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.


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.

The Psychological Toll Of Working In A Slaughterhouse

By Alanna Ketler

Many of us have a pretty strong connection with animals, we have dogs, cats, horses, guinea pigs and many other cuddly friends that we call our pets. But imagine for a second that a pig came up to you and rubbed his head on you the same way your kitty would, and then you had to kill it?

Those who work in slaughterhouses often view animals the same way we view our pets, but then they have to kill them – sometimes, thousands a day. The psychological toll this can have on a person is gravely underestimated, and the turn over rate for those who work in factory farms are the highest out of any other industry. Working in a slaughterhouse has been linked to a variety of disorders including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the lesser known mental illness called perpetration induced traumatic stress (PITS).

As the demand for meat goes up, so does the number of animals employees have to kill on a daily basis. It is very easy for us to block out of our minds because those of  us who eat meat do not have to make the connection from the live animal, to the slaughter, to the skinning, to the cutting, and to the packaging. It’s easy to leave out the middle man and have a disconnect from the actual life of the animal. A good question might be, if you had to kill the animal yourself and raise it in the same way it was raised in a slaughterhouse for the sole purpose of being killed, would you?

Who Actually Wants To Work On A Factory Farm?

This industry is not the most popular, and finding employees for factory farms isn’t necessarily easy, they are often illegal immigrants who are paid a very low wage. A consultant psychiatrist at the Nightingale Mental Health Hospital in London, Dr. Chi-Chi Obuaya told Metro.co.uk, that “We tend to think of PTSD as arising from a specific traumatic incident, usually among people who have had something inflicted upon them, As perpetrates of the violence, however, slaughterhouse workers experience something quite different.”

“We normally think about PTSD and trauma responses where someone has either been the victim, or they’ve witnessed something,” he explained. “So someone who’s been subjected to torture, somebody whose life has been threatened or has been in an area of conflict, and it’s arising in that situation. Another group would be people who’ve witnessed very traumatic things.”

“Clearly, this sort of [slaughterhouse] work is pretty brutal, and therefore there are two ways of looking at it,” he said. “We normally think about PTSD in relation to very discrete episodes of trauma. So there will be an event which has occurred on a particular day, and there’s the onset of symptoms following that, such as nightmares and flashbacks, which arise in the weeks and months following a trauma. So that’s how we tend to diagnose [PTSD] using our diagnostic manuals.”

“One of the things that is less well understood – and this is where this group, slaughterhouse workers, falls into – is repetitive trauma, and how that’s conceptualized. The understanding in psychiatric literature is still fairly limited, because we tend to model it around very discrete episodes.”

“So I would look at other groups for comparison – so someone who’s been entrapped and held captive against their will, may or may not be subjected to specific incidents of a life-threatening nature, but over a period of time there’s that repetitive trauma. I don’t want to use the word ‘low-grade’ – it’s not quite as dramatic, but it’s very pervasive. This kind of work falls into that category.”

What Previous Slaughterhouse Workers Have To Say

Ed Van Winkle was an employee of Morrell slaughterhouse in Sioux City, Iowa, and he was quoted saying the following at the Tyson Foods Annual Shareholder meeting in 2006,

The worst thing, worse than the physical danger [of on-the-job accidents] is the emotional toll,” Winkle said. “Pigs down on the kill floor have come up and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them – beat them to death with a pipe. I can’t care.”

Another man named Virgil Butler worked in a Tyson poultry plant for 5 years, and after leaving he became an anti-slaughter activist and decided to set up a sanctuary for rescued animals with his partner. Here’s what he had to say,

“The sheer amount of killing and blood can really get to you after a while,” he wrote on his blog The Cyberactivist in 2003. “Especially if you can’t just shut down all emotion and turn into a robot zombie of death. You feel like part of a big death machine. [You’re] pretty much treated that way as well. “

Sometimes weird thoughts will enter your head. It’s just you and the dying chickens. The surreal feelings grow into such a horror of the barbaric nature of your behaviour. You are murdering helpless birds by the thousands (75,000 to 90,000 a night). You are a killer.”

So, Why Is This Important?

When we consume meat, especially meat coming from factory farms, it tends to fall into the out of sight and out of mind category. Essentially, many of us are ignorant to what really goes on inside factory farms, and how these animals are not really living a healthy life or treated in a humane way. It clearly goes against our own human nature, and causes those who work in slaughterhouses psychological stress. We are raising and slaughtering animals at an extremely high rate to meet the demand, but in reality none of this is really necessary, and at the same time it’s destroying our planet.

This isn’t about going vegan, but if everyone made the decision to eat less meat, then raising and slaughtering animals in this way would not have to happen and as a result, they could live their lives freely on farms. Really, there is no humane way to kill another animal, it is a sentient being that is just as deserving of a life as your dog, cat, horse – or you.

Time to Drop the Jew Taboo: It’s Making Discussion of Russian History Impossible

Source: russia-insider.com

Charles Bausman, Russia Insider, 15 January 2018

Most people know about, but few are willing to condemn, the strict taboo in the media, of criticizing Jews as a group, using that term. One cannot even criticize a small subsection of Jews, a miniscule percentage of the Jewish population, even when they richly deserve it.

Obviously, this is a ridiculous way to run a publication whose object is to get to the truth, so I am writing this to explain why, from now on, the pages of Russia Insider will be open to articles which fairly and honestly address the influence of Jewish elites, including pointing out when it is malevolent, which it often is, and try to understand it and explain it, with malice towards none.

I have become convinced that unless we break this taboo, nothing will improve in the human catastrophe unfolding in geopolitics. Millions have died over the past 30 years, and if we want it to stop, and to avoid a cataclysm which seems to approach inexorably, we have to have the freedom to criticize those responsible. It is very clear to me, as it is to many others, that much of the guilt for this comes from Jewish pressure groups, particularly in the media.

I can see as an editor, that much of what is written about geopolitics in the ‘public square’, admirable though it may be in other respects, makes itself irrelevant by tiptoeing around this crucial issue.

I am a newcomer to the media world, unexpectedly thrust three years ago into the role of owner, publisher and editor of this fairly widely read publication. We get about 10 million visits per month across all of our platforms from a sophisticated audience, and we are widely followed by so-called ‘influencers’. We’ve made a big mark in a short time, and we did it by saying what others were not willing to say. Many subjects which we were the first to speak about on a major platform have now entered the mainstream.

Russia Insider is a grassroots phenomenon, and sometimes resembles a political movement as much as it does a publication. We exist solely because of small donations from readers. We get no funding from major donors, not to mention governments, foundations, or other organized groups. It is all private individuals. Our single largest donation over the past year was $5000, and the median gift is $30. We raised about $80,000 last year. This gives us the freedom to pretty much say what we want, something that can be said of very few publications, even in the alternative media space, most of whom are beholden to large donors.

I see everyday how one can influence the public agenda by addressing or ignoring certain topics. One really can make a difference, and I have tried to make a positive impact, as I understand it. It has been a remarkable education in the power of the media, including our relatively small publication, Russia Insider.

This taboo is the great exception. It really is quite extraordinary to realize that you can publish just about anything, except that. Almost everyone knows about the taboo, just as I did in my previous career in business, but it is another thing altogether to enforce it. I felt, until recently, compelled to do so. I felt that I was having my nose rubbed in it as I tried to make sense of world events.

Read the rest at Russia Insider.


UK: First Sex Doll Brothel/Shop is a Hit!


Daily Stormer
January 24, 2017

Still better than fucking a fat woman, I guess…

Wew… If these were like, actual sexbots that you couldn’t tell apart at a glance from a real woman, I’d sorta understand, but that’s not what these are.

They are literal dolls, who look like dolls and act like dolls (as in – they do nothing) and lotsa men want these.

Those are degenerates of course, but it’s still mainly women’s fault for being brainwashed by the kikes to the point where too many of them are unbearable to even be around, and more and more men start looking at overgrown Barbies as alternatives.


The UK’s first sex doll brothel has opened – and it is quite something.

Lovedoll UK opened the service after realising their customer’s wanted to ‘try before they buy’ the £2,000 dolls.

So for £100, people can now spend an hour with a plastic partner in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear.

So either some poor slob is cleaning these for minimum wage OR nobody’s cleaning them at all.

Just a heads up to anyone thinking about going on a trial.

Each room in the ‘brothel’, which is situated on an industrial estate, comes complete with a double bed, lubrication, condoms and of course the manikin.

Sounds like paradise.

And if clients enjoy the service, they’re then able to purchase their own doll (which can be designed to look like a partner, crush or a celebrity).

Does ((((((Anne Frank)))))) count as a celebrity?

If so, I’m totally getting one of these.

“Say oy vey for daddy, you little kike bitch!”

Graham, the owner of Lovedoll UK, said that the opening of the brothel has left ‘real life escorts’ concerned that they may be put out of business.

The 40-year-old said: ‘I have spoken to escort services before about bringing sex dolls into brothels – but they are scared.


‘I don’t know why they are, it may just require more of a vision than they have. It is more efficient – the sex dolls can pretty much run themselves.

‘Maybe they just don’t think that it’s viable, or that it would put real life escorts out of business.

‘If I found somewhere that was open enough to consider it then I would think about selling them a couple of my dolls.

Not everyone can be as visionary as guys who rent out humanoid cum buckets…

 ‘70% of guys aren’t bothered that the dolls have been used before.’



tfw you can’t even keep a plastic woman just for yourself

Graham says it is not just men who take an interest in the lifelike lovers.

In fact, many of his customers are women who make purchases in a bid to keep their husbands from cheating.


Because it’s easier than not being fat and obnoxious!

He also explained that men who find themselves in the ‘friendzone’ sometimes bring him photographs of their crushes for him to model a doll on.

That sounds perfectly healthy and sane.

He added: ‘I always knew that sex dolls were going to be normalised.

‘Some guys will buy one and some guys will get a whole harem of dolls.

‘Some men keep them for 24 hours and sell them straight back but some might keep them for 10 years and get married to them.

The company stocks an array of female dolls which can be chosen by body shape, breast size, and height.

Graham has now started to stock a range of male dolls which come with either a six or seven inch penis.

Yeah, that’s not gonna work.

Women don’t care about dicks per se, they care about attention and signalling, and chunks of plastic can’t really do that.

If any of you guys reading this are so desperate that you think this is a good idea – here’s a better one: get in shape, have more money than a hobo and be reasonably aggressive (or at least fake it) and 90% of all women are within reach. At least for an hour or two.

Why Men Need The Same Reproductive Rights As Women – Let’s Talk About Reproductive Rights And Why Men Should Have Them Too

In the West, when a couple finds out they are going to have a baby, they—or should I say she—have three options, keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption, or getting an abortion. How many options does the man have? You know the answer: zero. He has absolutely no rights, no say in this case, at least not in front of the court.

This has led to a de-dramatization of the act of abortion, leading to an increased number of voluntary terminations. In some cases (most cases?), women may not even tell their partner about their pregnancy and get an abortion anyway.

The white population is decreasing. Do you want to save it? Forget about it until we have true reproductive rights. Today, men are nothing more than witnesses to sinking ships that women are captaining.

“No Means No”: No Abortion If One Of The Parents Says So

Abortion has a huge impact on the personal life of men. For all three main Abrahamic religions, abortion is considered a sin and a crime and it has always been forbidden. As a religious person, I personally agree with the fact that a fetus is already a human being and that it should be treated as such. But even for atheists, abortion is a very painful experience. A child—or at least the possibility of one—is being killed and that doesn’t leave you without some grief.

We have been told relentlessly about how women suffer after having abortions. But what about men?

Such a serious act can have very important and deep health consequences afterwards, such as depression, guilt, and possibly suicide. This is what emerges from research done by Dr. Kaeleen Dingle, who presented a study on the connection between young mens’ depression and abortion. Corrine Barraclough, a journalist for the Daily Telegraph, says she was absolutely “stunned” by this discovery. Really? Was it so surprising to discover that men have feelings? Surely yes when it is all about women.

However, she doesn’t forget to conclude with, “Of course, this isn’t a blame game. And, of course, this has nothing to do with pointing a finger at women who, rightly, have control over their bodies.” Of course…

I am sorry to disagree with you, Corrine, but I am going to point the finger at women. Firstly, women do not have control over their bodies. Even here in France, abortion is illegal after three months, and a woman who has passed this point is required to keep the baby. Secondly, if a woman wants to keep the baby, nobody can force her to have an abortion. So, if a man wants to keep the baby, he should be able to do so, regardless of the woman’s opinion. That’s basic equality.

My Story

I experienced this scenario when I was 26 years old and my girlfriend was 23. We were living in Paris and had been together for five years when she got pregnant accidentally. I will not comment on the reliability of contraceptives, but after a fairly long period of dating and the large number of sexual relations that come with it, the chances of pregnancy are no longer negligible.

However, everything seemed to be going fairly well in our relationship and I thought we were ready for a stable family life. After all, we’d spent five long years together and we’d talked about having children several times before. So, when she announced the big news, I didn’t hesitate long before telling her that I thought we should keep the baby.

I was very excited by the perspective of a small child coming into our life, one that we would be raising and teaching to have his way in the world, the normal joys of normal parents. Also, coming from a Christian background, life was sacred to me and abortion was not really an option. At first, she agreed with me—or at least that’s what I thought—because she looked pretty happy about it too. I couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Some days later, she told me without tears nor trembling that she had decided not to keep the baby. I argued with her, trying as best I could to convince her to change her mind, but to no avail. No way she was going to sacrifice her youth and body, no way she was going to commit to a steady situation so early in her life. Damn, how did I fool myself so much for so long!? I was blind, I should have understood, I should have seen that she still had countries to visit, people to meet, and dicks to fuck.

Actually, she was always worried about her fertility wondering whether or not she could have children, and I guess this news quite reassured her about her womanhood. That was the only reason she was so happy, not because of the kid that was going to come into this world, not because of the perspective of a family life, but the confirmation that her uterus was working well.

She didn’t give a fuck about the baby, she didn’t give a fuck about me, all that mattered was herself. I could not imagine anything more selfish.

From the day she told me she was getting an abortion, my world turned black. I was over-thinking what was going to happen. Was I letting my own child be killed? What could I do to save him?

After one week, she had her abortion simply by going to a physician and taking two pills. Did the doctor ask what the opinion of the father was? No way. Did he even ask whether she told him? Absolutely not. That’s how easy it is today. No questions, no problems.

The pills were taken and the pregnancy terminated. The baby was five weeks old.

I regret it each day of my life.

Want to know the cherry on top? She was Irish, and in Ireland, abortion is illegal. Too bad she didn’t stay there; in France, the degeneracy had begun long long ago. Thank you, Miss ((((((Simone Weil)))))).

Reproductive Rights For Men

When it comes to the life of your own baby, your opinion should always be taken into account. That is a fundamental right that is not granted to us today. Whether or not you think that a fetus is already a human being, your voice should count.

Aborting a baby is a very tough experience for both parents, who might regret it for the rest of their lives. For that reason, it should require the consent of both of them.

Let’s Talk About Reproductive Rights And Why Men Should Have Them Too

The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as “rest[ing] on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence.

The right to make decisions regarding reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. No one in their right mind, surely, would ever argue that women should be coerced into parenthood simply by virtue of the fact that they are women, nor would anyone argue that women who refuse to accept parenthood should be arrested and jailed or otherwise treated with any kind of violence, state-sanctioned or otherwise. But that is exactly what happens to men.

I am a staunch defender of women’s right to bodily autonomy, including the right to discontinue any pregnancy that is happening in her body. I don’t particularly require the sophistry of fetus or clump of cells or potential human being to support abortion rights. I have no problem accepting that abortion is killing a human baby. I don’t think that’s a relevant fact, and it is certainly not one that trumps a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. That human baby cannot exist without her body, and her body belongs to her full stop. I do not believe any person, man or woman, should be able to force a woman to carry through with a pregnancy, so obviously, I do not accept any arguments that men should have a say over abortion as valid.

I’m a lot more interested in what happens when a woman decides that yes, the pregnancy will continue and a live child will be produced. At that point, what options does a woman have if she prefers not to parent that child?

Let’s start with legal parental surrender, normally identified as Safe Haven laws. These laws allow women of infants of varying ages (it depends on the state) to leave an otherwise unharmed infant in a designated spot, at which point she is absolved of all social, legal, financial and moral responsibility. The laws were enacted to prevent women from simply abandoning infants they did not want. Four states are very explicit that only women may take advantage of haven laws (Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota and Tennessee) but the rest use the word “parent”, which is obviously gender neutral. But in practice, no father can surrender his infant without the mother’s explicit permission, so these laws are de facto only available to women.

Women are also under no legal requirement to identify the father of their child and if the father is not listed on the birth certificate, he has no legal rights at all. Certainly men can pursue legal rights by establishing paternity, but it is up to men to enforce their rights. Women can, and do, surrender infants for adoption without notifying or identifying the father of the child. These are very high risk adoptions for the adopting couple, because there is always a chance the father will appear and attempt to assert his rights, but the fact remains that women can, once again, relieve themselves of all social, legal, financial and moral responsibility for a child they do not want.

Men cannot do any of those things. They have no say in abortion, which is correct and right. But once a living, breathing child exists, only the mother can legally absolve herself of all responsibility for that child.

The most common argument against men having reproductive rights is the old “keep it in your pants” one, which we would never accept as an argument for why women should be forced into parenthood. Having sex is not consent to parenthood for women, so why should it be for men? The next level of argument is that “only women can get pregnant” but there is no direct relationship between pregnancy and parenthood, as all the step, foster and adoptive mothers can tell you. We could, theoretically, allow women abortions, so they can avoid pregnancy, but still require them to legally adopt a child from the foster care system, for example, for every abortion they have. This is rather like the situation men find themselves in. Would we ever in a million years suggest this is a rational or sane thing to do?

The fact is that birth control fails. It also gets sabotaged. Condoms break. Vasectomies don’t work. There is no 100% way to prevent pregnancy for either men or women, other than complete celibacy. When those failures happen, women have at least three different ways to reject the responsibility of parenthood and men have none. There is a word for forcing men to accept responsibility for a child they did not intend and do not want: coercion. The WHO says reproductive rights require that no person be coerced into parenthood, meaning that men do not have reproductive rights, as long as that coercion exists.

So what is the solution? What would reproductive rights look like for men? Well, rather similar to what they look like for women. When an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy occurs, the woman, and only the woman will decide if her body will host that pregnancy to term. But even after the child is born, she may opt out of parenting that child by surrendering it for adoption. If men had the same rights, they too would be able to legally surrender their rights and allow the mother or any other individual to assume legal responsibility for the child.

It’s not even that hard to administer. Do you or do you not wish to assume responsibility for this child? But it hits on an uncomfortable truth. Culturally, we seem to think that men are utilities and that children belong to their mothers and are entitled by birth to male resources. Men are not allowed to choose parenthood, but will instead have their rights trampled in the “best interests of the child”, a condition that does not apply to women. It’s hardly in the “best interests of the child” to be aborted before birth, and we do not hold women to that standard because their bodily autonomy trumps the best interests of the child.

If our goal as a society is to move towards one in which every child is wanted by both parents, then granting men reproductive rights would be a huge step in that direction. Knowing that men can and will surrender parental rights will likely motivate both parents to carefully consider the ramifications of bringing children into this world. Of course, reproductive rights for men must be accompanied by reproductive rights for women, including access to safe, affordable reliable abortion services.

If the pro-choice community really wanted to see a huge leap in support for abortion and reproductive services for women, they would throw their weight behind reproductive rights for men.

As usual, when everyone has equal rights, we all come out ahead.

Geneticists Decode the European Genome

Geneticists Decode the European Genome

A team of geneticists were recently successful in sequencing a 37,000 year old European genome in Copenhagen. This permitted them to determine the genetic history of Europe’s earliest modern humans. Analysis revealed that Scandinavians were most closely related to the prehistoric Cro-Magnon peoples, who are most famous for their ancient cave-wall paintings in southern Lascaux, France. The Cro-Magnon lived in Europe from 20,000 – 50,000 B.C, only a fraction of the 400,000 years the Neanderthals inhabited Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. There was indeed a very narrow window of time in which the two cohabited the continent together. What is not known is what led to the demise of the Neanderthal, whether they simply could not compete for resources with a more intelligent and resourceful Cro-Magnon or whether there was a more aggressive reason all together. The test also revealed that other traits thought shared by both Middle Easterners and Europeans, and were believed to be the by-product of interbreeding some 7,000 years ago, had already existed in Europeans at a very early date. This, of course, is our white skin, which geneticists used to believe was brought by farmers from Syria. This study clearly establishes the long history of the two trademarks of of the northern European, or Nordic, phenotype, light-skin and blue eyes. This study, recently published in Science, not only illuminates many key issues concerning the origin of ancient white Europeans, but also demonstrates that white Europeans were a distinct species from Africans.

Another study, done the same year, was even more conclusive. A recent DNA study conducted by Dr. David Reich of Harvard University Medical School proves that 90 percent of those claiming white European descent, can trace their ancestry back to a single founding population that lived in Europe 35,000 years ago. This group inhabited a region of northwestern Europe in what is today Belgium. Another independent study not done by Dr. Reich, confirms that 34,000 years ago early humans apparently, contrary to what we have been told, were aware interbreeding between gene pools can also cause significant problems for future populations if they are truly of a different species or race. There seems to be evidence, widespread practice from Africa and through Eurasia including Europe of mating networks to select the ideal mate. This was also used to curb inbreeding as well, which, according to the article, was also seen as a threat to the gene pool. Thus, as far as Europeans are concern, we see evidence at a very early time, a distinct concept of racial awareness, at a time secular progressives claim there was no concept of race itself. These mating parties or networks, thus seemed to serve two very special functions, both to produce healthy, rich gene pools, but also to maintain group identity and integrity and to function as the organic expression of the race.

First Whites of the Paleolithic Age

In May 2005 bones at Mladec, a site in Moravia in the Czech Republic that was first excavated 100 years ago, was further examined and carbon 14 dated. The research team was led by anthropologists from the Natural History Museum in Vienna, from University of Vienna in Austria and from the Washington University, USA. They accomplished the first successful direct dating of the remains. Others had failed. According to Science Daily: “The Mladec remains are universally accepted as those of early modern humans. However, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether they exhibit also distinctive features, indicative of some degree of Neanderthal ancestry, or morphologically aligned solely with recent humans and therefore document only a dispersal of modern humans into Europe.” The bones were found to be 31,000 years old. The findings correspond with dates from other sites throughout Western and Eastern Europe that yielded artifacts linked to the Aurignacian culture. Those discoveries date from between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. The Mladec find, however, represents an entire community of early Europeans consisting of dozens of individuals. This is hard evidence for a long-standing biological presence of our race in Europe at a very early time. Even more significant, experts have traced the actual emergence of the White race to remote antiquity. According to this study, our race entered Europe in a vast migration from the steppes of Western Asia 65,000 – 40,000 years ago.

Negroids in Western Asia in Prehistory?

In her book Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe From The First Venturers to the Vikings, author Jean Manco mentions a find that has recently re-surfaced in Russia, that sheds some light on the early demographics of Europe. This site known as Kostenki 14, is part of a vast complex of archaeological sites located in the Don River valley. Manco writes:

At this site a complete skeleton of an ancient man was found. Recent radiocarbon dating to between 38,700 and 36,200 years ago has made his the earliest Homo sapiens skull found in Europe. The characteristic differences between the skulls of various hominids places him within our species. Now that his remains have yielded a large amount of DNA, the man from Kostenki 14 can tell us more. He shares a close ancestry with later European hunter-gatherers, but also with a 24,000 year old boy from Mal’ta in central Siberia. His Y-DNA turned out to be haplogroup C1, almost unknown in Europe today, while his mtDNA haplogroup was U2. This ancient man’s DNA is even more closely related to those living in modern Africa. In fact, he is not alone. Many Paleolithic European specimens exhibit the same connection with currently existing negroid populations. This is also seen in a strong morphological resemblance to Negroes as seen in the facial reconstruction of the Kostenki 14 remains. The only thing to conclude is that in remote prehistory, Europe had a number of distinct racial populations in the remote past.”

Oldest Europoid Skull Ever Found

In 1959, Northern Greece became the location of a discovery that challenged the idea of common African origins. There, a 700,000 year old skull, “Petralona Man,” was found resembling that of the earlier hominid species known as Homo Erectus with a few notable differences: it is the oldest hominid that exhibits identifiable Europoid or, in other words, Caucasian or white European features, and pre-dates Neanderthals at nearly 1 m/y old. It is a separate species, and suggests an independent line of evolution, separate from that proposed to exist in Africa. Dr. Aris Poulianos, a tenured anthropologist and member of the UNESCO’s International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences and founder of the Anthropological Association of Greece, was assigned a research team to study the cave and skull. Dr. Poulianos had received previous recognition for his thesis on “The origin of the Greeks”. This thesis was based on craniological and anthropometrical studies of Modern Greek populations, which proved that Greeks are in fact a genetically distinct people and indigenous to Greece itself and did descend from parent Slavic tribes as previously believed. His conclusion regarding the 700,000-year-old skull, was that the “Petralona man” was part of an independent line of evolution, not a descendant of a species that came out of Africa, but a direct ancestor to Europeans and Europeans alone. His arguments were based on good anatomy and excellent racial science. They included the skull’s almost perfect orthography, the shape of its dental arch, and the occipital bone construction. What makes this find significant is its uniquely European features at the staggering age of 700,000 B.P. Being older than the oldest known Neanderthal, this calls into question the current paradigm of mankind’s evolution.

Evidence Shifts from Africa to Europe as Hotspot of Evolution

On August 31 2017, Uppsala University posted an article in Science Daily:

Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test. The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts ours ancestors in Africa – with ape-like feet.”

The article continues to say:

Human feet have a very distinctive shape, different from all other land animals. The combination of a long sole, five short forward-pointing toes without claws, and a hallux (“big toe”) that is larger than the other toes, is unique. The feet of our closest relatives, the great apes, look more like a human hand with a thumb-like hallux that sticks out to the side. The Laetoli footprints, thought to have been made by Australopithecus [“Southern Ape of Africa”, supposedly one of our ancestors], are quite similar to those of modern humans except that the heel is narrower and the sole lacks a proper arch. By contrast, the 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus ramidus from Ethiopia, the oldest hominin known from reasonably complete fossils, has an ape-like foot. The researchers who described Ardipithecus argued that it is a direct ancestor of later hominins, implying that a human-like foot had not yet evolved at that time. The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form.”

In the past decade, there has been an explosion of discoveries which are overturning nearly three decades of Out of Africa dogmatism. This footprint, then, is the oldest humanlike footprint ever found anywhere in the world, including outside Africa. It has widely believed that the Laetoli footprints found in East Africa were exemplary of our prehuman ancestors, and much to the chagrin of those in support of the Out of Africa Theory, the Crete footprints actually matched human frootprints more closely and were far older. Australian historian Greg Jeffreys writes:

The whole Our of Africa Theory has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent on the Out of Africa thing buts it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still holds on to it.” (Sepehr 20-21)

Out of Africa Both Supported & Debunked on Grounds of Genetics

Geneticist Anatole A. Klyosov and a number of other distinguished Russian scientists put together a paper entitled Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy. The study offers a growing body of evidence in support of multiregional origins, even the polygenesis model for the origin of humankind. It offered clear proof that Europeans did not descend from Africans, or an Out-of-Africa migration. Furthermore, it places the point of origin for the White race somewhere between Central Europe in the West and West-Central Russia in the East and as far south as the Levant. To clarify their position, the writers of the paper, Dr. Kylosov and Igor L. Rozhanskii concluded as follows:

The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups . . . Thanks largely in part to geneticists, the “Out of Africa” concept was popularized during the last two decades, yet it was never directly proven; however, for many specialists its appeal was undeniably convincing. The concept was based primarily on the premise that Africa possesses the highest variability, or variance, of the human DNA and its segments. Set apart, it is not a strong argument because a mix of different DNA lineages also results in a high variability and, as we show below, it is largely what occurs in Africa. Moreover, a genomic gap exists between some Africans and non-Africans, which has also been interpreted as an argument that the latter descended from Africans. A more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork. A region where this downstream common ancestor arose would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa. Research into this question has served as the basis for and the subject of our work. We have found that a great diversity of Y chromosomal haplotypes in Africa is a result of the mixing of several very distant lineages, some of them not necessarily African, and that Europeiods (at least) do not contain “African” SNPs (those of haplogroups A or B). These important findings put a proverbial dent in the “Out of Africa” theory.”

Forgotten Cradles of the White Race

A discovery in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, made a few decades ago, is yet another fossil found in the vicinity of Europe, that links a major phase in human evolution to Europe, not Africa. This discovery is a portion of a skull that exhibits features similar to a Homo Habilis. What perplexed those who found the skull was the fact that a very primitive hominid species, which was 3.7 million years old, had been found in Europe at a time prior to the supposed colonization of the Old World by Homo Erectus. According to mainstream science, 3.7 mil­lion years ago was the time of Lucy, a more primitive hominid called Australopithecus; more advanced hominid species were not in Europe at that time. (Gore 2002)

This find in Georgia suggests that Europe played a pivotal role in the evolution of the human species and that many of us share a direct lineage from Europe. The Dmanisi fossils have not been conclusively identified, but they may be an earlier form of Homo erectus, or possibly a new species, Homo georgicus. It now seems possible that the first of our species to become a habitual upright walker did so in Eurasia, in a region whose climate at the time, 3.7 million years ago, was similar to that of modern-day Europe. (Gore 2002)

The accepted paradigm of human evolution, maintained for half a century, says that fully evolved specimens of Homo erectus left Africa over a million years ago to establish themselves throughout Europe and Asia. But the Dmanisi finds change all of that. Now it seems that more primitive forms of hominids made it as far as Europe and the Caucuses, and once there continued to evolve into more modern forms.

It would have seemed preposterous just a few short years ago to even suggest that Europe, not Africa, could play such a decisive role in human evolution or that the birthplace of the Proto-Indo-Europeans could also be the nursery of our human ancestor. And this is largely due, not to scientific concerns, but to the hold political correctness has on scientific correctness, as Robert Sepehr reminds us.

Neanderthals and the Mythical Atlantis

An excavation by Ralph Solecki and his team from Columbia University from 1957 to 1961 yielded the first adult Neanderthal skeletons in northern Iraq, dating to approximately 80,000 BCE to 60,000 BCE. Located in the Zagros Mountains near Kurdistan, these burials contained what appeared to be carefully laid-out human remains and grave goods, including bear skulls, which launched speculation about possible Neanderthal bear cults. In Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men, Phyllis Siefker says, “Some of these bear skulls had little stones arranged around them; others were set on slabs; one very carefully placed, had the long bones of a cave bear (no doubt its own) placed beneath its snout; another had the long bones pushed through the orbits of its eyes” (Siefker 1997, 193). In The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology, Joseph Campbell makes mention of bear-worship in Europe dating from about 75,000 BCE among lateNeanderthal populations, to 30,000 BCE with the Cro-Magnons (Campbell 1959, 123).

Religious artifacts produced by the Neanderthal’s successors, the Cro-Magnon, including their beautiful cave paintings, displayed mixed human and animal imagery and symbolism that reflected the concept of a god or goddess. This in itself allows for speculation and wonder. Even though the hard evidence has yet to be revealed, these finds indi­cate that some sort of religious activity took place among these prehis­toric people. If this is so, it is not hard to imagine a primitive human community seeking shelter from the cold.

During the Mesolithic period, 11,000–10,000 BCE, a number of advances were made, including the growth of populations and the dis­persal of archaic peoples to even more remote regions of the world. This age ended with the proto-Neolithic period, in which a limited agricul­tural technology prevailed. This was a pivotal moment in the evolution of the human race.

The Mesolithic period brought new innovation and an increas­ingly sedentary lifestyle for many peoples in India, the Near East, and Europe. China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia experienced similar evolutionary adaptations. Some of the protomegalithic monuments found in Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, and France date to this transi­tional period, though they were not as fully developed as those of the Neolithic period. Two such examples include Stonehenge (England, circa 8000 BCE) and Carrowmore (Ireland, circa 5400 BCE). Around 9000 BCE, the short-lived Mesolithic cultures of Europe were sup­planted by the proto-Neolithic cultures; they began in the Near East and spread throughout the west.

In the 1950s, Lithuanian-American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas first presented her Kurgan theory of the origins of the Indo-Europeans: that a matriarchal, Neolithic civilization of pre-Aryans lived in Europe before the invasion of Indo-European tribes in the third millennium BCE. She describes this race in her book Goddesses and Gods of Old The Earliest Europeans 137 Europe. The lost civilization of pre-Aryans covered the lands of what are now Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, the Balkans, and northern Greece. These people established the first cities in Europe and made advances in primitive tribal law, but most important, they laid the foundations for a permanent religion (Gimbutas 1982, 1).

Gimbutas was drawn to the idea of her own native region of Lithuania as a possible northern frontier of the Old European civili­zation. In examining the archaeology of the area, she found evidence of a matriarchy, complete with a bird goddess and a bear goddess. She believed that feminine cults and goddess worshippers dominated all of Neolithic Europe. In this author’s opinion, these artifacts are remnants of a vanished Europe that we have long since forgotten. (These ideas have found a following among certain groups of feminists as well as the feminine faction of the Wicca faith, a form of reconstructed paganism, or neopaganism.)

In Old Europe proper—in the Balkans, Adriatic, and Aegean, as well as nearby Eastern Europe—an upsurge in creativity and imagina­tion led to more complex deities. The Neanderthals, after they evolved, ruled Europe for over two hundred thousand years. They truly were the first Europeans, and they were uniquely adapted to its cold climate, especially the frigid centuries of the European ice ages. A November 30, 2007, article in Science details variations in skin color, eye color, and hair type among the main classic Neanderthal populations, indicating they were as diverse in physical characteristics as modern humans. The article’s abstract explains:

The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) regulates pigmentation in humans and other vertebrates. Variants of MC1R with reduced function are associated with pale skin color and red hair in humans of primarily European origin. We amplified and sequenced a frag­ment of the MC1r gene (mc1r) from two Neanderthal remains. Both specimens have a mutation that was not found in modern humans analyzed. Function analyses show that this variant reduces MC1R activity to a level that alters hair and/or skin pig­mentation in humans. The impaired activity of this variant suggests that Neanderthals varied in pigmentation levels, potentially on the scale observed in modern humans. Our data suggest that inactive MC1R variants evolved independently in both modern humans and Neanderthals (Lalueza-Fox et al. 2007).

British anthropologist Chris Stringer was one of the first to cham­pion the “Out of Africa” theory. Both Stringer and his theory were mentioned previously: that modern peoples originated in Africa and then displaced all other peoples of the world. Stringer, in an interview with NOVA, explained, “If we look at the fossil record, Africa is the place that has the oldest modern humans, and so Africa, I think, is our original homeland. Within the last 100,000 years, from that homeland, our ancestors dispersed across the world. They replaced archaic peoples, and gave rise to the people we find everywhere today” (NOVA 1997).

Australian anthropologist Alan Thorne strongly disagrees. He believes that isolated populations of Homo erectus evolved locally into what we now consider Homo sapiens. Thorne says:

I think we all agree that there’s an Out of Africa, but I feel strongly that Out of Africa has to be at least a million years ago. So, you know, since that time, over the last million years, with people in Africa and Asia, Europe and Southeast Asia, various populations are making their own adaptations to different environments and landscapes, but all are the same evolving and expand­ing species” (NOVA 1997).

Thorne envisions human evolution on a grand scale: Homo erec­tus spreading and evolving into the modern races of today in Europe, Asia, and most certainly Africa. Between three hundred thousand and thirty thousand years ago, the Neanderthals ruled as absolute masters of their domain. Scientists are now becoming aware of the unique role Neanderthals played in modern human evolution. The Neanderthal The Earliest Europeans 139 genome has been mapped, and it seems that about 4 percent of our DNA comes from Neanderthals. Many of the features of these early people hint at a common heritage. But more than a decade ago, such revelations were yet to come. Chris Stringer voiced the typical views of the day:

The Neanderthals had a long and successful evolutionary history. They evolved and survived in Europe over a period of at least 200,000 years. But in that time, they also developed their own special features, and these occur through the skeleton, but in par­ticular, they are concentrated in the face. The face is dominated by the nose, a very large and projecting nose, and the whole middle of the face is poured forwards, taking with it the teeth, as well. And for me, this, in particular, marks them off as something different, probably a different species from us. And this is difficult to grasp, in a sense, because we’re saying they were human beings; there’s no doubt about that. And yet, they were different kinds of human beings, different from us, not part of our lineage, not our ancestors (NOVA 1997).

Alan Thorne countered in a PBS interview:

When we look at the bones of the Neanderthals and other peoples, it’s easy to see the differences. But as living people with flesh on those bones, those differences would have been much less signifi­cant or noticeable. I mean, today, there are people of extraordinarily different physical characteristics: different skin colors, different face and eye shape, different hair forms that meet, marry and have chil­dren. When I look at Europeans, I see the evidence of that mixed Neanderthal parentage. So, Neanderthals must be a part of our spe­cies. They must be a part of us [Europeans] (NOVA 1997).

Amidst all of this debate, something quite unexpected happened in the study of these first Europeans. On Tuesday, April 21, 1999, BBC News reported: “A hybrid skeleton showing features of both Neanderthal and early modern humans has been discovered, challenging the theory that our ancestors drove Neanderthals to extinction.” The skeleton was of a young boy and it was found in Portugal. Erik Trinkaus of Washington University further stated: “This skeleton, which has some characteris­tics of Neanderthals, and that of early modern humans, demonstrates that early modern humans and Neanderthals are not all that different. They intermixed, interbred and produced offspring” (BBC News 1999).

In early 2010, DNA testing at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary

Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, was undertaken in an effort to settle the Neanderthal/modern human hybrid theory. It was based on the collection of material found in Croatia during the 1980s. According to Gina Gomez, reporting for the Thaindian News: “A sample, the size of a small pill, was dug out from the center of an almost 38000 year old bone. This sample was then grounded and the powder was mixed with chemicals to release the DNA of the bone fragments. Small frag­ments of the DNA samples had to be multiplied a million times, only then could the scientists in Leipzig arrive at the conclusion” (Gomez 2010). Subsequent to this initial attempt to determine ancestry, the Neanderthal genome was successfully mapped and compared to modern humans. It now seems definite that Neanderthals and members of our own species mixed and produced offspring, and many Europeans, even peoples from other populations entirely, can now trace their ancestry to this group of hybrids.

Neanderthals are often depicted in modern art as having dark, matted hair, swarthy skin, and dark eyes. Genetic testing now indi­cates that Neanderthals were in fact fair-skinned and freckled, and had ginger or even blond hair. Their eye-color was predominately green or grayish blue.

In February 2010 a team of Polish scientists announced that they unearthed what they believed to be three Neanderthal teeth from Stajna Cave on the north side of the Carpathian Mountains. The teeth are similar to those of modern humans, indicating how close both species are to one another. Hammers made out of deer antlers were also discovered, and scattered around the area were the bones of woolly rhinoceros and woolly mammoths. Flint tools were also found throughout the site. From these discoveries, scientists can glean much about the eating habits, environment, and technology of these ancient peoples (Science News 2010). Even if the Neanderthals of one hun­dred thousand years ago were nothing more than primitive hunters, with only a slight inclination toward creativity, innovation, and inde­pendent thought, it still seems appropriate to think of them as some­thing else, something more likeus.

In Atlantis and the Kingdom of the Neanderthals, Colin Wilson reports on an excavation in 1989 conducted by a group of Israeli archae­ologists, led by Professor Naama Goren-Inbar. They discovered a price­less relic from the age of the Neanderthals:

It was a part of a planned and polished wooden plank, ten inches long and half as wide. It had obviously been ripped out of a larger plank, and the digger had cracked it across the middle. On its lower side, the plank was slightly convex and had obviously not been planed or polished. What was odd about the find? Only that the layer from which it came was half a million years old, the time Peking Man, who belonged to a species of early man—the first “true man”—called homo erectus. Presumably their brain was about half the size of modern man’s. Yet they had made this polished plank, which Professor Goren-Inbar confessed that she was unable to explain (Wilson 2006, 270).

Wilson cites a number of examples in which brave scholarly indi­viduals suggested that there was something more to the Neanderthals’ culture than previously thought. Stan Gooch, for instance, proposed that Neanderthals were the first “stargazers.” This idea was presented in Gooch’s book Cities of Dreams: The Rich Legacy of Neanderthal Man Which Shaped Our Civilization. According to Wilson (2006, 272), “This book challenges the orthodox view that nothing worth the name of civilization existed prior to the last Ice Age and the subsequent emer­gence of modern man some 30,000 years ago.” Wilson also mentions that Gooch inferred that the religion of the Neanderthals included a moon worship cult of immense sophistication. Finally, “Homo sapiens, he said, were not an evolutionary leap” beyond Cro-Magnon man, but only a gentle step from Neanderthal” (Wilson 2006, 275).


The story of the first Europeans is the story of our Western origins. It was the nations of Europe that went on to subdue and civilize the entire world. Without the evolutionary edge the earliest Europeans initially had, the history and fate of the world would have been quite different. By examining who the Neanderthals were, and what ulti­mately happened to them, provides guidance for us as a species. It pre­pares us for the task ahead, which is to survive and evolve into the splendid greatness that awaits us. The study of other races within the confines of Europe shows us that we are merely a link in a chain that goes back 800,000 years—and we are only now beginning to fully understand the significance of that heritage, a legacy as inexplicable as the evolutionary process itself.