RACIAL RIGHTS AND A RACIAL COMPACT

By Richard McCulloch |

Rights are among the noblest inventions of the human intellect, the most sublime means yet devised for humanity to govern the interactions of its members, both within and between groups. Rights are a concept that requires belief, for in actual practice rights exist only because — and to the extent that — people believe in them. Rights are values that people hold and assert. They are brought into existence by human recognition, respect and protection — affirmations of belief in them without which they do not exist. “A value emerges, is socially constructed, only when a critical mass of persons, or a powerful minority, shares it and, by persistently behaving in accordance with it, makes it normative.” [Note 1]

The belief in rights can be either an ethical or factual belief. Rights are an ethical concept, and a belief that they should be practiced is an ethical belief, expressing what is believed to be ethically right or wrong. Beliefs pertaining to the nature of rights — their existence, origin, purpose and effects — are factual beliefs, expressing what is believed to be factually true or false. For example, the belief in a human right to freedom is an ethical belief, but beliefs regarding the source of this right — whether it is inherent to human nature, is endowed by a Creator, or is a social construct as indicated above (and thus presumably influenced by human nature) — are factual beliefs.

The two forms or types of belief, ethical or factual, are often confused, but it is important that a clear distinction be drawn between them. Factual beliefs are more objective, pertaining to external objects or events that exist outside of, and independent of, the mind. Ethical beliefs are more subjective, pertaining to something — rules of human behavior — which exist inside the mind. Ethical beliefs are concerned chiefly with human behavior, and in essence consist of what we believe human behavior should be or, in judging past human behavior, should have been. Factual beliefs apply across the entire spectrum of existence or nonexistence, including human behavior, and in essence consist of what we believe actually is, was or will be, not what should be or should have been. Factual beliefs are not necessarily factually true, and ethical beliefs are not necessarily ethically right. They are what the believer believes to be true and right.

In his 1994 book “The Racial Compact,” Richard McCullogh stated that every race had a requirement for “its own exclusive racial territory or homeland, its own independent and sovereign government”

Much of the confusion between factual and ethical beliefs stems from the perception that certain factual and ethical beliefs tend to be associated or connected with each other, and this leads to an assumption that these beliefs determine each other. This is an example of reductionist thinking, which attempts to reduce complex matters of human behavior and causation to a simple explanation. But the causation of human behavior is not simple. It is enormously complex and varied, which is why it frustrates all efforts to subject it to scientific laws of unvarying cause and effect, and its study — in spite of all the efforts and pretensions of the social “sciences” to the contrary — remains much more an art than a science, and always will so long as humans remain beings of free will. In spite of the great influence that genetic or inherited characteristics have on human behavior, there are so many other random and interacting influences — both within the internal workings of the mind and the external environment — as to defy all attempts to reduce human behavior to scientific levels of predictability and control.

Human emotions, values, needs and desires often influence the progression of ethical beliefs, principles and conduct (which commonly change in the course of the progression, with the result that ethical conduct is frequently inconsistent with ethical beliefs) much more than do factual beliefs, with the result that ethical conduct often varies widely from what the subject’s factual beliefs might lead one to expect. Therefore, although ethical beliefs are influenced by factual beliefs, they are not wholly, or even primarily, determined by them. Values are commonly more influential in determining ethical beliefs than are factual beliefs. Values cover a wide area from esthetics to ethics, and can be more accurately described as the qualities of life and existence that are regarded as important and desirable — often for subjective, emotional or subconscious reasons — than as beliefs. They are typically more deeply held, and more resistant to change, than beliefs. When there is a conflict between values and beliefs, often it is the values that prevail and the beliefs that are either rejected or modified so as to be consistent with, support and reinforce the values.

It is proper that ethical beliefs should be determined by the combined influence of values and factual beliefs. Values are one of the most important distinctions separating humanity from inhumanity, humane conditions of existence from the uncaring brutality of nature, and civilization from savagery. It is almost certain that the ethical belief in rights owes more to the influence of values — particularly moral values — than to factual beliefs, although many philosophers have constructed elaborate arguments to justify the existence of rights on the basis of their factual beliefs. (Thomas Jefferson, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, asserted that it was “sacred and undeniable” that rights are derived from Creation. The final draft proclaimed as self-evident the factual belief that humans are endowed with rights by their Creator.) Some values may be innate (inborn or natural) to human nature. If there are innate values it can be assumed they have a genetic basis and — like all genetic characteristics — are a product of, and subject to, the processes of evolution, including divergence, in which case they would likely vary both between individuals and between divergently evolving races.

While it is appropriate for ethical beliefs to be determined by an interaction of factual beliefs and values, it is not appropriate for factual beliefs to be determined — or even influenced — by ethical beliefs and values. Ideally, factual beliefs should be determined by an objective reasoning process whose first duty is to the continuous search for empirical truth. In actual practice, however, factual beliefs have always been very strongly influenced, and even determined, by ethical beliefs and values. What is more, factual beliefs have often been judged by the standards of ethical beliefs — as ethically good or bad rather than as factually true or false.

Ideologies — systems of values, thought and belief, which can be either secular or religious — are frequently dogmatic, requiring conformance to their dogma of prescribed beliefs, both factual and ethical. Dogmatic ideologies are intolerant of any beliefs which vary from those they prescribe. Their ethical beliefs hold that any deviance from the orthodox or prescribed beliefs — including any nonconformity of belief, whether disbelief or the holding of conflicting beliefs — is immoral. Thus deviant or unorthodox factual beliefs are not only regarded as erroneous on factual grounds, but also — and perhaps more so — on ethical grounds. In many ideologically dogmatic societies the judicial systems have persecuted unorthodox or nonconformist factual beliefs by punishing those individuals and groups who held them. The holding of these factual beliefs was judged to be a violation of morality sufficient to justify the most extreme punishments.

Scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, artists and many others have repeatedly suffered persecution for their factual beliefs when they deviated from the prescribed beliefs of a dominant and intolerant ideology. They were not persecuted so much on the grounds that their deviant factual beliefs were factually in error — although the orthodox ideology did judge them to be in error — as on the grounds that the holding of any deviant belief was ethically in error, immoral and intolerable. Of course, philosophy, theology and the arts commonly expound ethical beliefs, and it is proper for these ethical beliefs to be judged by the standards of ethics, as morally right or wrong. But they also deal with factual beliefs, as do science and history, and it is not proper for these factual beliefs to be judged by ethical standards as morally right or wrong, or by any standards other than the standard of whether they are factually true or false. Although factual beliefs do frequently influence ethical beliefs — and properly so, as otherwise ethics would risk a dangerous level of separation from the facts of reality — this does not justify judging them on the basis of their assumed ethical influence, even if their influence were contrary to preconceived ethical beliefs. Ethical judgments should be reserved for ethical beliefs.

Unfortunately, this has not been the practice of intolerant ideologies — religious or secular — either in the past or the present. They regard any belief — or disbelief — which differs from their own prescribed factual or ethical beliefs as a threat, and perceive any threat in moral terms as ethically wrong and evil. This practice of judging factual beliefs on ethical grounds can generally be traced to the misconception that factual beliefs determine — or are the sole cause of — ethical beliefs. According to this rigidly reductionist theory of causality, the holding of factual beliefs that differ from the orthodox factual beliefs will necessarily result in — or cause — different ethical beliefs and different ethical conduct.

One factual belief that is assumed to have a very strong influence on ethical beliefs — and by progression on ethical principles and conduct — is the factual belief structure of religion that includes belief in a divine judge who observes all human actions and will reward or punish those actions as they deserve in the afterlife. The social utility theory of religion assumes that this factual belief promotes ethical conduct. But while this is certainly true in many instances, in many others it is not. Almost every person who holds this factual belief has on innumerable occasions violated the rules of ethical conduct promoted by the religion — obviously due to influences other than this particular factual belief. These violations of religious ethical beliefs are called sins, and the fact that they are so common even among those who hold the factual belief that they will result in punishment is an indicator of how undependable factual beliefs are as a determinant of ethical conduct when other — and frequently stronger — influences are present.

The persecution of deviant factual beliefs, and the practice of making ethical judgments about persons based on their factual beliefs, is a common characteristic of intolerant ideologies. Ironically, these ideologies often seem more inclined to ethically condemn a person for deviant factual beliefs than for deviant ethical beliefs. The Christian religion was particularly influential in establishing this practice in the Western world, a practice contrary to the Western humanistic philosophical tradition which judged a person’s character or ethical qualities solely on the basis of their ethical beliefs and values, not their factual beliefs. Nonconformist factual beliefs (or disbeliefs) provoked much harsher persecution by the Church than deviant ethical beliefs, for it was upon factual beliefs (including concepts of the afterlife, the Creation, God, resurrection, etc.), not ethical beliefs, that the Christian religion was based. Belief in the orthodox or prescribed factual beliefs was called “faith,” disbelief or non-belief — or the holding of different beliefs — was called “heresy.” Faith only applies to factual beliefs, not ethical beliefs. The great importance that Christianity attaches to faith both indicates and explains its emphasis on factual beliefs. (The Nicene Creed, the classic statement of the Christian faith, is a statement of factual belief.)

Over the course of the centuries of Christian ideological dominance innumerable “heretics” were persecuted for their different factual beliefs. The development of science was long retarded by this persecution, of which the case of the astronomer Galileo is only one of the more famous examples. In his time Christianity was defending its factual beliefs concerning the structure of the solar system. In more recent times its conflict with science has focused more on the major, age-old questions of Creation, such as the origins of the universe (cosmology) and the origins of life, in particular human life.

The intolerant and dogmatic secular ideologies that developed in the modern age continued the custom of making ethical judgments about factual beliefs, and persecuting — so far as it was in their power to do so — those factual beliefs that conflicted with their policies and goals. Science (especially as it relates to the study of genetics, human nature, and individual and racial inequalities, differences or diversity), economics and history have been the primary targets of this persecution of conflicting factual beliefs. The beliefs of established religious ideologies were enforced under the direction of a priesthood which presumed to dictate beliefs and values. The modern secular dogmatic ideologies behave in essentially the same intolerant manner. If they are “established” they are enforced by the police and judicial power of the government. If they are not established their means of control are less overt, but not necessarily less effective. In both cases the control is directed by what can be described as a secular ideological priesthood. If the ideology is established this “priesthood” is concentrated in the government. If the ideology is not established, its priesthood is concentrated in those positions which exercise the greatest degree of control over ideas, especially in academia and the communications and cultural media.

The Marxist ideology that held established status in the Soviet Union (1917-1991) was quite blatant in its control of scientific, economic and historical factual beliefs. In biology it held a dogmatic factual belief in both human equality and human malleability, and persecuted the factual belief — in the new science of genetics — in the existence of innate human characteristics that were both unequal and resistant to efforts to change them by external means. Its economic factual beliefs were dictated by arbitrary ethical beliefs and value judgments, and produced an economic system that condemned its practitioners to material impoverishment and eventually collapsed from its own inherent inner contradictions. In history it held a dogmatic factual belief in dialectical materialism, and forbade any historical interpretation or factual belief that deviated from this doctrine.

The dominant secular ideologies in the modern Western World have shared many beliefs in common with Marxism — which can often be traced to the same underlying ethical beliefs and value judgments — and have also tended to be dogmatic and intolerant, typically persecuting and repressing beliefs that conflicted with their own as far as it was in their power to do so. In particular, they have shared the factual belief in innate human biological or genetic equality — a version of egalitarianism that is quite different from the primarily ethical belief in human legal and political equality of Jefferson and many of the other philosophers of the Enlightenment. This factual belief had its beginnings in the pre-Darwinian era of science, before there was knowledge of evolution and genetics, and has persisted to the present in a continuous ideological line that has — with an intolerant dogmatism of religious intensity — opposed and sought to repress the development of conflicting factual beliefs by denouncing them on ethical grounds. The study of evolution and genetics, particularly as it relates to human racial diversity and differences, has been gravely retarded by the organized — and often institutional — intolerance, hostility and persecution it has encountered whenever it has challenged the dogmatic factual beliefs — and the values and goals they support — of the prevailing ideological orthodoxy.

In history, as in science, the same secular ideological elements are dominant, and promote those historical factual beliefs that tend to support their position while seeking to persecute and repress those historical beliefs — or disbeliefs — that differ from their own. Again, as in the scientific fields of evolution and genetics, their intolerance of conflicting historical factual beliefs typically assumes a posture of ethical judgment, and the holding of the deviant belief is condemned as immoral. Conformance to the prescribed (or “politically correct”) factual beliefs is required as a demonstration of good faith, and is often sustained by faith alone, as the critical faculties are suspended for the sake of moral respectability. In such an intellectual — or anti-intellectual — environment, where beliefs that disagree with the orthodox position are in effect forbidden as heresy, the pursuit of objective truth — in science or history — is effectively restricted to the factual beliefs deemed acceptable by the dominant ideology.

The requirement to conform, at least outwardly, to these orthodox factual beliefs, and accept the resulting limitations on intellectual freedom, or be condemned as immoral by the prevailing ideology, has a profound inhibiting effect on the free expression of factual beliefs. The intent of those engaging in the condemnation of factual beliefs on moral grounds can only be the enforcement of conformity to their own preferred factual beliefs by the repression of conflicting beliefs. Those academics, intellectuals or journalists who stray from the prescribed factual beliefs are likely to suffer adverse consequences in reprisal, and soon learn to hide their true beliefs in these matters, as do others who witness their plight. The situation is reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes , wherein the ability to see something (in this example nonexistent clothing) which did not really exist (belief or faith in the prescribed factual beliefs) was regarded as proof of virtue, and the inability to see (disbelief in the prescribed factual beliefs) was seen as proof of immorality, with the result that all pretended to see something which did not really exist, except for a child who was innocent of pretense. [Note 2]

In all this rush to ethical judgment of factual beliefs, ethical beliefs have received relatively little attention. This is ironic, for ethical beliefs and subjective values are usually the underlying cause, reason and motivation for this intolerance of nonconforming factual beliefs on ethical grounds. If nothing else, this should indicate the power and importance of ethical beliefs, and provide good reason why they should be placed at the center of attention.

The existence of rights is probably the best — and most positive — evidence for the power and importance of ethical beliefs. Rights are an ethical belief. Rights never existed until humans invented or created them. Humans created them because they had an ethical belief that they should exist. They had this belief because their values wanted rights to exist. These values were expressions of the needs and desires of human nature, or at least of the nature of those humans who created rights, as well as those who recognized and accepted what they created, whose reaffirmation of the existence of rights in each generation has been so effective that many take their existence for granted, mistakenly believing rights to be a matter of fact rather than of ethics. But they are a matter of ethics, and of values, a creature — or creation — of ethical beliefs and value judgments, a grand ethical edifice that depends on a consensus of belief to keep its structure intact, without which it would collapse. That is why rights have been so seldom recognized in the past (or in the present), why they have so often been gained only at great cost and after difficult struggle, and why they must be vigilantly guarded to prevent their loss.

To achieve a consensus of acceptance and achieve recognition, rights should meet certain criteria. Not all rights — or assertions of rights — are equally valid. Some are arbitrary and capricious, applied selectively or unequally, granted to some but not to others by a double or multiple standard of application. Valid rights apply equally to all, by one common standard of application, and can be granted to all, for their possession by some does not require their denial to others. It is this reciprocity in the recognition of rights, by which one party recognizes for others the same rights they want recognized for themselves, that is the basis for the consensus of acceptance upon which the existence of rights depends.

Not all rights are equally important. Some rights take priority over others, and those of the foremost priority may be referred to as primary rights. Primary rights are the most fundamental and are founded on the most basic and universal human existential needs and desires. First among these is the right to life. It is the right upon which all others depend, and without which all others would have no meaning. This right includes the right to the conditions required for life, without which the right to life would be meaningless. To deny the right to the conditions required for life is to deny the right to life. Next, but scarcely less important, is the right of a living entity to control its own life, the right to be free, to self-determination, independence and liberty, to sovereignty over its own existence, to be its own master and subject to no will but its own.

The philosophers of the natural law tradition of Locke and Jefferson took a great ethical step forward when they recognized and advocated these primary rights. Like all valid ethical concepts they found a ready and wide acceptance among the populace, who were predisposed by their existing ethical beliefs and values — based on their cultural heritage and traditions and, the natural philosophers believed, their nature — to understand and practice them. These primary rights were called natural rights by the philosophers of the natural law tradition who affirmed their existence because they believed they were derived from human nature, not created by government legislation. With the recognition of, or ethical belief in, these primary rights, humanity rose to a higher level of ethical existence and civilization.

From the beginning these primary or natural rights were recognized not only for individual living beings, but for the living populations which are the larger whole of which individuals constitute the parts — namely peoples, nations and races. The early natural law documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, explicitly affirmed and promoted the rights of nations and peoples to independence and liberty. This ethical belief has continued to grow and develop, so that in our own time the right of a people, nation or ethnic group to independence and self-determination is a long-established principle of international law and morality. Its influence was instrumental in the dissolution of the European colonial empires following the Second World War, whereby the subject non-European peoples gained their independence from European rule.

Yet while the study and advocacy of individual rights has flourished, the study and advocacy of national, ethnic or racial rights has languished since the dissolution of the European colonial empires. Indeed, the influence of a global movement to minimize and eliminate human particularities, diversity and differences has discouraged and inhibited the further development and recognition of rights for population groups. Also, where national, ethnic and racial rights have been upheld they have frequently been applied selectively and unequally, by a double standard, granted to some but not to others.

Since the primary rights of races or peoples are a matter of great importance — a matter in fact of life and liberty — they should be clearly described, affirmed and recognized for all human racial or ethnic populations. Those rights that pertain to life and liberty, and the conditions required for life and liberty, are primary rights. Those other alleged rights which are not essential to life or liberty, and particularly those which conflict with the rights of other peoples to life and liberty, are secondary rights, and should yield when they conflict with primary rights.

The United Nations Organization, soon after its founding in the aftermath of the terrible human destruction of the Second World War, produced a number of documents which gave increased legal recognition and standing to the ethical concept of racial rights. These documents addressed the right of a people to both life and liberty (independence or self-determination), the first responding to allegations of the commission of genocide during the recently concluded conflict, the second responding to the growing demands of colonized or subject peoples for freedom, and recognizing their aspirations as legitimate. The following passage, taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica, describes some of the provisions of the U.N. document which sought to define and prohibit genocide, and which gave effective recognition to the right of every race to life and the conditions necessary for its continued existence.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , which was approved by the General Assembly in 1948 and went into effect in 1951, genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of peace or of war (distinguishing it from crimes against humanity which are acts committed in connection with crimes against peace, or war crimes) and under its terms “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are also made punishable. Perpetrators may be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals. One of the results of the convention has been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an internal matter (“a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction”) but a matter of international concern.

This document was, in theory, a great step forward in the recognition and promotion of the ethical concept of racial rights, but in practice it has been applied rarely and selectively, and ignored whenever those with the power to ignore it found it to be inconsistent with their own goals. Also, it has received relatively little publicity and has therefore had little effect on the public conception of racial rights. In particular, its definition of genocide as including means of racial destruction other than the actual mass murder of individuals is a critical breakthrough for the concept of racial rights, recognizing that racial destruction can be, and has been, caused by means other than actual mass murder. This is a concept that has certainly not yet been widely appreciated or understood in the mass culture, nor widely publicized in the mass media.

The not-so-benign neglect of racial rights is a luxury humanity can ill afford if human racial diversity is to be valued and preserved. The recognition, affirmation and defense of racial rights — particularly the primary racial rights to life and liberty, or independence — is also a recognition, affirmation and defense of the value and importance of human life and human racial diversity. Human rights include racial rights, for races are the evolutionary branches or divisions of humanity. If the diverse races of humanity are to coexist and share the planet earth together they must first agree to recognize, affirm and defend the right of all races to exist . Humanity needs to adopt a concept of racial relations that is based on the principle of racial rights, permitting the different races to share the earth, their common home, together by assuring their secure possession of their own racially exclusive homelands or countries where they will enjoy the conditions of geographic separation and reproductive isolation required for their continued existence. The mutual agreement or understanding to adopt and practice a concept of racial relations based on the principles of racial rights and preservation, promoting both the coexistence and continued existence of the different races of humanity, is here referred to as the Racial Compact .

The racial rights submitted below for recognition, affirmation and defense are all primary rights as they are concerned either with the right of all races to life — including the right to the conditions required for continued life — or the right of all races to control their own life and destiny — to freedom, independence and self-determination. They are also ethical beliefs, based on both value judgments and factual beliefs concerning the existence of races and the conditions required for their preservation (continued existence) and well-being. Finally, they are also inalienable rights, as their alienation would mean the end of life and liberty. Taken together they can be regarded as a Charter of Racial Rights, the essential foundation of the Racial Compact. They are as follows:

  1. All races have a right to be unique and different, to be themselves, and to love, value and be proud of what they are.
  2. All races have a right to have their existence and identity recognized, respected and protected, to define, affirm and celebrate their existence and identity, and to promote their legitimate rights and interests.
  3. All races have a right to racial life, a right to live, a right to exist as what they are and preserve what they are, a right to exist as a separate form of life, and a right to the conditions they require for continued life, existence and evolution.
  4. All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races.
  5. All races have a right to their own living space or territory, to possession of their own racial homeland, to exist within secure borders, to have and hold their own country, separate from and exclusive of other races, as a condition required for both their continued life and independence.
  6. All races have a right to self-government, to their own sovereign and fully independent government to govern their own country, their own life and existence, and determine their own future.
  7. All races have a right to the affections and loyalties, love and care of their members, and this right takes precedence over any ideology — or system of beliefs and values — that would promote disaffection or alienation of loyalties, or censure racial love and caring.
  8. All races have a right to exclusive control over the creation, upbringing, development and education of their own children, to control over their own reproduction — the renewal of their racial life, the transmission of their genes and culture to successor generations — free of interference by other races.
  9. All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture and replacement.
  10. All races have a right to the material product of their own creation, and to use that product for their own benefit, free of any claim upon it by other races.

These rights apply equally and by the same standard to all human races. No race, regardless of its status as either a majority or minority, has a right to violate the above primary and inalienable rights of any race. There is no such thing as minority or majority rights, only racial rights, which are exactly the same regardless of demographic status as a racial minority or majority. All races, whatever their relative numbers, possess the same rights as listed above, including the same right to life and the conditions required for life, to their own territory or homeland, to their own government, and to racial liberty, independence, self-determination and control of their own existence. The designation of a racial group as a majority or minority does not grant it a special status that permits it to deny or violate the rights of another race. No group, whether a majority or minority, has a right to deny or violate the right of another race to the conditions it requires for racial life, liberty and independence, or to its own territory and government. Therefore, no race has a right to be in the living space or territory of another race, or to be involved in the government of another race, as the first violates the racial right to a separate and racially secure homeland, and the second violates the racial right to independence, sovereignty and self-determination. The rights of a racial minority are the same as those of a racial majority, as listed above, including the right to their own separate and independent country and government.

The recognition and defense of the racial rights listed above requires support for certain other related ethical beliefs, values, policies and positions, and the practice of certain ethical principles, which include the following:

  1. Support for the ethical belief or principle that no race should be a slave or servant to another, that all races are an end in themselves and not a means to the ends of others, that they should serve and benefit their own ends and not the ends of others, and that no race should interfere with or unduly influence the affairs or development of another.
  2. Opposition to any and all doctrines or forms of racial supremacy, dominance or mastery, whereby one race is supreme, dominant or master over another, and rules over, governs, dominates or controls another, whether in whole or in part, totally or partially, overtly or covertly, by force or by guile.
  3. Support for the moral principle of reciprocity as the basis of racial relations, recognizing the same rights for all races (the”Racial Golden Rule”).
  4. Opposition to all forms of invasion, migration or movement, whether forceful or peaceful, by members of one race into the established and recognized living space, territory, country or homeland of another.
  5. Opposition to and rejection of all claims made for transfer of wealth from one race to another, or claims for material support made by one race on another, either as reparations for alleged past wrongs or for any other reason.
  6. Rejection of the concept of “collective guilt,” which holds all members of a racial, religious, national or ethnic group responsible and guilty for the wrongs committed by some members of the group, and thus both responsible for reparations and subject to punishment.
  7. Opposition to any and all forms of genocide or racial destruction or diminishment, whether with or without the consent or cooperation of its victims, whether inflicted by other races, self-inflicted, or a combination of both, including the following:
  • Any action, policy, value system or condition which prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful reproduction of a race.
  • Any action, policy, value system or condition which denies a race the conditions it needs for its continued life or well-being, especially the condition of multiracialism which denies a race the condition of racial isolation it needs for its successful reproduction free from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture.
  • Any action, policy or process of racial dispossession, displacement or replacement whereby members of one race move, or are moved, into the established, clearly defined and recognized living space, territory or homeland of another race and dispossess, displace or replace it.
  • Any action, policy, process or condition which is the result of human action and has the effect of lessening or diminishing the existence of a race, or altering, distorting or diluting its racial traits and characteristics, in the short term or the long term, in the existing generation or in the course of the generations to come.
  • Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the racially destructive practice of racial intermixture.
  • Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which has the effect of taking persons away from their race, in mind or in body, physically or in alienation of affections or loyalties, and transferring them, or their affections and loyalties, to another race.
  • Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the continuation or renewal of racial life.
  • Any use of allegations of past wrongs to deny a race its present or future vital rights and interests, the conditions it needs to live and preserve its existence, especially its own exclusive territory and its separation and independence from other races.

The ethical belief in rights, including racial rights, has an effect on political, social and cultural ethics and values. In particular, it requires government to recognize and defend the rights believed in as part of its fundamental purpose. It also expects the dominant or “mainstream” social and cultural institutions to affirm and support these rights. Therefore, the ethical belief in racial rights promotes the following ethical beliefs and principles concerning political, social and cultural institutions:

  1. The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of government is to serve and preserve the race, to defend its separateness and independence, to serve its interests, especially its vital or life-essential interests, and preserve it from dilution, diminishment or extinction by intermixture with, or replacement by, other races. Therefore, when a government becomes destructive of this end, or harmful to this purpose, when it becomes racially oppressive by denying the race its vital rights — the conditions of independence, separation and reproductive isolation required for its continued life — or when it threatens, endangers or violates the vital rights or interests of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the change of that government.
  2. The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of a socially, culturally and politically dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion, or system of beliefs and values, is to serve and promote the welfare, well-being, health and best interests of the race, especially its vital or life-essential rights and interests, including its successful reproduction, and to act to preserve its existence. Therefore, when a dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion becomes destructive or harmful to this end or purpose, or when it promotes the violation of the vital rights and interests of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the change of the dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion.
  3. The belief that the primary purpose of an international organization is to promote the Racial Compact and uphold the Charter of Racial Rights, promoting the coexistence and continued existence of the diverse human races by protecting the reproductive isolation, geographic separation and political independence of races and preventing the violation of the rights, independence or separateness of one race by another.

Racial independence, sovereignty and self-determination are concerned with the right of a race to exercise control over its own life, existence, future, evolution and destiny. Racial independence is cultural and economic as well as political and biological. To truly control its own life a race must also exercise exclusive and sovereign control over its culture, history, art and myths, its self-image, soul, heart and mind, its view of its past, present and future, its purpose and destiny, nature and identity. No race can be truly free if another race exercises control over it, in whole or in part, in any of these areas.

Sovereignty resides in a people or race, not in a government. It is a people or race that has a destiny, that is a living part of life, nature and existence, a natural entity. Government is an artificial entity created by a people or race to serve its ends, and in itself has no destiny, and without the people or race has no purpose. The sovereignty of a government is derived from the people or race, the branch of life or Creation, that it serves. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. When its actions and policies become destructive of the proper end or purpose of government, when it works against the vital or life-essential interests of the people or race it was created to serve, and upon service to whom its legitimacy depends, it becomes illegitimate and loses its ethical justification for existence.

The aforementioned rights and ethical beliefs, values and principles are consistent with — and can be regarded as a logical extension, expansion and development of — the ethical, political and intellectual tradition of Western culture. This tradition includes opposition to any and all forms of totalitarianism or dictatorship, and support for democratic political institutions and individual rights, freedoms and protections, including freedom of speech and expression, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of belief, creed, religion and conscience. The ethical belief in racial rights extends the ethical concept of human rights to explicitly include, recognize and respect the rights of human races as well as individuals.

This is a logical and necessary development, for the race is the whole of which the individual is a part, and that which is destructive of the whole is also destructive of its parts. The true interests of the individual are intimately connected to, and consistent with, the interests of its race in a natural mutuality or commonality of interest. They are joined together by the bonds of biological relationship — sharing the same genes, the basis of their physical being — and the “mystic chords of memory” from thousands of generations of common ancestry and evolution.

For an individual to deny their race is to deny themselves, their place and role in nature, where they came from and what they are, the cause of their existence as well as the greater purpose of their existence. Yet that is what they are asked, taught, conditioned and expected to do by the currently dominant ideology, and to believe — ethically and factually — that this denial is right and true. The ethical beliefs and values of the dominant ideology deny racial rights, oppose the existence of different races and human racial differences and diversity, and promote policies that are destructive of that existence. Its goal is a world without different races and without racial differences and diversity.

Humanity has reached a point in its development — technological and moral — where racial rights are required for the preservation of its racial diversity. The continued existence of certain racial groups is dependent upon the implementation of the Racial Compact and the principles of racial rights upon which it is based. These principles have not been recognized or practiced in the past, nor are they yet in effect in the present. [Note 3] They have not yet been recognized, affirmed, protected and put into effect by the dominant cultural, social and political institutions. At this time they are only an ethical concept, idea or belief. They will exist in actual fact only when enough people hold the ethical belief that they should exist, want them to exist, and affirm and assert their existence, thereby willing them into existence.

This process depends on both ethical beliefs and values. People want something to exist when they regard its existence as a valuable, important and desirable part of life and existence. Therefore racial rights will exist only when enough people regard them as important and desirable. To do that they must first regard races and what they represent as valuable, important and worth preserving — their own race in particular, but also other races and racial differences and diversity in general. If they do they will make racial rights, and the Racial Compact, a fact.

That will be a great step forward for humanity. It will replace the ages-old rule of “the survival of the fittest” — a condition of existence that is the antithesis of civilization, and which civilization has progressively sought to replace — with the values and concepts of racial rights as the governing principle of racial relations, affirming and protecting the right of every race to life and liberty, existence and independence. That will be the world of the Racial Compact, a world safe for human racial diversity.

Footnotes:

1. Orlando Patterson, Freedom , Vol. I: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture(BasicBooks, 1991), pp. 41-42.

2. In the sciences it is presently considered immoral to have a factual belief in racial differences, diversity or variation in mental traits that are genetic in origin (i.e., created by divergent evolution) or, in other words, a factual disbelief in the prescribed factual belief in racial genetic equality, sameness, non-variation or non-diversity, at least with regard to mental traits. In history it is currently considered immoral to have a factual disbelief — in whole, in part, or in degree — in the persecution or victimization certain groups claim to have suffered, or in the claims made by certain groups that notable persons or peoples of the past belonged to their race. These factual beliefs (or disbeliefs) are not regarded as factual error, but as ethical error. They are not recognized as factual beliefs, but as ethical flaws, and are therefore not addressed on their factual merits, or refuted on factual grounds, but are declared to be unfit for consideration for ethical reasons. The forbidden factual beliefs are condemned as evil by the dominant ideology, and those holding them are condemned as immoral, thus ethically justifying the repression of the nonconforming beliefs and the persecution of those who hold them. The ethical beliefs of the persons holding the ethically-condemned factual beliefs are not considered relevant to this process of moral judgment, as the dominant ideology is much more concerned with maintaining a conformity of factual belief. For example, regardless of whether the scientist who holds a factual belief in racial genetic differences or inequalities holds an ethical belief that all races have equal rights, or whether the historian who holds a factual belief that certain allegations of past persecution are not true holds an ethical belief that such persecution is morally wrong, both are still condemned as immoral for their factual beliefs.

Nowhere is the enforcement of factual belief by ethical judgment and intimidation more pronounced than in academia. If this is considered surprising, it should be remembered that, historically, universities and other institutions of higher education have more commonly been centers for the promotion and enforcement of ideological orthodoxy and conformity of belief than for the promotion of intellectual and academic freedom. The perception of universities as havens of free thought, belief and speech, which we cherish so highly, is a very fragile ideal promoted by the ideology of classical liberalism, and often violated by the very persons who claim to hold it most dear. So called “political correctness” is merely the re-establishment of the illiberal norm by the rise of a new dogmatic and intolerant ideology to a position of dominance.

3. Therefore it is not constructive to attempt to impose these principles on the past, or to judge past generations by their standard, or to dwell obsessively on past deeds which violated them. Past generations were in a different situation from the present, and the ex post facto application of current values, standards and ideologies upon the past do it an injustice and our understanding a disservice. But what was then was then and what is now is now. Our concern should be with the present and the future, with where we go from here, not with the deeds or misdeeds of the past.

It’s You or Them When The Dreamers Dream

by Jonathan Peter Wilkinson on January 19, 2018

There is no diversity with Freedom of Association. Under forced integration, there is an absence of armed conflict, only as a delaying action until sufficient numbers can be imported to overpower you.

It is common knowledge that people who are not part of an indigenous culture will feel they are denied opportunities in direct proportion to the strength of that culture. Therefore, when given a vote, they will exercise economic and social self-interest by voting to weaken or destroy that culture.

The Drexel University Professor who asked for White Genocide as a Christmas Present in 2016 was just stupid enough to be honest. Our current US President understands this and when possible, he pushes back.

The Trump administration has declined to renew the temporary protected status of Salvadoran immigrants to the US, giving an estimated 263,000 people less than two years to leave the country or be deported. The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation has allowed immigrants from El Salvador to live and work in the US since 2001, when a pair of earthquakes crippled much of the Central American nation.

There are two aspects of this story that require further flushing out. First of all, this was supposed to be a temporary amnesty starting in 2001. It was for people specifically displaced as a result of a natural disaster. Once the disaster was cleaned up, there was no legitimate reason for 263,000 non-citizens to be given free reign in the US. Even El Salvador doesn’t need fifteen years to rebuild housing. These people could have returned 10 years ago.

But the earthquake was an excuse, the point was to get these people into the US, not away from any earthquake. There is a specific reason why a fifteen year vacation in Mexico, Argentina or Brazil was not acceptable. It just had to be the Good Ol’ US of A! Why make that sort of a paranoid statement? Well, President Trump has been forced to remove 60,000 Haitians after a 2010 earthquake, and about 60,000 more Nicauraguans and Hondurans who were given temporary status after a hurricane in 1998.

All three revocations have been met with similar types of protests. ¡It’s simply heartless and cruel to send hordes of foreigners who disrespect our country while loudly proclaiming allegiance to their own back home to the Motherland! There is only one cure for homesickness and that would be home. Yet this sort of thing, even when it fulfills both the letter and the condition of the law under which these people have been brought in, is seen as cruel and inhumane.

Amanda Baran, a consultant to the Immigrant Legal Resource Centre, called Monday’s decision “reckless and heartless”.
“El Salvador is one of the world’s most dangerous countries, and will be unable to absorb the return of these thousands of people whose lives are inextricably intertwined with those of ours here in the United States,” she said in a statement. Amnesty International also decried the decision, claiming the US “could be sending people to their deaths”.

Now Amanda Baran may or may not consider these “refugees” more or less than a paycheck. But if the Center For American Progress memorandum on DACA is accurate, these people are the new Hessians employed on behalf of the Amerikan Left. “Conservatives” who claim they can reason with La Raza, or that these people are Good Catholics who are natural conservatives, are deluded at best. At worst, they have put an industrial demand for cheap, transient labor over the needs and wants of citizenry born in their own nation. Maybe the mercenary Senator Jeff Flake has more in common with the aforementioned Hessians than I previously thought.

To understand why you can’t reason with La Raza or that these people are Good Catholics who are natural conservatives, here is what Malcolm X had to say on the subject of race relations from the logical and well-reasoned viewpoint of a minority.

This isn’t a crazy, illiterate or ignorant human being at all. He thinks, reasons lucidly and can only conclude that your cracka ass deserves a dirt nap from his point of view. There is no logical reason to think that well-spoken, clean-shaved and intellectually perspicacious “refugees” from Syria, Liberia or El Salvador would otherwise reason with respect to their own self-interest.

When the resistance to Donald Trump demands DACA, they are threatening to shut down a whole lot more than just THe Federal Government. Under the laws and regulations of our current system of forced integration; they have to go back or Amerika has to die in a bonfire. Which is it, Ladies and Germs?

5 Reasons Haiti Is Indeed A Shithole Country

Haiti is a disaster zone. It’s the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, and the epitome of a ‘failed state’. It’s a country founded upon the wholesale slaughter of 3,000-5,000 mostly innocent white French men, women and children following a 1804 massacre, and there is almost nothing attached to its name that could be considered an accomplishment other than being the ‘world’s first black Republic’.

In any case, Haiti has made it big in the news recently, due to President Trump deriding it and other African nations as “shithole countries“. He especially considers them poor sources of new immigrants to the United States, and that the country should be more open to countries like Norway, a nation which once sent 1/3rd of its population to the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

This article will present five reasons why President Trump is not racist in regards to his opinion on Haiti being a shithole country (facts are racist!), and will end with a strong argument that countries like Norway would indeed be far more preferencial sources of immigration to ensure U.S. prosperity. That is of course, if they even bothered to come. Norway by many measures is considered to be the most prosperous country in the world.

1. Dirt Cookies Are A Component Of National Cuisine

(0:22 – 0:42) “These patties are a grim reminder of just how poor this Caribbean nation is. They aren’t sweet, they’re hard to swallow, and add almost nothing in terms of nutrition. Because the cookies are actually made of dirt.”

(1:42 – 1:50) “This is literally dirt being prepared for humans to eat, on top of other dirt….and filth.”

Haiti is a country so wretchedly poor and lacking in any widespread agricultural competency that patties made out of dirt must be consumed by a substantial percentage of it’s population. Friggin’… dirt.

These nutritionally bankrupt “cookies” known as ‘Bon Bon Te’ often contain parasites and various other toxins, but many pregnant Haitian women astoundingly believe it has minerals that would be good for their baby.

2. “F” Grade Cleanliness And Personal Hygiene

Pigs rummaging through garbage in a section of Port-au-Prince (Port-a-Potty)

It’s hard to pigeonhole all of the developing world into one classification of substandard cleanliness and hygiene. For instance, while not quite up to western or Japanese standards, the streets and alleyways of much of Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Colombia, etc. tend to be adequately cleaned and maintained. Personal hygiene standards are also quite good in these countries despite being less-than-developed.

Places like Cambodia? Not quite so much, but they are getting better by the year.

Urban Haiti however, is a living monument to genuine I-don’t-give-a-fuckdom. You will see pigs rummaging through gigantic piles of refuse, people wading through trash covered waters, and the smells invading your nostrils will be repugnant and utterly offensive. To not call it a shithole, you would only be lying to yourself.

In fact, Haiti has such a bad reputation for filth and putrid hygiene standards that the capital of Port-au-Prince is jeeringly referred to as ‘Port-a-Potty’ by many visitors.

3. High Rates Of Crime And Civil Unrest

The U.S. State Department Is As “Racist” As Trump!

If you look at the top 20 countries of the global human development index, you will notice that a common characteristic they possess (beyond a majority population of Germanic Europeans and Northeast Asians) is that they have very low rates of capital crimes such as murder, in addition to being very politically stable.

You would be foolish to try and argue against high rates of crime and instability as major contributing factors to defining a country as a Trumpian shithole. Ask any educated person from some high crime and not-so-top 20 countries such as South Africa, Brazil, or Honduras why they might want to emigrate, and I guarantee you that wanting to raise a family or live in a much lower crime environment is high on their agenda.

The Haitian capital of Port-Au-Prince had a murder rate of 60.9 in 2012, which is incredibly high even by most third world standards. By comparison, the murder rate in Norway was just 0.56 in 2014. Now which of these two countries would you prefer as a source of immigration?

4. Widespread Environmental Rape Culture

An aerial view of the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, showing how badly that Haitians have raped their environment.

What’s the difference between campus “rape culture” in the United States and environmental rape culture in Haiti? The answer is that the problem actually exists in Haiti.

Once a section of the island of Hispaniola with astounding natural beauty and lush greenery, Haiti has gone through such rampant deforestation and environmental degradation that you can actually see the results from space. It is also entirely the result of human action from Haitians themselves, yet SJW’s will always insist that ‘white racism’ and/or the ‘legacy of colonialism’ has something to do with this travesty.

You can see from the NASA photograph that the substantially less shitholey neighbor of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, does a much better job of looking after it’s environment.

5. There Is Almost No Economic Mobility

(1:26 – 1:38) Desperate illegal immigrants from Haiti getting their first taste of racist white people in the USA.

If you weren’t born into substantial Haitian wealth, your chances of rising above their abject poverty are tied with much of sub-Saharan Africa for being among the worst in the world. Let’s just say that 99.5% of the locals probably don’t have much spare change to invest in cryptocurrency.

Haiti has a massive trade deficit, remittances are the primary source of foreign exchange, and any sort of skilled labor is a rare commodity in this “proud Republic” lying less than 1,500 kilometers away from Florida. There is not even really the chance of becoming a well-paid soccer star like a lot of poverty stricken youths in Brazil, Peru, Mexico, etc. could otherwise aspire to in their countries.

Haiti is a shithole, and that’s why so many people there are desperate to leave if they have either a chance or the resources. ‘White Supremacies’ like the USA, Canada, or France are dream destinations, while even the neighboring Dominican Republic offers a substantial leg up in living standards.

Conclusion

Hear that? SJW Senator Kamala Harris thinks that ESPECIALLY people from Haiti helped build the USA! 😀

Haiti is a bottom drawer source of migrants not just for the United States, but pretty much any other country in the Western hemisphere. The people have no skills to offer, they have low levels of English (or even Spanish) competency, they have high rates of crime, their cities look and smell horrible, and they hail from the country with the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS outside of Africa.

Much in the same way that low-crime, clean, and orderly Northeast Asian countries are wise for not having much of an immigration policy at all, it would be completely anti-humanist for the well being of citizens of the United States to tolerate the idea of Haiti being a “strength” building source of diversity.

Norwegians on the other hand, are the most common ethnic background of people in the U.S. state of North Dakota. It has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, the people are incredibly friendly, they possess a strong protestant work ethic, and North Dakota, where many Americans with Norwegian ancestry reside, is the most fiscally responsible state.

President Trump is 100% correct on the Norway-versus-Haiti debacle. New immigrants from the former would help maintain 1st world living standards, while the latter would inevitably turn Tampa into ‘Tampon’.

NUMBER #1 reason and most obvious

Its a shit-hole because the people who live there are black.

Responding to the Cult of Sargon

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 11, 2017

Sargon bringing a friend home to meet his wife, colorized 2018

As we reported yesterday, Sargon of Akkad has declared himself the leader of a cult – “The Liberalists,” he’s called it – and declared that one of the main purposes of his cult is to fight us, the Alt-Right.

I don’t have to tell you what comes next.

I am going to lay down some basic points to cut through this gibberish he is pushing. Not that you don’t all already see through it. But I want to catalog it together for you, so you’ve got all the angles you need when addressing Sargon or the members of his new cult.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

He appears to be hinging his entire cult doctrine on some sort of as-of-yet undefined form of radical individualism.

This is not something that most people actually even comprehend – and I am one of those people.

He’s doing an emperor’s new clothes thing here, acting like there is some fundamental distinction between his beliefs about the individual and our beliefs about the individual, but he doesn’t break that down into any detail, because the only thing he is actually saying is that he believes that nonwhites should be treated as individuals and we do not.

In an all-white country, we wouldn’t infringe on people’s rights or outlaw private property. In fact, people would have a lot more rights than they have now. The only rights that would be curtailed are the new rights that have been given to people by the Jews over the last few decades, such as homosexuality and miscegenation – and the reason we would be curtailing these rights is that giving individuals these rights infringes on the rights of other individuals to not have to deal with the consequences of these actions.

In a white America, individual families would have the right to go out in public and not have to see men kissing one another.

Because the idea that an no individual’s decisions affect other individuals in harmful ways is nonsensical. It is just a goofy, dumb claim.

Beyond sexual things, I don’t really have any idea what he is on about. The only form of extreme “collectivism” that I can really imagine is a Marxist collective, where hierarchy is removed through economic scheming. We do not want to ban the free market (nationally, obviously globalism is negative), we don’t want to take away private property.

We want people to be able to think freely, we just don’t want foreign groups in our countries aggressively pushing for the interests of a foreign people.

Furthermore, the concept of a “collective” is basic human nature and the idea of an “individualist” is really a myth. Every individual person exists as a part of a society, short of a hermit living alone in a cave. Everyone is in a collective now. Sargon just formed a new one. What happens when you use multiculturalism and sexual deviancy to remove the main collective of a cohesive dominant culture is that people form new, smaller collectives, and society atomizes.

Churches, universities, hobbies, etc. are all collectives.

We all remember high school, where the kids who made a point to be different tended to all be similar to one another. When I was in high school at the turn of the millennium, there were gothics – they all claimed to want to be different, yet they all dressed alike and were interested in the same things.

This goes back to our basic biology, which is tribal in nature. Our brains are hardwired to come together with a group and to adopt the same symbols, beliefs and behaviors of that group. You cannot disprove that, because it is an obvious fact. And again: the hilarious thing here is that Sargon’s own “scene” (now an official cult) proves this point. What were called the “skeptics,” which he is now calling “the Liberalists,” all think the same things.

“What if the Child Consents?”

Sargon made a name for himself by deconstruction what SJWs were saying. He was simply attacking them, breaking down why everything they are saying is stupid.

Picking apart something someone else is saying – in particular when it is something as stupid as what SJWs say – is very different than advocating FOR something.

It appears as though he hadn’t really put too much thought into what he was advocating for until he realized that the Alt-Right was advocating for something and that in order to address what we are saying he has to be advocating for something. He had vague ideas relating to the philosophy of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but even though I have my disagreements with this particular philosophy, it doesn’t even really work in the way he is trying to use it. These were white men who would appalled at the idea of a multi-racial society.

All of these men he cites were a product of white society and formed their philosophy in that context.

So, in order to fill-in the blanks of his advocacy position, he simply decided to adopt modern extremist libertarian positions – specifically because that critique can be used against any system whatsoever. In his debate with Richard Spencer, he was asking him to solve problems that have existed for centuries in relation to the structure of governments, the social order and the management of economies.

But how far is he willing to go with “freedom of the individual”?

For instance, does he believe in legalizing hard drugs? Voluntary indentured servitude?

That parents have a right to starve their children to death?

Does he want to eliminate all social safety nets?

Most importantly: what if the child consents?

Of course, he will claim he is not an anarcho-capitalist, but that is the line of argument he is using when he claims that the Alt-Right can’t work because no ordered system ever can work.

The reason he can’t use the purely classical liberal line against the Alt-Right is that any of those arguments can be easily addressed. Again: we have a position on individual rights, private property and free markets that is very easy to grasp and very difficult to argue against, so he’s started using arguments from a system he claims he doesn’t even support just to give his critique the illusion of substance.

Pointing this out demonstrates that he is not actually proposing anything – that his only concern is with not being a racist. And it is easy to point out by simply forcing him to address the extremist libertarian positions he is arguing from.

No One Wants to Die for an Abstract Concept

Sargon seems to underestimate just how serious the state of the world is for most people. Our society has effectively already collapsed.

And the last thing anyone wants to fight for is some weird abstract idea that no one really even understands.

Sargon is saying “yes, race exists and yes, multiculturalism has had a negative effect on white people – but we can’t address that issue because of this abstract concept. Instead, we have to fight to preserve the abstract concept.”

Well, fighting for abstract concepts is for people who are not backed up against the wall. It is simply the realm of the hobby to go to war over a philosophical ideal.

In the 1960s, people fought for all of this “liberation” that Sargon is defending because there was no risk. The baby boomers lived very comfortably, so fighting for “freedom” was just like a game.

Things have changed. We are now in an extreme situation, where people are very alienated, they are struggling just to survive. People are ready to put their entire being into a fight for a better future.

The only things that are actually worth giving your entire being to fight for are things that exist in real life.

At one point in his recent stream with Mister Metokur, Sargon did mention along with his desire to fight for an abstraction that he doesn’t want trannies teaching his kid to cut his dick off. That is the only real life thing he mentioned. The rest of it was vague abstractions, which again, he hasn’t defined.

Presumably, he also wouldn’t want a daughter to be sex trafficked by a Pakistani rape-gang. He doesn’t want his house burned down by a roving pack of Africans. He doesn’t want to be forced into third-world living conditions. He doesn’t want to feel like a stranger in his own home, being surrounded by people that speak hundreds of different languages. He doesn’t want Britain to become an Islamic state. And he doesn’t want to be arrested for talking about any of these things.

So even if you eliminate race from your perception entirely, the effects of race do not just magically disappear. And the idea that vague notions of “individual liberty” and other abstract ideas are going to hold this multiracial circus show together is utterly nonsensical. We are dealing with real life problems that require real life solutions.

And when you are living with real life, reality is the only thing that matters.

What is the Point of Multiculturalism?

Sargon still has failed to explain the positive of why you would want brown people in your country. Instead, he only puts forward negative arguments against people arguing for white countries – it’s mean, it’s immoral, but they have rights now because they are already here, you can’t even tell for sure if someone is 100% genetically white, etc.

But the question remains: can he name a single benefit derived from having nonwhites in our countries?

Because if not, his entire negative argument of why it would be wrong to remove them is meaningless.

He seems to at least tacitly admit that multiracialism has detrimental effects (even if he claims that these effects somehow have no relationship to race), but hinges everything on the alleged immorality of removing them.

Imagine if you get shot and you’re bleeding out, but there is a lot of traffic on the road to the hospital: is your solution going to be to stay and home and bleed to death? And then if a family member is like “hey, you’d better do something, you’re going to bleed to death,” do you start arguing with them about how it is impossible to get to the hospital and so you just have to make the best of bleeding to death?

If we accept that multiculturalism is an extreme disaster, then we need to work on fixing the situation – not to find some impossible method of dealing with an unbearable situation.

That’s All I’ve Got

Hopefully in the near future Sargon will be releasing an agenda of some kind. It is currently frustrating to critique him given that he has put so little forward with regards to his vision for society. But this is what we’ve got right now.

Andy Warski has announced that Richard Spencer and Sargon will be having a second debate – this time with Mike Enoch included.

So that is going to be good.

Honestly, I’m not sure how Sargon will be able to continue with this agenda after that. I think the “I’m sorry I performed so poorly in the debate – I am now the leader of a cult” trick will only work once.

“Race is Real” for Normies

Diversity Macht Frei

January 6, 2018

In case you’re ever caught arguing with friends, family or strangers on the internet and sometimes struggle to convince or prove that race is real and meaningful, you can explain it to them thus:

If race didn’t exist then genetic markers would be found spread randomly throughout the entire globe, a “random genetic distribution” in other words. Furthermore, if it were the case that genetic markers were not concentrated or localised to specific geographical areas, then a geneticist or forensic scientist would not be able to determine someone’s ancestral origins just from their genome. Yes, a bit of DNA can be used to tell what your racial origins are with a frightening degree of accuracy.

However, because genetic markers concentrate (or cluster) in specific geographic locations and populations, it proves that races exist. This is known as a “clustered genetic distribution”.

This is a very basic explanation but sufficient for most debates/arguments. Especially for the claim that “Race is a social construct” that was popularised way back in the 1920s by ((((((Franz Boas)))))), before genetic studies had come on the scene and before the human genome had been mapped. SJWs and people with an irrational hatred of whites quote an anthropologist from the 1920s, an era from where most ideas are now considered obsolete. They used to take radium supplements back then too but we know now that ionising radiation is highly dangerous.

((((((Boas)))))), as pointed out in the comments, was also a fraud

Recently, two physical anthropologists reanalyzed ((((((Boas))))))’s head-form data. They report that ((((((Boas))))))—now considered the founding father of modern American anthropology—was wrong. Their findings may lead to a new understanding of human races and the origin of certain ancient skeletons, including the recently discovered Kennewick Man, whose cranial characteristics have stirred controversy among anthropologists.

Of course, heritability is also meaningful but that’s a topic for another day. Just expressing the belief doesn’t mean to imply one race is superior to another (but we know the truth), so you can tell them you’re not a racist for stating it. This seems to be the main argument SJWs like to throw at people, as if race being a social construct somehow justifies white genocide.

For further reading:

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/06/race_is_real_what_does_that_mean_for_society_108642.html

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/why-race-realism-makes-more-sense-than-magic-dirt-theory/

Iran’s Attorney General Names CIA Mastermind Of Iran Protests

Iran’s Attorney General is accusing a US-Israeli-Saudi think thank of masterminding the Iran protests:

“TEHRAN, Jan. 04 (MNA) – Attorney General Montazeri on Thu. revealed that the mastermind behind the eruption of protests in the country was a US-Israeli-Saudi think tank that had been plotting for the rallies since four years ago.

Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, Iran’s Attorney General, revealed the details about a think tank responsible for the week-long protests in several cities across the country, saying “the mastermind of the project was an American named Michael D’Andrea, former Chief of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center [current head of the Agency’s Iran Mission Center], and an operations room composed of three sides, namely the United States, Zionist regime and Al Saud, was formed for leading the unrest. The project was funded by Saudi Arabia and mainly planned by D’Andrea and an intelligence officer affiliated with [Israel’s intelligence agency] Mossad.”

He went on to add that the think tank conducted years of research and finally decided on launching campaigns inside Iran under the titles, ‘no to price hikes’, ‘no to paying bills’, and the campaign of the retired and those who lost their money in bankrupt financial institutes.

The think tank finally decided on executing the Libyan plan, i.e. moving from the margins toward the center, he added. …”

Last June, The New York Times ran an article about Michael D’Andrea called “C.I.A. Names the ‘Dark Prince’ to Run Iran Operations, Signaling a Tougher Stance”:

“WASHINGTON — He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.

Now the official, Michael D’Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.’s Iran operations, according to current and former intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the president took against Iran during his campaign.

Mr. D’Andrea’s new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said. The agency also recently named a new chief of counterterrorism, who has begun pushing for greater latitude to strike militants. …

But he has invoked his hard line on Iran in other ways. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has described the deal as a failure, and Mr. Trump has appointed to the National Security Council hawks eager to contain Iran and push regime change, the groundwork for which would most likely be laid through C.I.A. covert action.”

Asked whether Mr. D’Andrea’s appointment was a sign that the C.I.A. planned to take up a more aggressive line toward Iran, Mr. Eatinger said, “I don’t think it’s the wrong read.”

What do you think?

Is this Ayatollah Mike behind the Iran protests? I would say there is a pretty damn high chance given the timing and the 24/7 shilling for regime change by American politicians.

Note: Can you tell the difference between Donald Trump and Marco Rubio’s foreign policy?