional credo,” which transcends the shackles of ethnicity, race, culture, and faith. Global hegemonists seek dominance over Europe and fragmentation of Russia, rather than partnership with them. Many hegemonists are also visceral Russophobes, owing to their own ethno-cultural baggage rather than any objective assessment of Moscow’s global position and impact on U.S. interests. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his Vice President, Hillary Clinton’s appointment to State, Robert Gates’ retention at the Pentagon, and General Jones’s management of the National Security Council point to the President’s willful blindness to the collapsing economic foundation of the American “hyperpower.”

Multiculturalists oppose any notion of “our” physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone. They deny that we should have a special affinity for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but demand the imposition of our preferences upon the whole world. They are the mortal enemy of any notion that any shared legacy of the European family is worthy of preservation.

These groups share the radical notion that America is not a real country, but a metaphysical concept or a tool for their own Will to Power—or both. They do not want this country to belong to the people whose ancestors created her and who have inhabited her for generations. They celebrate the resulting random mélange of mutually disconnected multitudes as somehow uniquely “American” and virtuous.

Ideologues will deny it, but in the decades to come Europe, Russia, and America will be in similar mortal peril from those very multitudes. The magnitude of that threat will become clear as those nations age and the numbers of hostile aliens grow. In the end there will be no grand synthesis, no crossfertilization, and certainly no peaceful coexistence, between the North and the Third World.

The short-term prospects for fostering a sense of unity among Europeans—Eastern, Western, and American—are dim and will remain so for as long as the regimes of all the major states of the West are controlled by an elite class hostile to its own biological roots and cultural fruits.

In the longer term, however, it is at least conceivable that the ongoing financial and economic crisis will produce salutary political and cultural effects. In the face of diminished property values, rising unemployment, and collapsed retirement portfolios, our elites risk a comprehensive loss of credibility and authority comparable to that experienced by Europe’s ruling class in 1914-18. When the dust settles they may no longer be heeded as arbiters of who we are, what we are to think, and how we are to lead a good life. As the credibility of American global dominance tanks with the dollar, Europe may increasingly see its interests tracking with those of Russia, forcing Washington to acquiesce.

No refocusing of international policy will matter if there is not a reversal of demographic and immigration trends. The richer the country, the emptier its cradles. A trend toward Third World living standards may lead to Third World birthrates. Increased scarcity may finally break the political taboo about addressing non-European immigration.

Can we hope that a reminder of the harsher realities of life will revive the North’s sense of itself as a Christian civilization and resistance to the stealth jihad being waged in our midst? Sadly, the more likely result of the crisis we now face is deepening demoralization, increased demands for government solutions and services, and ever more inane adulation of such purveyors of political snake oil as our newly enthroned President Messiah. In the early eighth century the triumphant march of Islam into Christendom seemed unstoppable, until it was halted at the gates of Constantinople (718) and at Tours (732). Conversely, in July 1914, Europe was at the peak of every imaginable human achievement, only to be turned into a pale shadow of its former self a mere century later.


Original article

(Posted on March 10, 2009)

Poll Finds Most Voters Mad at Washington – Its on the way people, Revolution!

Poll Finds Most Voters Mad at Washington

AOL News
posted: 10 HOURS 9 MINUTES AGO
comments: 3022

(Sept. 22) — It should come as no surprise after a summer of town halls and tea parties, but a new poll confirms there’s a lot of anger at the federal government.
The survey done by Rasmussen Reports also shows widespread dissatisfaction with leaders of both major political parties and significant concern about the potential for violence.
Sixty-six percent of the 1,000 adults polled on Sunday and Monday said they were either very angry or somewhat angry about federal government policies.
“People feel they’re not being listened to,” said Scott Rasmussen, president of the polling organization.

Skip over this content

The anger didn’t start when the Obama administration came to power, according to Rasmussen. He pointed to polls that showed “people were overwhelmingly opposed” to President Bush’s bailout of financial firms, yet the measure passed. The same was true for federal aide to automakers.
“It just fits into this same pattern of it really doesn’t matter what we do. It doesn’t matter what we say,” Rasmussen noted. “That’s what the frustration we saw in the town hall meetings was.”
While President Obama has taken most of the heat lately, 60 percent of those polled said neither Democratic nor Republican leaders understand what the country needs.
“I think what people are looking for is different than what the politicians want to provide,” said Rasmussen. “Part of the reason that the two parties are having a hard time … is because they’re not connecting — they’re not able to find a way to resonate with voters. They’re just sort of missing the discussion.”
Washington isn’t the only target of populist anger, although fear of “big government” control is a common theme for protesters.
“You really have to throw big business into it as well,” according to Rasmussen, who added that people don’t trust the media, either.
It all adds up to a lot of frustration, he said, for voters who want to “get involved in the decision-making process in a meaningful way.”
“I think there’s a group of people that are reaching the point that they don’t know what to do.”
Some commentators and Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern that people with no outlet for their anger might resort to violence. Forty-three percent of those polled by Rasmussen share that fear. But those rated as the most angry are the least concerned about the possibility of violence, while those who say they’re not angry at all are most worried about it.
See Poll Details: Rasmussen Reports