THE NORDISH CRISIS & RACIAL COMPACT BY R. McCULLOCH



Racial Diversity
 
by
Richard McCulloch


We live in a world of differences, of seemingly infinite diversity and variety. These differences are of all types, affecting both animate and inanimate matter, living and non-living things. Humanity is certainly no exception to this rule, but exhibits great -- sometimes even bewildering -- variation, both physically and mentally, of body and of mind. There are different kinds of human variation. Some differences are biological or genetic, others are cultural or environmental. There are also different levels of human variation. Some differences are at the individual level, others are at the population or racial level. The first distinguish us as separate individuals, the second distinguish a population of individuals as a separate race.
In the system of biological classification called taxonomy a race is a subdivision or branch of a species, and a species in turn is a subdivision or branch of a genus. In this system all populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fertile offspring, and which do interbreed with each other in their natural state, are considered to be members of the same species, regardless how great their differences or how distant their relationship. Those populations which do not interbreed under natural conditions, although they may be biologically capable of doing so, are classified as separate species. As all human populations are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and in fact do so when brought together under conditions of extensive contact, they are classified as belonging to the same species. [Note 1] This is not to say that all individual humans necessarily interbreed with members of other races when brought into extensive contact. There is variation among individuals in the degree of racial discrimination in selecting a mate. Perhaps only a minority of individuals in any given generation interbreed with other races under conditions of extensive contact, but over the course of generations all populations do, as the cumulative effect of a minority in each generation adds up to a majority -- and eventually a total population -- over a span of generations.
A race is a population that can be distinguished from other populations within a species by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. It possesses a unique and distinct ensemble of genes, and is identified by the traits produced by this genetic ensemble. (To the extent that mental characteristics are also transmitted or determined genetically it is logical to assume that there are mental as well as physical genetic differences between races, yet it is by their physical genetic differences that races are most readily distinguished and identified.) Members of the same race share distinguishing genetic characteristics because they share a common genetic ancestry, and consequently a similar genetic ensemble. They are capable not only of producing offspring (which all members of the same species can do) but of producing offspring who also share and continue their racially unique genetic ensemble and its distinctive traits and characteristics. When members of different races interbreed they cannot produce offspring that possess the racially distinguishing characteristics of both parent stocks. The distinctive racial characteristics of one or both of the parents are either negated or diminished as their racially unique, and therefore mutually incompatible, ensembles of genes are disrupted or diluted.
The explanations for human racial diversity have been as varied as that diversity itself. Every culture and every age has had its explanation, and the more tolerant among them have had more than one, but the truth was usually unknown, and the universal rule is that the unknown is explained by legend, myth or religion, which in most cultures are one and the same. The ancient Babylonian account of Creation was adopted by Judaism, which passed it on to Christianity and Islam. As promulgated by these two expansionist, universalist and often intolerant religions this Babylonian version of Creation, and explanation of human diversity, reigned virtually unchallenged until the advent of modern science.
Science prefers natural to supernatural explanations, and has gradually expanded the former at the expense of the latter. As explained by science -- beginning with the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in 1859 -- the diversity of life, human as well as non-human, is caused by a process of usually gradual change called biological evolution. Life proceeds from one form to many forms. As a life-form develops and expands different groups tend to become separated and lose contact with each other. This loss of contact, usually caused by geographic separation, creates a condition that can be referred to as reproductive isolation. This reproductive isolation or separation of the different groups prevents them from interbreeding, and by doing so acts as the great enabler of divergent evolution, the essential key to the diversification of life. Once isolated, the different populations tend to follow diverging courses of evolution resulting from different chance mutations, responses to different environments and other selective pressures.
Eventually, if reproductive isolation is maintained, the differences created by the process of divergent evolution are sufficient that the two populations will not interbreed even when they do come into contact and occupy the same geographical range. When this degree of diversity is achieved the different populations are defined as separate species. Thus the process of divergent evolution is also referred to as speciation, by which populations divide and develop into new and distinct species. The process of divergence -- or diversification of life -- does not end with the creation of new species, but is continued as each new branch of life produces new branches and sub-branches, as each race evolves into a new species which in turn diversifies into new races. In this dynamic creative process a race is a proto-species or species-in-the-making, a potential new species in the early stages of species separation and creation.
Divergent evolution is the cause of the great diversity of living things, human and non-human, that populate our planet. It has moved life from simplicity and uniformity to complexity and diversity, and in so doing has created humanity in all its complex variation and rich diversity. The divergent evolution of the human species has created different branches or races, each genetically distinct from the others. The process of human evolutionary divergence has itself been complex, with many branches and sub-branches, as each branch itself divides into separate and distinct branches.
Biologists have diligently labored to classify the diverse forms of life and their relationships with each other. In this attempt to organize the subjects of a dynamic, chaotic and constant process of evolutionary change, to bring comprehensible order to a seemingly incomprehensible variety, there has been a tendency to reduce the complex to the simple so the facts could be more easily presented and understood. Indeed, in a matter as complex as human racial diversity almost any attempt to classify it must be to some extent a simplification. Yet however simple or complex, valid classifications must give due consideration to all relevant factors.
Morphological (external physical) traits and characteristics are the primary determinant of racial identity, generally taking priority over other factors in the event of disagreement. Other determinants of racial identity -- such as biochemical and molecular genetic analysis -- are usually consistent with the morphological identification when one allows for the extent of individual variation one can expect to find for these traits within a race.
The human genome or genetic code consists of about 2.9 billion "genetic letters" or nucleotide base pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid). About 3%, or 87 million, of these genetic base pairs are in the 22,000 genes (2007 estimates), making them active or functional DNA, with an average of about 4,000 base pairs per gene. The remaining 97% of the genetic base pairs are outside of the genes, making them inactive, non-functional or so-called "junk" DNA.
The interaction of these genes in producing genetic traits is often complex. Some genes are "master" genes which control the functioning of many other genes, so that very small genetic differences can have very large consequences in the resulting organism and its traits. Also many different genes often act in combination to determine traits, so a change in one changes the resulting trait. (At least five different genes work together to determine skin color, and as many as 100 work together to determine skin texture.) The varied races of the human species share 99.9% of their 2.9 billion genetic base pairs in common, with genetic differences in .1% of the base pairs, a proportion which represents about 2.9 million genetic differences. (Humans share 98.6% of their DNA in common with Chimpanzees, our closest living non-human relative.) The proportions of differences between active and inactive DNA, between those genetic base pairs inside genes and those outside, is not yet certain, but one would logically expect the inactive DNA outside the genes to be subject to change only by mutation and genetic drift, whereas the active DNA inside the genes would also be subject to changes in response to the various selective pressures of evolution, e.g., adaptation, sexual selection, etc.
The rich racial diversity of modern humanity owes its existence to geographic separation and the reproductive isolation this separation has created. Humanity began in Africa. (To be more specific, the evidence points to the grasslands or savannahs of East Africa over two million years ago as the birthplace of the genus Homo.) If it had stayed there, limiting its existence only to Africa (as did the Gorillas and Chimpanzees, as well as many other genera), the degree of human racial diversity would have been much less than what it became, and the great majority of the diverse races of humanity that have existed during the last two million years, as well as the great majority of modern races, would have never existed. There would have been far fewer branches on the human family tree. But humanity did not limit its existence to sub-Saharan Africa. The ancestors of the non-African races migrated out of Africa and spread to almost every inhabitable area of the earth. [Note 2]
There were probably a succession of migrations out of sub-Saharan Africa, and some populations may have migrated back. The whole story of the immense journey of human evolution has yet to be told, or discovered, and will probably never be known in its entirety. But once the early ancestors of humanity migrated out of Africa and spread around the world the different populations became geographically separated from each other, with little or no opportunity to interbreed. Under such conditions of reproductive isolation the process of divergent evolution created the racial diversity that is a characteristic of every species or genera with a wide geographic distribution, including the human racial diversity that we know today and in history. Modern humanity is a global species, enjoying a world-wide distribution, and possesses the rich racial diversity that one would expect evolution to create from such a distribution.
In racial classification there is often a tendency to group a wide range of diverse racial types together into one race, attempting to contain all human racial variation within a few very broadly defined racial categories. It is difficult to draw an accurate racial border or dividing line, both in biological and geographic terms, when one is working with such broad classifications. As a rule, what these broad racial categories gain in simplicity they lose in accuracy. They can be regarded as useful only if they are recognized as a first level subdivision of the species -- into what is usually referred to as subspecies -- which groups together a number of diverse races that share more traits in common with each other, and are more closely related to each other, than with or to the races in the other broadly defined categories (or subspecies).
Subspecies are the broadest racial groupings or divisions into which humanity has branched in the course of its divergent evolution. The first branching was between the peoples who remained south of the Sahara and those who migrated beyond it. The first developed or evolved into the Congoid and Capoid subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa. The others subsequently branched and evolved into three other distinct subspecies: the Caucasoid of Europe, Asia west of the Himalayas and Africa north of the Sahara; the Mongoloid of Asia east of the Himalayas and the Americas (whose indigenous inhabitants branched from the Northeast Asians and migrated to the Americas probably less than 30,000 years ago); and the Australoid of Australia, Melanesia and New Guinea.
A race is a population that shares both a common biological ancestry and essentially similar, mutually compatible genetic traits which distinguish it from all other populations and are not diminished or lost by within-group reproduction. Therefore, a branch of humanity can be regarded as a race only when its different elements are sufficiently homogeneous -- or genetically compatible -- that they can freely intermix without negating or diminishing their unique genetic ensemble and racial traits. Since several of these broadest racial groupings mentioned above include distinctly different peoples who cannot interbreed without negating or diminishing the racial-genetic characteristics of one or both parent stocks (for example, the Caucasoid group includes such distinctly different and separate peoples as those of Sweden, Italy, Armenia, Egypt and Iran, and the Mongoloid group includes such diverse peoples as those of Korea, Malaysia and the Amerindians of Peru) it is clear that these groupings are too broad to be accurately defined as races, but should properly be regarded as subspecies -- or groupings of more or less related, but still distinctly separate, races within a species. [see the essay The Races of Humanity for more detailed information on this subject]
Reproductive isolation, provided by geographic separation, made divergent evolution, and the great creative achievement of human racial diversity, possible -- a process which is still continuing, and being continually refined. Divergent evolution is the cause of racial diversity. Reproductive isolation is the condition required for divergent evolution to occur. Interbreeding is the great opposing or counteracting force of divergent evolution, and invariably occurs -- and can only occur -- when different races are brought into contact and reproductive isolation is not in effect. When engaged in on a small scale interbreeding retards or slows the process of divergent evolution but does not stop or reverse it. When conducted on a large scale it prevents divergent evolution from occurring, maintaining uniformity and forestalling the creation of diversity. If divergent evolution has already occurred and diversity has already been created, interbreeding acts to reverse the process of evolutionary divergence, to undo or decreate the racial diversity and differences that have been created and return to uniformity. Thus reproductive isolation is as necessary for racial preservation as it is for racial creation. The course of evolution and the genetic composition of future generations is determined by the breeding decisions of countless individuals. Reproductive isolation assures that those individuals who do reproduce will reproduce their own racial type, as it effectively limits their choice of partners to their own racial type.
Racial interbreeding has occurred throughout the course of human evolution, retarding or reversing the creative process of evolutionary divergence. But geographic separation -- by providing the conditions of reproductive isolation required for divergent evolution to occur, and for the resulting racial diversity to be preserved -- has sufficiently limited the extent of interbreeding to permit evolutionary divergence to continue. So long as the condition of reproductive isolation of the races is continued and preserved, the racial diversity created by the process of divergent evolution will also tend to be continued and preserved. But if it is lost the reverse process of counter-evolution or devolution by interbreeding will tend to become stronger, and move the interbreeding races away from diversity and toward uniformity and the negation of unique and distinct racial characteristics. Reproductive isolation -- made possible by geographic separation -- is the condition required for both the creation and preservation of racial diversity.
Geographic separation would not be needed to prevent interbreeding if different races did not interbreed, or if some other effective means of reproductive isolation were practical, but given the fact that many individuals of different races do interbreed whenever they occupy the same territory over a period of time, geographic separation is the only effective preventative. Yet even without considering the effects of interbreeding, geographic separation would probably still be required for the continued existence of all the different races in the long term. If they occupied the same territory the resulting competition between the races in the multiracial environment would have different effects on the races involved. Some races might thrive in the multiracial environment while others would suffer a decline in population, not only in the relative terms of population share but also in absolute terms. [Note 3] Thus the racial changes that occur in a multiracial environment tend toward a decrease in overall human racial diversity. It is therefore misleading to identify a multiracial environment or society with racial diversity, as the long term effects of such a multiracial condition are actually to reduce and negate diversity.
The ideology or system of beliefs and values which favors a multiracial social condition, which can be referred to as multiracialism, often describes this condition as "racial diversity." It is a type of racial diversity, but a type which consists of mixing together in the same territory diverse races which previously were geographically separated, and whose diversity -- and existence -- was created and preserved by that condition of separation. It is a type of racial diversity which violates the conditions (e.g., reproductive isolation) that created racial diversity and are required for its continued preservation, which creates the conditions of extensive contact that promote interbreeding and the consequent destruction of racial diversity. It is really another form of social diversity, racial diversity in the social sense, but in the biological, genetic and evolutionary sense it is anti-diversity, as its effects are destructive of the racial diversity created by divergent evolution.
Clearly, there is more than one type of racial diversity. There is the social type promoted by multiracialism in which different races are mixed together in a multiracial society, placed in a condition of extensive contact where interbreeding invariably tends to replace diversity with uniformity, and there is the biological type in which the diverse races were created by the process of divergent evolution, and in which they are preserved, under conditions of separation and reproductive isolation. The two types should not be confused, as they are in fact incompatible opposites. In the long term one cannot have both, as the social type is destructive of the biological type, nor can one be for both, as the promotion of biological racial diversity requires opposition to multiracial societies. If biological racial diversity is to be preserved social racial diversity -- the mixing of the diverse races in a multiracial society -- must be avoided. Racial preservation or conservation requires the preservation of the conditions of geographical racial separation that made the creation of the different races by divergent evolution possible. [Note 4]
The racial interbreeding that is an unavoidable consequence of a multiracial society (without which the different races would have to be classified as different species) does add a new element to social racial diversity in the form of the racially-mixed or hybrid offspring of different parent racial stocks. But this hybrid element does not add to biological racial diversity, as it is created by intermixture rather than by the creation of new genetic characteristics by divergent evolution. It takes existing genetic characteristics from the different parent racial stocks and either mixes them into a new combination, blends them together into an intermediate form or, if they are recessive, diminishes or negates their occurrence. These hybridized recombinations of racial-genetic traits actually reduce, and are destructive of, biological racial diversity to the extent that they replace or deplete the parent racial stocks and genetic combinations created and refined by evolution.
The two opposing forces in the existence of races -- as in the existence of all life, for races are branches of life -- are the forces of life and death, of creation and destruction. The creative force for a race, as for all the vast variety and diversity of living things, is the process of divergent evolution or speciation, the branching of life into separate and distinct forms. While there is only one way to create a race, only one force of racial creation, there are many ways by which a race can die, many forces of racial destruction. The famous "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" represent some of the destructive forces that have been active throughout history and in our own time. But the racially destructive force that is the exact opposite or antithesis of divergent evolution is intermixture -- the force of convergence. It undoes, destroys or decreates the diversity created by divergent evolution, blending different races together in a multiracial social condition descriptively and accurately referred to as a "melting pot," where the racially distinct and unique ensembles of genes created by evolution are dissolved in the common blend and all distinctive traits and differences are destroyed and lost in a racial melt-down.
Throughout the story of life the creative force of divergent evolution has been on balance far stronger than the opposing destructive force of convergent intermixture. The vast variety and diversity of life bears eloquent witness to the triumph of divergent evolution over its opposition. If convergent intermixture had triumphed evolution would have been frustrated and prevented, and instead of being the parent of a multilinear complexity of many life-forms the earth would have been host to a unilinear development of a single life-form.
But divergent evolution -- and the biological divergence it created -- was fostered by the geographic separation of the diverging life-forms into different territories and societies where they were reproductively isolated. When geographic convergence -- the bringing together of the previously separated races into the same territorial space -- replaces geographic divergence, and a multiracial social condition replaces racial separation, the relative strength of the opposing creative and destructive forces of evolution are reversed, and the destructive force of biological convergence assumes the dominant position over the creative force of biological divergence. The creation of multiracial societies changes the historical balance of power between the opposing forces, giving convergent intermixture an ascendancy over divergent evolution.
The modern world is experiencing just such a change in favor of racial convergence over divergence. After untold thousands of years of divergent evolution and the creation of racial diversity, made possible by geographic separation, the reverse movement toward multiracialism is increasingly replacing divergence with convergence. The migration of vast numbers of people around the world, made possible by modern advances in transportation, has facilitated the development of multiracial societies and the transformation of many previously monoracial countries into multiracial ones. This pattern of migration is ending the condition of racial separation that made possible the creation of the diverse races and which many races depend upon for their continued existence. As in many other areas of technology, transportation technology has advanced much more rapidly than our understanding of its effects, or the development of philosophical and moral concepts to deal with those effects and avoid those that are harmful.
All races and nations have not been equally affected by this unprecedented change in human racial distribution. The Amerindian peoples were the first to experience the harmful effects of the end of geographic racial separation, losing a great expanse of their territory to Europeans and Africans in the migrations following the discoveries of Columbus. [Note 5] But in the last century the races and nations of Europe, and the nations created and settled by Europeans overseas, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, have been affected to a far greater degree than any other.
The implications of this vast bringing together of different races that had previously evolved, and been preserved, under conditions of geographic separation -- replacing reproductive isolation with its antithetical opposite, extensive contact -- are profound. Yet these implications have received little attention or consideration. The implications for human racial diversity, both for its continued development and for the continued existence or preservation of the diversity and variation that already exists, are especially severe. Human racial diversity or biological divergence is a product of divergent evolution, which itself is a by-product or natural result of the reproductive isolation of the different races by geographic separation. If geographic separation of the races is replaced by multiracial social conditions reproductive isolation will be lost. It can then be expected that racial divergence and diversity will be replaced by racial convergence (intermixture) and a resulting diminishment and loss in racial diversity, especially among those races whose distinct genetic traits are more recessive, or whose birthrate is lower and more adversely affected by multiracial conditions.
If those races which are most vulnerable to the effects of racial intermixture -- because of the recessiveness of their genetic characteristics or the sensitivity of their reproductive behavior -- are subjected to multiracial conditions on a sufficient scale it is likely that they will become extinct, and their distinctive traits will be lost, existing only in solution with the traits of other races, submerged in the multiracial blend or mixture of the "melting pot." If human racial diversity -- which took thousands of generations of divergent evolution to create -- is to be preserved, multiracial conditions -- which can cause its decreation in only a few generations -- must be prevented. The preservation of racial diversity requires the preservation of the conditions of geographic separation that made and makes diversity possible.
The ages-old condition of geographic separation in which the different races evolved and were preserved is breaking apart under the impetus of two factors. The first is modern transportation systems. The second is a dominant ideology, mind set or view of existence which promotes the multiracialization of previously monoracial societies, and which regards the preservation of racial diversity -- the continued existence of different races as created by evolution -- either with indifference as a matter of little or no value, importance or concern, or with outright hostility as something to oppose.
If the world is to be made safe for racial diversity -- or safe again for racial diversity -- its preservation will first have to be regarded as a matter of great value, importance and concern. As the Senegalese conservationist Baba Dioum has said, "In the end, we will conserve only what we love." [Note 6] As we have developed ethically to have a sense of reverence for life in general, and for human life in particular, so we should develop a sense of reverence for the diversity of life, and particularly the diversity of human life. As we have learned to regard that which promotes life as good, and that which destroys life as evil, so we should learn to regard that which promotes the diversity of life as good, and that which destroys that diversity as evil. A change in thinking and consciousness, in values and way of looking at the world, will be needed to create such a sense of reverence, appreciation and concern for racial diversity, and the motivation to act for its preservation.
An effective racial conservation movement would depend upon a sense of appreciation and reverence for that which it sought to conserve. It would also depend on the development of a philosophy of ethics which gives substance to that reverence by extending concepts of human rights to races. Only under the protection of the ethical concept of rights -- in this case racial rights -- can racial diversity, the existence of different races, be protected and preserved in an age when its former protector -- geographic distance -- is no longer effective in preserving the condition of geographic separation racial diversity requires for its continued existence. An ethical philosophy of racial preservationism is needed to provide the diverse races with the protected habitats -- the geographic separation which is the only effective barrier to interbreeding -- that the fallen barriers of distance can no longer provide.



Notes

1. "[E]very human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact." Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal , (HarperCollins, 1992), p. 34. If two human populations did not interbreed under conditions of extensive contact taxonomic consistency should require that they be classified as separate species. It is now recognized that many geographically separated species that had been considered discrete are actually capable of interbreeding, and many have done so when brought into extensive contact, producing hybrid individuals and populations. "Closely related biological species are often interfertile, and may or may not produce fertile offspring when they hybridize." Christopher Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (Thames and Hudson, 1993), p. 193.
2. Homo erectus remains from Java have been dated to 1.8 million years ago. "How Man Began," Time (March 14, 1994), pp. 81-87.
3. Gause's Law of Exclusion states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist for any length of time in the same habitat. All but one will eventually become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory, where the more evolutionarily successful race (usually measured by rate of population growth) eventually assimilates or replaces its competitors. The fact that the Hominid family contains only one surviving genus, Homo , which replaced all the others, and that the genus Homo contains only one surviving species, sapiens , which replaced all the others, so that its closest surviving relative is the Chimpanzee of the Pongid family, would tend to indicate that this law has been active in the course of human evolution.
4. The ideology of social racial diversity -- or multiracialism -- often belittles or denies the value, importance, or even the very existence of biological racial diversity. This is consistent with the fact that the multiracial social conditions it promotes are destructive of biological racial diversity.
5. The Amerindians suffered a great loss of life from a variety of imported diseases, and lost most of their more sparsely populated territory, especially in North America. But they ultimately retained possession of their more densely inhabited regions in Mexico and Central and South America, and in the last several generations have experienced a rate of demographic increase so large that their overpopulation has itself become perhaps their greatest problem. At present, far from being demographically or biologically threatened by any other race, they are alleviating the problems caused by their excess population growth by exporting it to the territory of other races and nations, and have thereby themselves become a demographic and biological threat to those other races and nations.
Racial Rights
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.
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:
a. Any action, policy, value system or condition which prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful reproduction of a race.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the racially destructive practice of racial intermixture.
f. 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.
g. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the continuation or renewal of racial life.
h. 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.
Notes
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.
 
Charter of Racial Rights
by
Richard McCulloch

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.

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:
a. Any action, policy, value system or condition which prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful reproduction of a race.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the racially destructive practice of racial intermixture.
f. 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.
g. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the continuation or renewal of racial life.
h. 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.

Racial Nihilism
by
Richard McCulloch

Life is a continuum of generations. The existence of each generation is temporary, limited in time, but the existence of the larger life of which the generation is a passing part continues through the successive generations, each succeeding and replacing its predecessor. Each generation is part of the same life, and its foremost task is to continue that life by the successful creation of the next generation, which will replace it and continue the life they hold in common. The different branches of life -- species and races -- are themselves separate and distinct continuums, composed not only of genetically similar individuals in the currently existing generation, but also of a potentially unlimited number of generations, each genetically linked with its ancestors and descendants.
Human continuums are cultural as well as genetic. Each generation transmits both its culture and its genes to its successors. Normally a racial continuum includes cultural as well as genetic transmissions. It is their racial continuum, to which they belong and of which they are a part, from which humans normally receive their identity, their sense of self and purpose, and within which they define themselves and their existence. The generations in the racial continuum come and go, and gradually evolve or change over time, but the life they embody and share in common continues through the continuum of its generations.
The continued existence of a continuum cannot be taken for granted. A continuum can cease to exist, can be ended, can cease to continue, in spite of the implications in its name, if any succeeding generation should ever fail to continue the legacy bequeathed to it by its ancestral generations. This applies to every type of continuum, whether cultural or genetic, of any species or race, or even of life itself as a whole. But only human continuums can be ended by choice. Only human races have the freedom of will to choose the ending of their continuum, the rejection or repudiation of their cultural or genetic heritage, the destruction or extinction of their racial type, the nonexistence of the life they embody. The choice of racial nonexistence over existence, of racial death over racial life, of racial discontinuation over continuation, the rejection or repudiation -- or willingness to reject and repudiate -- the racial continuum of which one is a part and to which one belongs, is racial nihilism.
The term nihilism is derived from the Latin nihilum , which means "nothing." Nihilism is literally nothingism. There are various forms of nihilism, each either denying the existence, or promoting the nonexistence -- through a reduction to nothing -- of a continuum that has existed through many generations. Literary and artistic nihilism rejects and repudiates distinctions or standards in literary or artistic merit or value. Moral nihilism is the rejection and repudiation of moral distinctions, standards and values. Racial nihilism is the rejection and repudiation of all racial distinctions and values. It either denies racial existence or seeks its annihilation -- literally, its reduction to nothingness or nonexistence.
The ideological motivation for nihilism is often a radical or extreme egalitarianism, which seeks to abolish all inequalities by abolishing all distinctions, differences and diversity, as well as all values and standards. But whatever its motivation or form -- whether moral, cultural or racial -- nihilism is an ideology of denial and destruction. It often denies the very existence of the continuum it repudiates and seeks to destroy, unwilling to admit that the object of its destructive intent even exists. As moral nihilism commonly asserts that morality does not exist, so racial nihilism often denies the existence of races, claiming that nothing exists to preserve or conserve. This is racial deconstructionism , the ideological annihilation of race or ideological reduction of race to nothingness, defining race out of existence by "deconstructing" its terms or classifications. [Note 1]
Racial nihilism is the opposite or antithesis of racial preservationism and conservationism. It is opposed to racial preservation (continued racial life), and to the conditions required for preservation (separation and reproductive isolation). In ideological terms, racial nihilism can be defined as any system of ideas, beliefs and values that opposes racial preservation and conservation, that supports or promotes the causes of racial destruction or devolution, or that denies racial rights, especially the racial right to life and the conditions of separation required for continued racial life (racial preservation).
An essential condition of nihilism is that it rejects and repudiates the continued existence of the continuum of which the nihilist is a part and to which the nihilist belongs. A racial nihilist must include their own race in their rejection of continued racial existence. They must reject and repudiate the continuation and preservation of their own racial continuum, their own ancestral line and heritage. Those who reject the continuation or preservation of their own race are racial nihilists regardless of whether or not they also oppose the continuation of other races. Thus some racial nihilists only reject the continuation or preservation of their own race, while approving the continuation of other races. Other racial nihilists reject the continuation of all races, all racial differences and all racial diversity, seeking an egalitarian leveling of all humanity into one uniform race consistent with the goal or dream of the "One World" ideology.
Racial nihilism, in its rejection of racial values, caring and love, and goal of racial leveling, holds that it is wrong to value, care for and love one's race, and even more wrong to value, care for and love it more than others, or to accord it any preference or special concern. This is contrary to the natural tendency of life -- and of human nature in particular -- to value one's own life and one's own branch of life more than others, to accord them special concern, attention, love and devotion. But racial nihilism demands the egalitarian elimination of all racial particularities and distinctions in preferences and concerns, and asserts that it is wrong to value, care for and love one's race in any degree, even the same as others, if that valuing, loving and caring includes a desire for the preservation and continuation of one's own race as a particular type distinct from the others.
Racial nihilism can be passive as well as active, be characterized by acts of omission as well as commission, as the preservation or continuation of a continuum often requires positive, sustaining and affirming actions. The lack of racial caring or interest, the lack of affirmation of racial rights and values, and the acquiescence to the causes of racial destruction, are all examples of racial nihilism by default, the nihilism of indifference. This type of racial nihilism -- a simple lack of interest, care and concern, often not consciously intended -- is by far the most common form, and also the most insidious. No statement expresses the essence of nihilism more than the rhetorical question, "Who cares?" It is an expression of denial and rejection of caring, and even of contempt for caring. The foundations of nihilism are not so much a militant and active destructiveness as a much more pernicious resignation and passivity that rejects caring for and loving those things and values -- including civilization, culture, freedom, morality and race -- that require effort and commitment to uphold, maintain and preserve. When nihilism rejects or denies the value or importance of something, or even denies its existence, it condones its sacrifice or destruction, and resents and condemns as immoral those who do care for, and seek to uphold and preserve, that which is threatened.
Under conditions of racial geographic separation and reproductive isolation, such as nurtured and preserved racial diversity for thousands of generations, a widespread indifference to racial concerns posed little danger to racial preservation, but under multiracial conditions, such as are becoming ever more common in the modern world, racial indifference has emerged as a major threat to the continuation of the different human racial continuums. If racial diversity is to be preserved in the modern world, where the preserving barriers of geographic distance have been overcome by advances in transportation, racial nihilism -- even in its passive, acquiescent, indifferent and unconscious form -- is a luxury humanity can no longer afford.
The two causes of racial destruction are intermixture and replacement. Intermixture causes racial destruction by genetic dilution or submergence, replacement involves one race being dispossessed -- or "squeezed-out" -- by others who take its place. Multiracialism is the ideology, or system of beliefs and values, that supports multiracial conditions and the resulting racially destructive processes of intermixture and replacement. Racial nihilism is the underlying ideology, psychological attitude or view of existence that provides the foundation for multiracialism by denying and rejecting racial rights and values, particularly the right of a race to life, independence, and the condition of separation required for both.
In the chain of causation, racial nihilism causes or supports multiracialism, which causes or promotes multiracial conditions, which cause -- or make possible -- racial intermixture and replacement, which cause racial destruction. Each leads to the other in a progression of cause and effect. Each also requires the other as a precondition for its existence, each effect requiring its cause. Thus racial destruction requires racial intermixture or replacement, which require multiracial conditions, which requires the effective dominance of multiracialism, which requires racial nihilist beliefs, attitudes and values -- whether passive or active, conscious or unconscious, intended or unintended, knowing or unknowing. It follows that racial destruction by intermixture and replacement is an effectively unavoidable consequence of a multiracial society, but is effectively prevented in a monoracial society. The reasons why certain individuals interbreed with members of different races are many and varied, but only occur under multiracial conditions (where there is contact between different races). They do not occur under monoracial conditions of geographic racial separation and reproductive isolation, the conditions in which the different races were created and preserved until modern times.
A "wasteland" is a land, place, society or situation where life is deprived of the conditions it needs to exist. A multiracial society is a racial wasteland, where racial life cannot be continued, where the forces that cause racial death, destruction and extinction are dominant over those that promote racial life, preservation and continuation. In the Middle Ages the term "Wasteland" was used to refer to an orthodox religious ideology that denied and prevented individual freedom, uniqueness, growth and development, and promoted the submergence of the individual in the collective mass. The wasteland of the Modern Age is the secular faith or dogma of multiracialism -- the interracialist and internationalist ideology of universalism or "Oneness" -- that denies and prevents racial freedom (independence), uniqueness (variety and diversity), growth and development (divergent evolution), and continued racial life, and promotes the submergence of races in a multiracial "melting pot," replacing the racially creative process of divergent evolution with the racially destructive process of convergent devolution. [Note 2]
The Oneness goal of "One World" and "One Race" seeks to eliminate human diversity by a process of blending or convergence of all into one, replacing the great variety of types with one uniform type. It began with the concept of "One Religion," a universal religion for all humanity which would replace all other religions. This set the pattern for numerous secular universalist creeds which also sought to impose themselves on all humanity. The process of ideological missionary work, proselytizing and conversion, both religious and secular, continues on a vast scale to this day, promoted by the universalist goal of Oneness, which is consistent with multiracialist and racial nihilist ideology.
The modern multiracial society is a racial wasteland, and its orthodox ideology is racial nihilism, promoted and enforced by both secular and religious authorities or priesthoods. All "mainstream" cultural, political and social institutions conform to it. Any deviance from its doctrines, particularly any manifestation of racial preservationism, is marginalized to a fringe position outside the "mainstream," where it is denied serious consideration as an alternative.
Racial nihilism seeks racial nonexistence, and it tends to deny or minimize the value, or even the existence, of the entity whose nonexistence it seeks. Given its interest in denying, ignoring or minimizing the value and importance of racial existence -- sometimes to the extent of denying that races really exist -- so as to justify its denial of the racial right to existence, racial nihilism is inherently hostile toward any affirmation or acknowledgment of the reality of racial existence. Given the dominant status of racial nihilism in the mass communications media and educational institutions, a situation exists where racial knowledge and appreciation are discouraged, and any objective study or discussion of racial matters -- of racial differences and diversity, or the conditions required for continued racial existence -- is regarded as a forbidden subject, and effectively repressed, banned or censored. Racial nihilism, in its denial and rejection of the value and importance of race, racial diversity and racial existence, has made race a "bad" word, taboo for all but its priesthood, who are entrusted with its use or incantation solely for the purpose of promoting the racial nihilist agenda of racial destruction.
Racial nihilism has created an air of unreality with regard to racial matters, where the subjects of racial evolution, variation, diversity, differences, uniqueness and continued existence are confronted with evasion, dissimulation or denial, where it is regarded as morally proper to pretend that races and racial differences do not exist, and where those who openly acknowledge, recognize and affirm these differences -- and especially those who celebrate them and assert their value and importance -- are regarded as immoral. In this ideological climate, human racial diversity and differences -- the creation or work of nature through thousands of generations of divergent evolution -- are denied, trivialized or belittled as unimportant and not worth preserving, or are actually regarded as immoral and as something which should be destroyed. It logically follows that racial rights are also denied or belittled, and their assertion regarded as immoral.
To the racial nihilist racial differences are something evil, and racial diversity, variation and uniqueness is something to be denied, belittled and destroyed rather than affirmed, loved and preserved. The racial nihilist seeks the egalitarianism of sameness and oneness, and wants all humanity to be the same, the rich diversity of human racial types to be reduced to one uniform type. Racial nihilism is racial egalitarianism in its most extreme form, eliminating all racial inequalities by the elimination of all racial diversity and differences.
Extreme racial nihilists deny the existence of races while working to destroy and undo racial existence. They believe it is immoral to even admit that different races exist, and it would seem that some "true believers" actually believe that races do not exist, as their ethical beliefs (that the existence of different races is immoral) and values (preference for a world without racial diversity) determine their factual beliefs. Others dissimulate, seeking the end of racial diversity and knowing that the denial of racial existence promotes the actual destruction of that existence. Racial rights cannot be logically acknowledged or defended if the existence of races is not recognized. Without the factual belief in the existence of races there is no basis for the ethical belief in racial rights.
The factual belief that there are no racial differences, or that they are trivial and unimportant, or that different races do not really exist, is often asserted to support the ethical belief that races have no right to life, liberty and independence, and to justify the denial and violation of those rights. If a race does not exist it has no rights that can be violated. By denying racial existence, racial nihilism can rationalize its opposition to racial rights and assume a moral pose while promoting racial destruction. But to be logically consistent, the denial of the existence of different human races not only requires the denial of the existence of genetically distinct human populations, but also the effective denial of the creative process of divergent evolution, and by implication the denial of the existence of all different life forms. If one is an illusion all are an illusion, and at this point racial nihilism becomes racial gnosticism.
Gnosticism is the belief that physical life and existence are not real, that everything in the material world is an illusion, without meaning or value. It is a form of metaphysical nihilism. Gnostics belittle or deny the importance -- in fact the reality or existence -- of all that is physical or material, claiming that the only true reality is nonmaterial or spiritual. They seek to escape from life and physical existence, or to end it. The word "gnosticism" is derived from the Greek word for knowledge, and the original gnostics -- "those with knowledge" -- were the initiates in the Greek Mystery religions. It was not until the Hellenistic period (the three centuries preceding the Christian era) that gnosticism became associated with a disbelief in the reality of physical existence. This development can be attributed in part to the influence of Indian Buddhist missionaries, who brought their ideas to the Mediterranean world during the Hellenistic era. [Note 3] In the Christian era various gnostic sects developed within Christianity which believed in an incorporeal or illusory Christ who never existed as a real or physical man.
As gnosticism does not believe in physical reality, but regards it as an illusion, so it also does not believe in the reality of any differences or distinctions in the material world. It believes that all people and peoples, all individuals and races, are the same, interchangeable and impersonal, that none are unique, different or special in any significant way. It follows that gnosticism is completely egalitarian, regarding all as equal and the same, with no important differences or distinctions. The gnostic is especially egalitarian in love, believing it is immoral to love any person or people more than any other, but that all people and peoples should be loved and valued equally. This egalitarian form of love was called agape in Greek, and it was applied equally to all, impersonally, without differentiation, distinction or discrimination. [Note 4] Both personal love and love for one's race or people, which differentiate, discriminate and draw distinctions, which value a particular person or people more than others, were condemned. The gnostics practiced no exclusivity, loyalty or fidelity in love, advocating equal and nondiscriminating love for all, to be given equally to all, without preference or special emotions, loyalties or attachments. The gnostics were no more loyal or attached to their race, people or nation than they were to their sexual partners, professing themselves to be kosmopolites , cosmopolitans, or citizens of the world.
Gnosticism, in its denial and rejection of the reality and value of life and existence, is a quest for nonexistence, seeking the end of existence, the destruction of the continuum of the generations. Thus many of the gnostic sects, both pagan and Christian, condemned procreation as a continuation of the life and existence they sought to bring to an end. Racial gnosticism, the belief that race is not real, but an illusion without meaning, significance or value, also seeks the end of racial existence, the destruction of the racial continuum, and opposes procreation or anything else which tends to continue or preserve racial life.
The modern Western world has witnessed a resurgence of gnostic thinking, again -- as in ancient times -- largely influenced by Hindu and Buddhist thought. Much of the philosophy of the so-called "New Age" movement, a continuation of the "counterculture" which began in the mid-sixties, is directly attributable to Hindu and Buddhist influence, with many of its members proclaiming themselves to be followers of various Asian "gurus." The strong current of gnosticism that runs through this movement should therefore come as no surprise. [Note 5] The "love" which was the leitmotif of the counterculture was agapic love, the egalitarian and promiscuous love that is characteristic of gnosticism; universal, impersonal and nondiscriminating, unfocused, without any special intensity of emotion or feeling for any particular person, people or thing. In sexual relations this promiscuous love (agape) was euphemistically referred to as "free love." In political and social matters it expressed itself as universalism and the cosmopolitan "One-World, One-Race, One-People" goal of Oneness.
Somewhat similar to gnosticism, and to some extent an ancestor or harbinger of it, and even more pervasive in its influence, is dualism , the factual belief that there are two realities or "planes" of existence, one material or physical and the other nonmaterial or spiritual. In a tradition dating back at least to Plato, it usually includes the belief that the physical dimension or plane is inferior to the spiritual. But dualism, although holding physical existence to be inferior to spiritual existence, differs from gnosticism in that it does recognize the reality of physical existence. Dualistic values are evident whenever the value or importance of the material world and natural, biological-physical existence is belittled as inferior to a supposed "higher plane" of non-material, spiritual or supernatural existence. Since biological existence or life is part of material existence, it -- and all that is associated with it -- is also, by extension, regarded as inferior. Typically, dualism regards race as a purely physical or biological phenomenon, without any existence in the spiritual plane. Whereas racial gnosticism denies the physical existence or reality of race, dualism recognizes its physical existence but denies its spiritual existence. The effects of these factual beliefs on ethical beliefs are very similar, with the result that both deny the value or importance of race.
The influence of dualism over both religious and secular thought has been sufficient to create a pervasive intellectual and ethical bias or prejudice against the physical or material, and by extension against biological existence, genes and race. This bias can be seen in the belief that the higher functions of the mind belong to a spiritual plane of existence unconnected to the biological-material plane (the mind-body dichotomy), and the resulting opposition to the idea that the mind and its traits could be determined or influenced by something physical such as genes, or created by something physical such as biological evolution. Dualism separates the existence of the mind from the physical body and brain, denying the material-biological basis of its existence. It rejects the role of genes, a physical-material structure, and evolution, a process of physical-material-biological genetic change, in the creation and determination of mental traits such as intelligence, personality and identity. Since dualism sees race as a physical-material-biological phenomenon, with racial traits and characteristics, differences, diversity and variation existing only in the material or physical "plane," racial concerns are not regarded as valuable or important, but as inferior to spiritual or nonmaterial considerations.
The dualistic belief in more than one reality is not necessarily harmful to material reality. Nor is it necessarily harmful to material reality to judge it to be inferior. But it is harmful to material reality to judge it to be so inferior as to be without value, meaning, purpose or importance, or even to be an illusion which does not really exist -- the belief that is the essence of gnosticism. It is harmful to material reality to regard everything that has a material or physical basis for existence -- including the human body, the genes that determine its form and traits, and the process by which it was created -- as unimportant. And it is harmful to material reality to regard the great continuums of physical-biological existence or life, including the diverse races of humanity, to be without value and unworthy of care, concern and preservation. This is the train of logic that leads from dualism and gnosticism to racial nihilism.
But gnosticism and dualism in general, and their influence on racial beliefs and values in particular, are only part of the explanation for the current dominance of racial nihilism in the Western world. The dominant trend of the "popular" or mass culture in recent times, from "pop" philosophy to "pop" psychology, has been to emphasize the individual while ignoring, denying, rejecting, violating and sacrificing the interests of the larger entity -- the evolutionary continuum or race -- of which the individual is a part and from which the individual came, the larger -- and potentially immortal -- genetic entity whose existence continues through the generations while the existence of the particular individual is limited to one generation. This cultural trend is not limited to the secular sphere, but dominates in the religious sphere as well, where the "salvation" that is promised is the salvation of the individual, not the salvation or continued life of the racial continuum to which the individual belongs.
Some racial nihilists are extreme individualists, who only recognize the rights of individuals (and perhaps only the existence of individuals) in a very atomistic sense, not recognizing the rights (and perhaps the existence) of the biological group of which they are a part, whose existence transcends the sum of its parts and is potentially immortal. This excessive preoccupation with the atomized individual, divorced or separated from the context of the larger genetic continuum of which it is a part, is a classic example of not being able to see the forest because of the trees. The individual entities, whether tree or human being, come and go in their generations, but the larger entity of which they are a part, whether forest or race, lives on. It is the enduring reality, the continuing reality, the continuum. The life of the individual is transient and passes quickly. It is the life of the forest or race that is potentially immortal. But one cannot exist without the other. The single individual and the forest or race, the part and the whole, both depend on the health and well-being of the other.
In ancient Greece persons who were excessively preoccupied with their own private or individual affairs, to the point of neglecting or rejecting their responsibilities or involvement in the larger entity of which they were a part, and thereby separating themselves from it, and from care or concern for its interests, were called idiotes . It is therefore etymologically correct to refer to the condition in which an individual is so preoccupied with their own private interests as to be separated from involvement in -- and care and concern for -- the interests of their race, as racial idiocy. This common condition of racial idiocy is a major cause of racial nihilism, in both its active and passive forms. In a healthy culture racial idiocy would be regarded as dysfunctional, but in the present culture the dominant position of racial nihilism enables the racial idiot to enjoy the conceit of moral superiority over those individuals who do not separate themselves from their race, but who care for it and promote its interests and preservation. [Note 6]
Another cause of racial nihilism is an excessive preoccupation with economic matters and concerns. As a result, racial considerations, including racial preservation and independence, are routinely subordinated to economic considerations. Much of the impetus behind the "One-World, One-Race" movement comes from economic interests. The call for a unified world economy without restrictions on the movement of "labor" (people), permitting the free movement or immigration of people into the homelands of other races, is a clear expression of racial nihilism, denying and violating the right of every race to life and independence by denying it the racially exclusive territory required for both. The essence of this form of racial nihilism is that it sees all people as interchangeable units of production and consumption, without any differences -- including racial differences -- worthy of caring about or preserving. It is willing, even eager, to sacrifice racial interests for the sake of economic gain. Typically, it promotes multiracial immigration for economic purposes (especially to lower labor costs) with racially destructive effects on the existing population (displacement and replacement, or extinction by intermixture and genetic submergence).
Racial nihilism, particularly in its more activist forms, is often associated with internationalism and the "One-World" goal of a world government. For many persons this goal is motivated by a desire to end war and conflict by establishing a rule of law among peoples, nations or races similar to the rule of law that government enforces among individuals. This rule of law is a worthy goal provided it is based on the concept of racial and national rights as well as individual rights, but many internationalists adopt the racial nihilist position that human conflict can only be abolished by the abolishment of human diversity and differences, by the destruction of whatever separates humanity into different types and distinguishes one type from the others. Some people sincerely believe that the world would be a better place if all the races would join and become one, and are motivated by this belief to support racial nihilism in the conscious knowledge of its racially destructive effects. (John Lennon's song Imagine was an expression of this belief and desire.) Others are motivated by racial nihilism and the desire for racial annihilation -- the reduction of race to nothingness -- as an end in itself, and merely use internationalism as a pretext to justify their position and a cloak to cover their true motives.
The "One-World, One-Race" dream provides an effective vehicle to promote racial nihilism, as it allows no race a right to its own territory, independence or existence, but would consign them all to the multiracial "melting-pot," where the traits that once distinguished the different races would exist only in solution, blended with all the others, effectively diluted out of existence. The dream of racial "Oneness" is really a simplistic and reductionist dream. It seeks to reduce the complex to the simple, to replace the many existing forms and types with one uniform type, by diluting racial differences to the point of nonexistence or nothingness. It would impose its dream upon nature, changing the course of nature, by replacing the complex racial diversity created by the natural process of divergent evolution with a simple uniformity caused by a process of convergent devolution. It is an irony of semantics that the racial intermixture that is often referred to as racial integration actually causes racial disintegration, the dissolution and destruction of races and racial diversity.
The influence of racial nihilism permeates contemporary culture. Its values are promoted in the schools and the churches, in print and on television, by teachers and preachers, journalists and talk-show hosts. Even so, the support for racial nihilism among the general population is more passive than active, more unconscious than conscious, more the result of ignorance and misplaced trust than knowledge and understanding. The public is well-indoctrinated with racial nihilist values, but not well-informed regarding the effects of racial nihilist policies, or the existence of possible alternatives. The combination of pervasive indoctrination with inertia and conformism, and the exclusion of possible alternatives from consideration by the mainstream media, maintains the culture on a racial nihilist course and permits the pace of racial destruction to be gradually increased, even if the fanaticism of the "true believer" is limited to a relative few. The few who are driven by a passionate intensity have more influence than the many who lack all conviction, who do not care, and who consign their race to oblivion with the deathstroke of indifference.
In the multiracial society, ideologically justified and supported by racial nihilism, the different races are denied their sense of racehood or racial identity, their organic connection to the continuum of life of which they and their own life is a part, from which it came and to which it belongs, the natural object of their loyalties and affections, their love and responsibilities. People are taught from childhood to neither value their race, nor have any love or care for it, or loyalty toward it. Such are the values instilled by racial nihilism, depriving the race of the love and loyalty of its members, so that its existence is not regarded as a value but is denied and violated. These are the genocidal values of racial destruction through alienation and disaffection of natural love and loyalty.
Racial conservation has much in common with the conservation of nature. The conservation and protection of nature and the natural environment depended on the development of a conservationist or environmentalist ethic, a system of morals and values that appreciated and recognized the importance of the natural environment and sought to preserve it. Racial preservation depends upon the development of a conservationist ethic for race, or human nature, similar to the conservationist ethic developed for non-human nature. It requires an ethic, a morality, of racial affirmation and conservation to replace the current ethic of racial denial and destruction, a morality with a positive view of race as a good to be appreciated, cherished, valued, loved and preserved rather than the current negative view of race as an evil to be discarded, rejected and destroyed. Such an ethic or morality is the essential foundation of the Racial Compact.
Notes
1. This denial is often implied or indirect, as in the following statement by Miami Herald columnist Joel Achenbach, who writes that "...'races' are the arbitrary inventions of the colonialist era." ("Robobaby," Tropic , April 5, 1992, p. 19.) Sometimes the denial by deconstruction is explicit and direct, as in the following assertions by Joan Steinau Lester, executive director of Equity Institute, a "diversity consulting firm," who writes, "The idea of 'white' is a fiction, created at a time when Europeans were labeling and classifying everything....'Race' is a system of thought created for the purpose of maintaining separation and power. As we attempt as a nation to dismantle 'racial' divisions and inequities, it is time to disassemble the ideas and words made to fortify the old ways....Folks, race is a bigger scam than Santa Claus. Not only does this dog not hunt, it doesn't exist." ("Is he white? Is he black? And, can you always really tell?" The Miami Herald , Feb. 20, 1994, p. 3C.)
Actually, it was during the era of Western discovery and exploration -- of which the colonialist era was the final expansionist phase -- that the different races of humanity became aware of each other, that actual knowledge of human racial diversity began to replace centuries of myth and speculation, and that the study of human racial diversity became a serious scientific discipline. In that sense the different races were "invented" during that era, as it was then that they were first studied, defined, categorized, classified and given names. However, they were not created by such means, but by the same process of divergent evolution that created all the other varieties of life on earth, which was also first conceptualized during the height of the colonial era by the English naturalist Charles Darwin.
2. In the Middle Ages the "Wasteland" of intellectual and ideological orthodoxy suppressed and inhibited, or banned as heretical, the study of any branch of knowledge or philosophy which was inconsistent with or contrary to its own beliefs. In the modern intellectual and ideological wasteland of dogmatic racial nihilism the study of knowledge relating to race and racial differences is suppressed and inhibited, or banned as "politically incorrect," as such knowledge is inconsistent with its own beliefs, which either deny the existence of races and racial differences or regard them as being without value or importance.
The tendency of dominant ideologies to be intolerant of other ideas or beliefs is a persistent danger, requiring constant vigilance as the price for preserving the historically rare and fragile condition of intellectual freedom. A dominant ideology tends to encourage ideas and beliefs that agree with it, and to discourage, repress, censor or ban those that disagree. In the Middle Ages ideas or beliefs that disagreed with the orthodox ideology of the Catholic church were labeled heresy. The currently dominant ideological orthodoxy of nihilistic egalitarianism labels racial, sexual, historical, cultural and moral ideas or beliefs as politically (ideologically) correct or incorrect on the basis of whether or not they tend to agree with and support its position. "Political correctness" -- or conformance to the orthodox ideological position -- is given precedence over factual correctness and the classical liberal ideals of freedom of inquiry, belief and conscience, and the failure to give it precedence is regarded as a moral fault or evil, proving a lack of virtue.
3. Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology (Penguin Books, 1964), p. 362.
4. Thus gnostic sects often rejected monogamy and promoted either celibacy or a promiscuous community of sexual partners where exclusive relationships and strong personal attachments were forbidden. One Christian gnostic sect, the Phibionites, engaged in agapic orgies as part of their religious rites.
5. Such pagan gnostic sayings as "Leap clear of all that is corporeal,""Nothing is impossible," and "Think that you are everywhere at once," are reminiscent of Jonathan Livingston Seagull , written by Richard Bach, one of the better known "New Age" authors, whose other philosophical works, especially Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah , also express gnostic ideas.
6. Those individuals who are excessively preoccupied with the interests of their own race to the point of ignoring or rejecting the legitimate rights and interests of other races, or the interests of life or the planet as a whole, and separating themselves and their race from those interests, could be described as another type of racial idiot. The promotion of racial rights, independence and preservation is as incompatible with this form of racial idiocy as it is with the racial nihilist form.
The relationship between individual and racial rights (i.e., the rights of the larger entity of which the individual is a part) can be illustrated by the story of a group of people in a boat. One person claimed a right to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat under his own seat. The others objected, explaining that if he were in a boat by himself he would have a right to do as he pleased, as only he would suffer the consequences, but as there were others in the same boat with him, and the consequences of his actions would not be limited to his own seat and himself alone, but would sink the entire boat and adversely effect them all, he did not have a right to endanger the boat they shared in common. This story can be seen as a metaphor, with the would-be hole driller representing the idiotic or immoral individual, the other occupants representing his race, the water representing a threat to the existence of his race, and the boat representing the condition that protects the existence of his race from the threat. This metaphor can be applied to the situation that occurs when some individuals claim a right to introduce the genes of other races (represented in the metaphor by the surrounding body of water) into their race -- either through intermixture, adoption, immigration or some other means -- thereby making a hole or breach in the protective condition of racial separation (the boat), through which the genes of other races (the water) can enter and spread throughout their race, threatening all -- including the generations to come -- with destruction by genetic flooding and sinking.
Return to Racial Compact main page

Right and Wrong Racism
by
Richard McCulloch

Reductionism and extremism both try to keep things simple. Reductionism attempts to reduce the complex to the simple, both in matters of type, kind or form, and causality. Where there are many types or forms, differing in both minor and major degrees, reductionism -- unable or unwilling to make distinctions -- claims there is only one type or form. Where there are many different causes combining to produce an effect, reductionism insists there is only one cause. Extremism, the other product of simplistic thinking, defines an issue only in terms of its two extreme positions, denying the possible existence of alternative positions between the two extremes. For the extremist there is no middle ground, only one extreme or the other. Non-support for one extreme position is equated with support of the opposite extreme position. The problem with simplistic thinking, whether reductionism or extremism, is that in a world of almost infinite complexity and variety it rarely provides an accurate or truthful portrayal of reality.
This problem is particularly acute in the fields of definition and categorization. For example, racism -- the subject of this chapter -- is a term that is frequently subject to simplistic definitions. It is common to define racism as having only one cause and existing in only one form, or being of a uniform type. Definitions that describe a wide variation in types of racism, and a great diversity in causes or motives for racism, are conspicuous by their absence. Furthermore, the single uniform type that racism is usually reduced to in these simplistic definitions is almost always of an extremist character. In the hope of correcting the distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies inherent in simplistic definitions, a more complete definition of racism, in its variety of forms, kinds and types, causes and motives, will be presented here.
Racism can be broadly defined as including any ideology -- or system of ideas, values, ethics and beliefs -- in which race and racial differences are recognized and regarded as valuable and important. It can also be defined as the opposite of racial nihilism, which denies race and racial differences and regards them as being without value or importance. In terms of causality or motive racism can be based on a wide variety of opposites, as can its own opposite -- racial nihilism. It can be based on love or hate, knowledge or ignorance, idealism or realism, loyalty or envy, benevolence or malice. [Note 1] These different bases, causes or motives can themselves interact and blend in such a wide variety of combinations that it is often difficult to determine which cause is primary and which secondary. In sum, the motives or reasons for racism are as varied and complex as anything involving humanity is likely to be. But for purposes of discussion they can be divided into the following categories -- factual beliefs, ethical beliefs, values and emotions.
Racism based on factual beliefs includes the racism based on the belief that one race is superior to another, as the belief in racial superiority -- whether factually right or wrong -- is a factual belief. (This factual belief is often improperly criticized on ethical rather than factual grounds by racial egalitarians who demand that all factual beliefs conform to their ethical beliefs.) Also included in this category is the racism based on the factual belief in significant racial differences and variation -- independent of issues of superiority or inferiority -- coupled with the factual belief that it would be biologically beneficial for life and humanity to preserve that diversity. The racism based on a religious conviction that it is fulfilling the divine will is also included in the category of factual belief.
Racism based on ethical beliefs includes the racism that supports racial rights and affirms the right of all races to life, independence (racial self-determination or liberty) and the conditions of racial separation required for both. At the other end of the ethical spectrum, but also included in the category of racism based on ethical beliefs, is the racism which rejects and denies racial rights in favor of a racial competition for territory, dominance, mastery and existence -- a struggle for racial survival unrestricted by moral considerations. This form of racism -- here designated as immoral racism -- is based on the ethical belief that there are no racial rights. This belief makes it the opposite of the racism -- here designated as moral racism -- that is based on the ethical belief in racial rights. Ironically, racial nihilism -- the opposite of racism in terms of its denial and rejection of the importance and value of race -- also denies and rejects racial rights, sharing this belief in common with immoral racism, and as a consequence also favors conditions (specifically, multiracialism) in which racial existence is not protected or secure, but is threatened with destruction by racial competition, replacement and intermixture.
Racism based on values includes the racism which regards the qualities of one race -- usually one's own -- as more important or desirable than those of other races. Values both influence and are influenced by -- and are closely connected with -- emotions, feelings and esthetic sensibilities that are deeply rooted in the human psyche, often subjective, and perhaps partially innate or genetic in origin. These can be either positive or negative. There are innumerable gradations or degrees of both positive and negative emotions, with love being the most positive and hate the most negative. There are many different definitions of both love and hate, but for general purposes love can be defined as a strong positive emotion or feeling and hate as a strong negative emotion. In terms of causality, the critics of racism commonly define it as motivated or caused exclusively by hate, or even as synonymous with racial hate. But there is both more than one type of racism and more than one cause. Each type has its own cause, and each cause creates its own type or form.
The emotions of love and hate are often the positive and negative poles of the same emotion, for as it is normal to love that which represents one's values, so it is also normal to hate that which represents the antithesis of one's values. Similarly, it is normal to hate that which threatens one's values with harm or destruction. This type of hate is a derivative emotion of love, with love being the originating, primary, active and determining emotion, motive or cause and hate being a derivative, secondary and reactive response to perceived threats. These two emotions, the one derived from the other, are often confused as to primacy, but they are different poles of the same emotion, their existence inseparably connected.
Although the role of love as a cause of racism is seldom admitted by its critics, who prefer to define racism in strictly negative terms, the fact is that the forms of racism based on values are most commonly caused or motivated by the positive emotion of love. Probably the most common form of racism may be simply defined as the love of one's race, a positive emotion which evokes feelings of loyalty to the interests of one's race and a desire to preserve it. Since the critics of racism presently enjoy a status of cultural dominance, and usually deny the possibility of any positive motivation for racism, the existence of the form of racism based on love for one's race and loyalty to its interests is not generally recognized. Therefore the most common form of racism is not recognized as such, and its existence is largely unconscious and invisible, repressed by cultural norms that discourage the expression of love for one's race.
The person who loves their own race may or may not love other races also, but if they do it need not be expected that their love or positive emotions for other races should be equal to what they feel for their own. It is normal to have a wide range of different emotions and feelings for different things, including different races, to value some more than others, to have preferences, likes and dislikes, and to discriminate on the basis of those preferences. It is abnormal to have the same or equal feelings or emotions for all things, including all races. Yet this is the egalitarianism of emotions, feelings and esthetic sensibilities, or emotional reductionism -- the reduction of a complex and diverse variety of different types, intensities and degrees of emotion to a single, uniform emotion in accordance with the egalitarian principles of agapic love -- that racial egalitarianism requires. It opposes the valuing or loving of one race -- normally one's own -- more than other races, and condemns as immoral any person who values or loves one race -- normally their own -- more than other races, or who values or loves different races unequally, or in different or unequal degrees.
Racism caused by values and love also includes the racism that values or loves human racial diversity and consequently supports racial preservation, and which may or may not love and value all the diverse races equally in accordance with the egalitarian principles of agapic love. The love of racial diversity is a love of humanity which has much in common with the love of nature. The love of humanity does not require that all the parts of humanity be loved equally, just as the love of nature does not require that all the parts of nature be loved equally. Love is not a level emotion, but an uneven emotion of infinite degrees and variety. Every individual loves different things differently. It is one of the things that defines individuality. But it is most natural to love most that part of nature to which one belongs, the part of which we ourselves are a part.
As the causality of racism cannot be reduced to a single cause, so racism cannot be reduced to a single form. The forms of racism are as varied as the causes. Each cause results in a different form, each with its own goals and methods, ends and means. For the moral forms of racism the goal is racial preservation and continuation, independence and liberty. For the immoral forms the goal is racial supremacy or mastery -- the ruling, controlling or subjugation of other races -- often attended by exploitation, victimization or, in the most extreme versions, genocide or racial destruction.
The most important distinction between the different types or forms of racism is the one based on morality. This moral distinction is determined by their different ethical beliefs, goals or ends, and methods or means of achieving those goals. There are moral and immoral ethical beliefs and values, moral and immoral goals or ends, and moral and immoral methods or means. Morality, like human rights, is a social construct. It is willed into existence by the members of a society. Its purpose is to direct and regulate behavior and relationships so as to serve and promote the general good, the interests of the society or racial continuum as a whole. Morality can be positive, requiring certain actions, or negative, forbidding certain actions, but its purpose remains the same. In practice morality can be defined as constructive behavior which promotes the preservation and continuation of life. Immorality is behavior that is destructive, either of oneself or others, or of one's own race or other races.
A fundamental principle of morality is respect and support for the legitimate rights and interests of all, of others as well as oneself, the famous "Golden Rule" of reciprocity. In terms of morality, the primary distinction between the different forms of racism is between those which recognize, affirm, respect, support and promote the legitimate rights and interests of all races -- the "Racial Golden Rule" -- and those which do not. Moral racism does, immoral racism does not. The distinction between moral and immoral racism is similar to the distinction between moral and immoral individualism. The defining characteristic of individualism is the assertion and promotion of individual rights and interests. The defining characteristic of racism is the assertion and promotion of racial rights and interests. The difference or distinction between the moral and immoral forms of individualism and racism is that the moral forms respect and promote the rights and interests of all individuals and races, while the immoral forms only respect the rights and interests of the subject's own self and race. This excessive subjectivity results in the denial and violation of the rights and interests of other individuals and races.
Moral racism can be defined as the recognition, affirmation and promotion of legitimate racial rights and interests, [Note 2] especially the primary or vital -- or life-essential -- right of a race to racial life (continued existence or preservation) and independence (control of its own life or existence in all spheres -- political, social, economic and cultural). Immoral racism and racial nihilism can both be defined as ideologies that deny and violate racial rights, the difference being that the immoral racist violates the rights of other races -- sometimes as an end in itself, but more commonly as a means to the end of benefiting their own race -- while the racial nihilist denies and violates the rights of all races in general, and of their own race in particular.
The forms of racism that have traditionally been defined, recognized, promoted and practiced as racism generally do not recognize or promote racial rights. Specifically, they have not upheld the rights of different races to life (continued existence), liberty (independence) and the pursuit of their own evolutionary destiny, or to the exclusive possession of their own territory as required for the realization of these rights. In fact, the forms of racism that have traditionally been defined and practiced as such have denied and violated these rights. The extent of their violation and denial of the rights of other races has varied. Some have been restricted or governed in some degree by moral considerations, so their violation of the rights of other races has not been total, while others have been virtually unchecked by such concerns. Moral racism has not yet been practiced as the guiding principle of racial relations.
Before moral racism can be practiced its existence -- or at least its possibility -- must first be generally recognized. But the very concept of a moral form of racism is viewed with suspicion and doubt, or outright denied, in a culture long conditioned to racial nihilist ideology. The only forms of racism commonly recognized as existing, or even being possible, are immoral forms, and these usually of the most extreme varieties. As a result, and fully consistent with the tenets of reductionism and extremism, the recognized alternative positions on racial matters have been reduced to the two extremes of racial nihilism and immoral racism, both of which deny and violate racial rights.
Extremism views a given matter as limited to two opposite extreme positions without other alternatives, as one or the other, either-or. Both extremes on the issue of race claim that there is no alternative to their position other than the opposite extreme, and deny or ignore other alternatives, insisting they do not really exist, or even that they cannot exist. Thus racial nihilism claims that the only alternative to its multiracialist version of racial destruction and violation of racial rights is the supremacist version promoted by immoral racism, and that any deviation from racial nihilism leads by inexorable extremist logic to acts of genocide against other races. Likewise, immoral racism claims that the only alternative to its supremacist version of racial destruction and violation of racial rights is the multiracialist version promoted by racial nihilism, and that any opposition to immoral racism is the equivalent of promoting multiracialism and racial destruction by intermixture and replacement.
Both claims are typical of the simplistic reductionist view of causality and form, reducing the complex and diverse to the simple and uniform. Neither will consider or admit the existence of an alternative that promotes racial rights, preservation and independence. Consequently, the racial issue has only been presented and defined in the form of its two opposite destructive extremes, with other alternatives or choices denied and excluded from consideration. The only choice offered is between different versions of racial destruction. But human racial diversity needs another choice, a better choice, an alternative that recognizes and defends racial rights and promotes racial preservation.
The distinction between morality and immorality often coincides with the distinction between preservation and destruction. Moral actions and ideas tend to preserve life. Immoral actions and ideas are more likely to be destructive of life. Races are living things, forms of life and continuums of life composed of generations of living things. Therefore those ideas and actions which promote racial preservation should be presumptively regarded as moral (i.e., should enjoy a presumption of morality) and those which promote racial destruction should be presumptively regarded as immoral. Immoral racism and racial nihilism both promote racial destruction, although the motive, the method of destruction, and the identity of the race -- or races -- marked for destruction are different. Moral racism is the only ideology that promotes the preservation of all races.
Moral racism is the preservationist middle way, the "golden mean" between the two opposite destructive extremes. It charts a racial preservationist course between the Scylla of immoral racism and the Charybdis of racial nihilism. It is the alternative choice, the conservationist choice, the position that affirms racial rights, especially the right of all races to life, liberty (freedom) and independence (control of its own life). In this it clearly differs from the two forms of racial extremism -- immoral racism and racial nihilism -- which deny and violate racial rights. Immoral racism violates the racial right to freedom and independence by the practice of racial supremacism, in which one race rules over, controls or is master of another, and -- in its extreme forms -- violates the racial right to life by acts of genocide. Racial nihilism violates the same rights by the practice of multiracialism, in which the different races are denied the condition of racial separation required both for continued life and for control of their own lives.
The existence of moral racism is not generally recognized for two main reasons. The first is the unwillingness of either of the two extreme positions on race -- immoral racism and racial nihilism -- to admit the existence of alternative positions. The second reason is that moral racism -- the ideology of racial rights, preservation and independence -- has not yet been consciously defined and conceptualized, intellectually purified and morally transvalued. This is a process that all values must go through before being recognized and persistently practiced -- and thereby "socially constructed" -- by a "critical mass" of persons, or a powerful and influential minority, sufficient to make them normative or dominant. Individualism and individual rights, as well as environmentalism and conservation, went through this process before being recognized as values, and so must moral racism, with its concepts of racial rights and racial conservation.
The essential process of definition and conceptualization, purification and moral transvaluation, requires above all that moral racism be clearly distinguished from all other positions on race, especially the various forms of immoral racism. In this the situation of racism is similar to that of individualism. The word individualism can be applied to any ideology that affirms the value and importance of the individual. It is generally recognized that there are many forms of individualism, both right and wrong, moral and immoral. They are distinguished by their different attitude toward the rights of others. The moral or right forms of individualism recognize and respect the rights of both other individuals and the larger society or race of which the individual is a part. The immoral or wrong forms do not, but deny and violate them.
The fact that there are immoral forms of individualism does not usually cause people to consider all forms of individualism to be immoral. In spite of the immoral individualists the mainstream culture generally sees individualism as a positive value, as morally right and good, and regards its immoral practitioners as exceptions to the rule. In modern Western culture individualism is more likely to have a positive connotation than a negative, more likely to be regarded as moral than immoral. This is because the moral forms of individualism have been successfully defined as distinct from the immoral forms, and so purified of any association or confusion with them. The same should also be true of racism.
The name racism can be applied to any ideology -- or system of ideas, beliefs and values -- that affirms the value and importance of race, or that is based on racial considerations. Like individualism, racism can be either moral or immoral, depending on its attitude toward the rights of others. But unlike individualism, the fact that there can be moral as well as immoral forms of racism is not generally recognized. Consequently, racism has an almost exclusively negative image and is routinely regarded as immoral. To be morally transvalued, and so recognized as moral, the moral forms of racism need to be successfully defined and conceptualized as clearly distinct from the immoral forms, purified of any association or connection with them (other than the fact that they are both based on race), and thus morally evaluated by a new standard in place of the conventional standard based on the immoral forms. It will then be possible for moral racism -- and its concepts of racial rights, preservation and independence -- to be socially constructed as a normative or dominant value by the cumulative effect of the decisions, beliefs and actions of a sufficient "critical mass" or influential minority.
Individualism in general is characterized by the factual belief that the individual is unique, important and has value. Moral individualism adds to this the ethical belief that the individual has rights, among which are the right to life and the conditions required for life, the right to control his own life (to rule or govern his own life), the right to the product of his own labor (the wealth he has created), the right to his own home, and the right to reproduce his life, so long as the exercise of these rights does not conflict with the same rights of others. Racism in general can be similarly defined as the factual belief that races are unique, important and have value. Moral racism adds to this the ethical belief that races have rights, among which are the right to life and the conditions they require for life, the right to control their own life and destiny (independence and self-determination), the right to their own homeland or racially-exclusive territory, the right to the product of their own labor, and the right to reproduce their life and culture through their children, limited only by the provision that the exercise of these rights does not conflict with the same rights of other races.
The Lockian doctrine of individual rights holds that each person is a sovereign being, not to be ruled by or to rule over others, but to rule only their own life. It rejects the doctrine that some people are justified in ruling over, controlling or being the masters of others. This is a central concept of moral individualism. Similarly, moral racism holds that each race is a sovereign entity, with the right to sole power and control over its own life, existence and destiny, in all its aspects, not to be ruled by or to rule over other races. It rejects the doctrine of racial supremacism -- typical of immoral racism -- that some races are justified, or have a right, to rule over, control or be the masters of other races.
As stated above, racism has an almost exclusively negative or immoral image in the present culture, and for good reason, since the only forms of racism generally known or recognized are the immoral forms. It is associated with immoral means or methods, such as intimidation or physical violence. It is associated with immoral solutions, ends or goals, such as genocide or enslavement of other races, or mass expulsion of other races without adequate provision of a homeland of their own, all of which offend the most basic civilized sensibilities. Finally, it is associated with totalitarianism, with the rejection of the political morality of liberal humanism and its values of democracy, individual rights and freedom. With regard to immoral racism these associations are well-founded. With regard to moral racism, however, they are not, but represent the opposite of its principles, values and goals.
Racial nihilism often uses extremist logic to morally discredit all forms of racism by claiming that racism must, if taken to its logical extreme, result in genocide. Much of the population has been effectively conditioned to perceive racism only in this extreme and morally discredited form. This is combined with the use of reductionist logic to reduce racism to only one monolithic form -- the morally discredited extremist form -- and deny the possibility of any other form, especially a morally credible form. Both extremist and reductionist logic disallow any differentiation or distinction between different forms. In this matter the proponents of immoral racism are in agreement with racial nihilism, and are unwilling to accept the existence of an alternative moral form of racism. They both use extremist and reductionist logic to discredit efforts to promote a moral form of racism by claiming that, if taken to its logical extreme, it cannot be distinguished or differentiated from immoral racism.
One consequence of the general use of reductionist and extremist logic to portray racism as monolithic, reducing it to only one type which represents one extreme of the possible positions on race, is that the anti-racists who oppose racism rarely qualify their position by identifying which type or form of racism they are anti or against -- the moral or right forms that promote racial rights, liberty and preservation, or the immoral or wrong forms that promote racial supremacy, exploitation, subjugation, slavery or destruction. If they are only against the immoral forms it should be explained that moral racism is also against, or anti , immoral racism. Only racial nihilism is anti or against both moral and immoral racism. For racial nihilism there is no right form of racism. By its standards all racism is wrong, for it seeks racial destruction and extinction to achieve its goal of Oneness, of one unified and uniform human race, and therefore opposes racial diversity, racial rights, preservation and independence -- the principles of moral racism.
Another consequence of the tendency to portray racism as monolithic, or limited to only one form, is a tendency to provide only one definition for racism. Given the preoccupation of the currently dominant ideology with the promotion of racial egalitarianism, many of these simplistic definitions of racism place a great emphasis on the issue of racial equality. Typical of these is the definition of racism as "A strongly held belief in the ethnic superiority of one race over all others." [Note 3]
The problem with the above or similar definitions is that they are based on a factual belief (in racial superiority) rather than an ethical belief -- on what one believes to be factually true or false, not on what one believes to be ethically right or wrong -- whereas moral racism is based more on ethical beliefs than factual beliefs. It is common for anti-racism to condemn the factual belief in racial superiority on ethical grounds by citing its use to justify unethical practices (such as slavery or genocide). By this logic one's perception of facts should be determined by the effect one believes they will have on ethical conduct, and one should deny facts that seem to disagree with one's ethical values. Ethical judgments should not be made on factual beliefs, but on ethical beliefs and behavior. Factual beliefs should be regarded as morally or ethically neutral, neither moral nor immoral in themselves. Only rigidly reductionist and extremist logic can assert that a factual belief in racial superiority necessarily leads to the violation of other races' rights.
The definition of racism as based solely on a belief in racial inequalities (another word for differences) reflects the obsessive concern of racial egalitarianism with the enforcement of its central dogma of racial equality, and hence its practice of defining all ideas and beliefs in terms of their conformance to that dogma. Belief in racial equality is usually an act of faith. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with beliefs based on faith, the believers are intolerant of the nonbelievers, condemn their nonbelief on moral grounds, and focus exclusively on this heresy of nonbelief in their definition of them. Indeed, by their narrow definition of racism a person who supported racial preservation, independence and separation, but who did not believe in racial superiority, would not be considered a racist.
Moral racism is based on the ethical belief in racial rights, not on a factual belief in racial superiority or inferiority. The latter belief is irrelevant to moral racism, as it supports the same racial rights for all races regardless of whether they are superior or inferior in any trait. The factual belief in racial superiority is frequently used to justify racial mastery or supremacism, the rule of a supposedly inferior race by a supposedly superior race, whose "right" to rule is based on its supposed superiority. But an ethical belief in racial rights would prevent the promotion of supremacism even if it were combined with a factual belief in racial inequality.
Similarly, a race need not be superior or "special" to be entitled to racial rights, preservation and independence. Many racial preservationists wrongly assume -- as do many of their opponents -- that the case for preserving a race depends upon establishing its superiority or special value relative to other races. This false assumption is an all too common trap leading many to engage in a highly partisan criticism of other races and praise of their own in an effort to establish its greater value. Thus many of the claims regarding racial superiority and inferiority can be attributed to the false premise that the preservation and independence of a race can only be justified by its superiority to other races. Claims of racial superiority are necessary as a justification for racial supremacism, the rule of one race over others, but not for the advocacy of racial rights, preservation and independence, for which such claims are irrelevant. Under moral racism all races have an equal right to life and independence without regard to whether or not they are "special" or superior.
A person can be a moral racist whether they believe in racial equality or inequality, superiority or inferiority. Such factual beliefs are irrelevant to moral racism because it is primarily based on an ethical belief in racial rights rather than a factual belief in racial inequality. By its affirmation of the racial right to life and independence moral racism opposes any form of supremacism or rule by one race over another, regardless of whether one race is superior, inferior or equal to the other. Moral racism supports the above rights for all races, as moral individualism supports the same rights for all individuals, regardless of whether they are superior, inferior or equal. A moral racist may love, value and prefer their own race over others, and they may believe it is superior to others, but they recognize and support the same rights of life, liberty (independence) and preservation for all races, and expect this recognition and support to be reciprocated.
After the reference to a belief in racial inequality, the most common terms found in definitions of racism are prejudice, bias, discrimination, hatred, and the prefix anti (against). The first three terms -- prejudice, bias and discrimination -- are, like the belief in racial inequality, sins against egalitarianism, violating its demand that all be regarded and treated the same, without recognition of differences or variation of preference, love or value. There are many definitions of prejudice, but in reference to racial relations it often means no more than having a preference for one's own race, for its traits, qualities and characteristics, and special concern for its interests. "Bias" is commonly used to mean the same preference, and the "discrimination" referred to is based on this preference.
From the perspective of racial nihilism, which denies the value or importance of race and racial differences and seeks to reduce them to zero or nothing (nihil ), any preference based on race is regarded as irrational and unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair, and, ultimately, as immoral. But all life, all living things, and all life-forms strive to live and to continue their life, and the life of their own life-form or kind. This is perhaps the deepest command of nature, and it presupposes an innate or inborn preference for one's own life and one's own life-form or kind. The absence of this preference should probably be regarded as a defect, potentially fatal to one's own life and the life of one's own life-form or kind. The existence of this preference should be regarded as harmful or immoral only to the extent that it exceeds the legitimate needs and interests of the individual or life-form possessing it and disregards and violates the legitimate rights and interests of other individuals and life-forms.
Hatred is the strongest of negative emotions, but negative emotions or opinions -- including hatred -- are not in themselves immoral. What is immoral is behavior that disregards, violates or causes harm to the legitimate rights and interests of others, or an ideology -- or system of beliefs, values and ideas -- that sanctions such behavior. Such behavior, and such an ideology, is immoral whatever its emotional or other motivation, regardless whether it is motivated by hate or love or anything in-between. In the present culture love for one's race, preference for one's race, or the desire to preserve and continue one's race -- including opposition to racial intermixture and support for the conditions of racial separation required for racial preservation and independence -- are often wrongly described as hatred. In fact, much of the racism described as hatred is simply the unwillingness of members of one race to intermix with members of other races, and their resistance to this racially-destructive process, ultimately motivated by a desire -- whether conscious or subconscious -- for racial preservation and continuation, separation and independence. In the absence of any desire to harm the legitimate rights and interests of other races, this opposition to the destruction of their own race, or its loss of independence, would be more accurately, and more fairly, described as motivated by love for their own race rather than by hatred or ill-will toward other races.
The prefix "anti" means to be against. For the term to have any moral significance, to be "anti" or against a certain race or ethnic group must mean to be "anti" or against the legitimate rights and interests of that race or ethnic group, and to commit or promote harm to, or promote the violation of, those rights. An ideology or behavior which recognizes and respects the legitimate rights and interests of a race or ethnic group -- especially its primary or vital (life-essential) rights to life, liberty and the conditions required for its continued existence and independence, specifically its own territory and government -- cannot be accurately defined as being "anti" or against that race or ethnic group in any morally significant or meaningful sense. Also, to support, promote and advocate the legitimate rights and interests of one's own race or ethnic group -- such as its continued life or preservation, its racial liberty or independence, and its right to its own territory, country or homeland as required for its continued life and liberty -- cannot be accurately defined as being "anti" or against any other race or ethnic group in any morally legitimate sense. Moral racism affirms and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all races or ethnic groups, and therefore cannot be accurately described as being "anti" or against any race or ethnic group in any morally significant or meaningful sense. It is immoral racism and racial nihilism that are "anti" or against -- and which deny, violate or harm -- the vital and primary rights and interests of races and ethnic groups.
Racism, nationalism and individualism all assert the importance and value of a specific and particular entity and its right to be separate, unique and differentiated from the mass rather than be absorbed into it. They each assert and affirm the identity and rights of the separate entity, including its right to life or existence, to independence or control over its own existence, and to freedom or self-determination, with the only limit on its rights being that it not violate the same rights of other races, nations or individuals. Thus one race, nation or individual does not have a right to cause death or diminishment of life to another, to rule over another, steal from another, or to invade or take from another the territory or property that it requires for its existence and independence. These three ideologies -- or isms -- are thus all contrary to the various universalisms of the Oneness creed, such as racial nihilism, which reject and deny racial and national identity, rights and independence and seek to absorb all the diverse races and peoples of humanity into one vast undifferentiated mass.
In racism, nationalism and individualism it is moral to act in one's own interests provided such action does not violate the legitimate rights of others. This is the standard of morality differentiating their moral from their immoral forms. The moral forms respect the rights of other races, nations and individuals, the immoral forms do not. If taken to the extreme, immoral racism can promote genocide just as immoral individualism can promote murder. Genocide is to racism what murder is to individualism. They are the antithesis of moral racism and individualism.
According to the extremist forms of immoral racism we must choose between our race and other races, between destroying other races or their destroying our race. This is the adversarial concept of racial relations which typifies immoral racism. According to this concept (or perception) all races are seen as opponents in a hostile conflict situation similar to war, a zero-sum competition where if one race wins the others must lose. Thus immoral racism naturally assumes a very hostile stance toward other races, often expressing its attitude toward them in mean-spirited, hateful and critical terms that convey ill-will and an intent to cause them harm, to cause them to lose, and to violate their legitimate rights and interests rather than recognize and respect them. Like most extremist thinking it is not an accurate portrayal of reality, and begins and ends with a false premise. In reality there are other choices -- moral choices -- and other means -- moral means -- by which racial independence and preservation can be secured.
The most important consideration in the relationships between different races, as in the relationships between different individuals or nations, is that they recognize and respect the other's rights to life, continued existence, independence and self-determination. For races, the fulfillment of these rights requires a condition of racial separation, with each race possessing its own exclusive territory with its own sovereign government. The recognition and respect of these rights must be regarded as the primary indicator of good will in racial relationships, to the extent that if this recognition and respect is not present good will cannot be present either. A race that denies these rights to another race, or violates them, cannot be regarded as having good will toward that race. To deny a race the conditions it requires for existence and freedom is to wish it ill. To recognize and respect the right of a race to the conditions it needs for life and independence is to wish it well.
Moral racism avoids the adversarial concept of racial relations. If racial rights are recognized all races would be winners in the sense that all would be secure in their independence and continued undiminished and undiluted existence in their own homelands. To seek the continued existence of one race does not require the nonexistence of another race. It is not either-or, rule or be ruled, kill or be killed -- the position of extremist immoral racism. It is not a matter of choosing between the existence of one or the other. This is a false and unnecessary choice. We can choose for all races to exist in the future even as all existed in the past, by restoring and maintaining the conditions (territorial separation and reproductive isolation) they require for continued existence.
The mutual recognition of racial rights, the central principle of moral racism, would foster a cooperative relationship between races and a common effort to promote and protect racial independence and preservation. Whereas extremist immoral racism believes that other races must lose for it to win, moral racism believes that all races can win, that the interests of all can be served and protected, so that all can coexist -- which first requires that they continue to exist -- on the same planet in peace, each in their own homelands, each in control of their own destiny, each respecting the rights of the others in accordance with the Racial Golden Rule.
If there is such a thing as moral progress, and one should hope there is, then humanity can learn from past errors and enjoy progress in the moral or ethical sphere much as it has in the material, technical and scientific spheres. It would not be limited to the same standards of morality practiced by generations of past centuries or long-ago millennia. The pre-human law of nature, the brutal struggle for survival, of rule or be ruled, kill or be killed, has been superseded by the cumulative efforts of thousands of generations of humanity to rise above it through the recognition (or social construction) of human rights and the Golden Rule of live and let live. Immoral racism applies the law of pre-human nature to racial relationships. But the relationships between races can be raised above this brutal law by a morality that respects and affirms racial rights, just as the relationships between individuals have been raised above it by the morality that respects and affirms individual rights. There are limits to how far conduct can deviate from the laws of nature before the individual or race engages in conduct that is self-destructive, but within those limits humanity has sufficient leeway to create a just, humane and civilized society. [Note 4]
Racism is many different things. It covers a multitude of both sins and virtues. Racial supremacism is racist. Genocide is racist. But racial independence and preservation are also racist. So is valuing and loving one's race, being loyal to its interests and desiring its continued existence and control over its own destiny. The extremist claim that all forms of racism lead to genocide, coupled with the reductionist assertion that there is only one -- immoral -- form of racism, is a preemptive accusation often used to discredit, suppress and prevent any consideration of alternatives to the present destructive course of racial nihilism, especially any attempt to promote racial preservation and independence.
Reductionist logic was typical of the dogmatic thinking of medieval times when all alternatives were reduced to a Manichaean choice between good and evil -- either obeying church dogma or being in league with the satanic powers of darkness. In the reductionist logic of the dominant orthodoxy of the modern world all alternatives are reduced to a similarly Manichaean choice -- either obeying the dogma of racial nihilism or being in league with the evil powers of racial supremacism and genocide. With all other alternatives eliminated by the successful use of extremist and reductionist logic to produce such powerful Manichaean imagery, racial nihilism has enjoyed a position of virtually unchallenged cultural dominance.
That the future existence of human racial diversity is now imperiled is largely due to the success of racial nihilism in denying the existence of any alternatives to itself other than immoral racism. People are limited by the choices they are given. They cannot choose a moral alternative if they are unaware that it exists or is possible. So it has been with much of the immorality of the past and the present. Only if a sufficient number of people are aware of real moral alternatives to the immoral status quo can the future avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Racial nihilism has a dream of a future in which race is not important, a dream in which separate races and racial diversity do not exist. It is the dream of Oneness, the merging or blending of all races into one uniform race where all the distinct traits and qualities created by divergent evolution -- and whatever creative force, cause or purpose might be behind that evolution -- would be destroyed. It is the ultimate reductionist dream, a dream of racial reductionism, of reducing the many different races to one race, the diversity of humanity to uniformity.
But racial nihilism is not the only possible dream of the racial future. There are other dreams. Moral racism also has a dream. It is a dream of racial preservation and independence, of continued racial existence and liberty, for all the diverse races of humanity, sharing the world together in mutual respect for the legitimate rights of their fellow races.
Moral racism supports friendly cooperation among races in matters of joint concern and mutual benefit. It also supports the right of each race to its own secure, separate and exclusive territory, country or homeland as required for its continued life and independence. It would encourage the diverse races of humanity to share the earth as good neighbors, recognizing that a good neighbor is one that respects the rights of others to the secure possession of their own piece of earth and to the conditions required for their continued existence. It is the racism that preserves, as opposed to immoral racism, the racism that destroys.
The dream of racial nihilism, the dream of Oneness, is a dream of racial reduction and destruction, promoted in the name of combating another form of racial destruction which is claimed to be its only alternative. The dream of moral racism is a dream of continued racial life and racial preservation. Moral racism -- the morally right or righteous form of racism -- is the alternative to racial nihilism that must be considered as a matter of the utmost urgency, as a matter of nothing less than racial life or death. It has not been practiced in the past, but in the moral development of humanity it must be hoped that a stage has now been reached where it can become the practiced morality of the present and the future. The future existence of at least one race depends upon it.
Notes
1. There are also false forms of racism that are motivated not by true racial concerns, but by economic or political concerns. These forms of pseudo-racism, as they are not really based on racial feelings or concerns, are only superficially racist. But racial nihilism, which evades the central concerns of race by denying their reality, prefers to attribute racism to non-racial motives, and can therefore only provide explanations that focus on such peripheral distractions. There are many different forms or types of racism, requiring many different definitions, but each form of racism should have at least one thing in common with all other forms -- it should be based on real racial values and concerns.
2. Legitimate rights and interests are here defined as primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests as well as those lesser -- secondary or non-vital -- rights and interests which do not conflict with the greater -- primary or vital -- rights and interests of other races. The legitimate rights of one race end where the equal or greater rights of another race begin.
3. This is the sole definition of racism given in a "special report" titled The New Racism , televised on The Family Channel, December 29, 1990.
4. Whenever humanity takes another bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge it often happens that the newly acquired knowledge, at least for a certain period of time, increases confusion and error as much as understanding and wisdom. So it was with Charles Darwin's epochal revelation of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Many learned the wrong lesson, or took the right lesson to excess, and rushed to apply the newly revealed practices and logic of pre-human evolutionary struggle or natural selection to human society. This school of thought, called Social Darwinism, wrongly assumed that the discovery of more ancient behavioral norms discredited and refuted more recent moral developments, and justified a rejection of the moral concepts of civilized existence in favor of a return to the morality that existed before civilization, or to the even earlier behavior of pre-human animal existence.
The ultimate purpose of morality is to promote and preserve life. Knowledge of the natural or pre-civilized state of existence should be used to identify and discard those distortions of morality which are destructive of life, not the advances in morality which serve to enhance and preserve life. Morality should seek to maintain a harmonious balance between the laws of nature and civilization that can accommodate both, reconciling the requirements of life and evolutionary progress with the desires of humanity for a secure and civilized existence.

The Races of Humanity
 
by
Richard McCulloch
 
 
The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence -- the process of divergent evolution -- to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.
Divergent evolution is the process by which new life forms are created by the division and separation of life into different branches. Human evolution has seen its share of divergent branching. The generic name commonly used to refer to the genetically different populations, branches or divisions of humanity -- that share both a common biological ancestry and an ensemble of unique, genetically transmitted traits and characteristics which distinguish them from other populations -- is "race." But in the human species, as in any species enjoying a great degree of variety, the constant branching and dividing that characterizes the process of divergent evolution has created many different levels of branches and divisions, each of which possesses genetic traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions at the same level. For purposes of taxonomic accuracy each of these levels should have its own specific name and definition. The first or highest level is called the species, and it is simply and objectively defined as including all those populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fully fertile offspring, and which do in fact interbreed under conditions of close and extensive contact. The term race is commonly used to refer to a branch or division of the species possessing genetically transmitted physical traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions of the same level. Adding to this definition, it will here also be defined as including only those persons who are capable of reproduction with each other without the loss or significant diminishment or alteration of the racially-distinctive genetic traits of either parent stock. The genetically transmitted traits which distinguish a race from other divisions at the same level (i.e., other races) should not be diminished or lost by reproduction within the race. If racially-distinctive traits are lost or diminished by within-group reproduction then the population group is at a level of division too broad and inclusive to be accurately defined as a race. If it is too narrow to be defined as a species, as it does not include all those populations capable of interbreeding, then it is at a level between race and species, which will here be referred to as a subspecies.
The closest living relative of humanity, the still-existing species most closely related to Homo sapiens, is the Chimpanzee, whose ancestral line separated and branched from the line leading to humans about 5.5 million years ago. Even after 5.5 million years of divergent evolution humans and chimpanzees still have over 98% of their genes in common, with only a 1.23% (Time, October 9, 2006) to 1.6% difference in their genome. The genus Homo originated with Homo habilis in the region of the Great Rift Valley in Kenya and Ethiopia in east Africa about two million years ago, where it continued to evolve, first as Homo ergaster and Homo erectus, then as Homo antecessor (750,000 years ago) and Homo heidelbergensis (600,000-250,000 years ago; believed to be the direct ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis in western Eurasia), and then as Homo sapiens idaltu, the earliest modern humans, with finds in Ethiopia dated to 195,000 and 160,000 years ago (Scientific American, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006, p. 78).
It is generally agreed that there were at least three major migrations or expansions of the genus Homo out of east Africa into Eurasia, either crossing the Sinai peninsula from Egypt into the Levant (the coast of what is now Israel, Lebanon and Syria), or crossing the southern entrance of the Red Sea (the Bab el Mandeb) from Djibouti in Africa to Yemen in Asia, from where they spread throughout most of Eurasia and developed into a variety of regional "archaic" human populations. The first of these major expansions out of east Africa into Eurasia was about 1.8 million years ago, the second about 600,000 years ago (associated with the spread of the Acheulean culture), and the last shortly after 100,000 years ago. Beginning in 1987, based on genetic studies showing that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y-chromosome of all living humans is derived from the last of these major expansions, the common view expressed in the popular press (called "Out-of-Africa") has been that the modern humans of the final migration completely replaced the regional archaic human populations from the first two major expansions. But beginning in 2002 studies of other genes by Alan Templeton and others have increasingly supported the view (called "Out-of-Africa-Again-and-Again") that although all our surviving mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages as well as the majority of our other genes derive from the most recent expansion, a significant minority of our other genes have much older "coalescence" dates and must therefore derive from the regional archaic human populations of the first two major expansions. These studies indicate that some genes from the regional populations of the first expansion were assimilated and perpetuated by the populations of the second expansion, and that some of the genes of both of the first two (archaic) expansions were assimilated by the modern humans of the final expansion.
The first dispersal of modern humans probably began soon after the emergence of Homo sapiens idaltu in east Africa about 195,000 years ago, with some populations heading west into the tropical forest of the Congo basin where they evolved into the Congoid subspecies (possibly with the assimilation of some local archaic elements), others remaining in east Africa where they evolved into the Capoid or Khoisanid (San-Bushmen) subspecies, and others moving north to the shores of the Red Sea, where they became the progenitors of the population that eventually migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the world, possibly assimilating some of the regional archaic human populations they encountered in varying degrees, and evolving into the Australoid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid subspecies. By 130,000 years ago there were perhaps 10,000 modern humans living in different populations in different regions of Africa. About 120,000 years ago one of these modern human populations that had expanded up the Nile valley crossed the Sinai peninsula out of Africa into the Levant but got no further, and by 90,000 years ago its members had either returned to Africa or died out.
The following account of the final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, that of the modern humans shortly after 100,000 years ago, is based largely on the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World (2004) which was also the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary titled The Real Eve.
The migrating modern human population, probably numbering only a few hundred people at the beginning, crossed from Africa to Asia at the southern entrance of the Red Sea. From there they followed a beachcombing trek that took them along the coastline of the Arabian Sea. The descendants of this population gradually expanded and dispersed, with the initial expansion being along the southern coast of Asia. The where and when of these early human migrations was largely determined by geography, especially changes in climate and sea level. The first main split or division in the expansion occurred on the Iranian coast of the Persian Gulf, with some groups continuing to move east while others remained in southern Iran between the Zagros Mountains and the sea. The second main branching or division probably occurred in southeast Asia, with one group continuing to move eastward, reaching China by 68,000 years ago, and another group remaining in the Burma-Thailand region where it evolved into a proto-Australoid population and then expanded south through Malaysia and Indonesia, reaching New Guinea by 77,000 years ago and Australia by 65,000 years ago.
The eruption, or explosion, of the Toba super-volcano in northern Sumatra circa 74,000 years ago, the largest such explosion in the last two million years, perhaps 100 times larger than the Krakatoa event off southern Sumatra in 1883, covered the entire Indian sub-continent in several meters of ash, probably destroying almost all life, including the early human population in the area. The populations to the east and south of the eruption were spared its catastrophic effects, but the population in southern Iran, and to a lesser extent the population in east Africa, probably suffered severe climate effects. The population in west Africa, protected by mountains to the east, was not as seriously effected. Within a few thousand years India was repopulated from the east by proto-Australoids.
By 50,000 years ago the population that had remained in southern Iran had evolved into proto-Caucasoids and began to expand -- to the east into Pakistan and northern India; to the northwest up the Tigris-Euphrates valley to the Levant by 45,000 years ago; and to the northeast through Central Asia to Russia and the steppes of western Siberia, also by 45,000 years ago. From the Levant they expanded north into Anatolia, from there entering Europe through the Balkans and spreading the Aurignacian culture across southern Europe by 43,000 years ago. From Russia they moved westward into Europe, spreading the Gravettian culture, about 33,500 years ago. Shortly after this another Caucasoid group expanded from the Levant across North Africa. In this same time frame the population in Indochina and southern China had evolved into proto-Mongoloids and expanded northwards into the steppes of eastern Siberia, branching into southern and northern Mongoloid groups. Some northern Mongoloids migrated northeast to Berengia, a vast land between Siberia and Alaska that is now underwater, from where they subsequently moved south into the Americas.
By 30,000 years ago the divergent evolutionary branching or dividing of the human species had produced five main lines or subspecies which are still extant -- the Congoid of West Africa; the Capoid of East and South Africa (later replaced in East Africa by the Congoid); the Australoid of India, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia; the Mongoloid of East Asia (later expanding to the southwest into Burma, Malaya and Indonesia, largely replacing the indigenous Australoids) and the Caucasoid of Europe, North Africa and West Asia (partly replacing the Mongoloids in the Americas after A.D. 1492 and the Australoids in Australia after A.D. 1788). These subspecies branched or divided in turn into separate races, and these races branched in their turn into subraces, as part of the continuing process of divergent evolution.
Beginning about 20,000 years ago, when the global human population was perhaps a million, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) pushed the population of northern Europe south to refuge areas in southern France, northern Spain, the Balkans and Ukraine, while the now fully-developed northern Mongoloid population in Siberia was also forced south to eastern and southern China. Both populations were greatly reduced in number during this period. (The expansion of the southern Mongoloids into Malaya and Indonesia, partly replacing and partly assimilating the native Australoids, probably occurred during this period.) When the Last Glacial Maximum began to recede about 15,000 years ago (13,000 B.C.) the survivors of these populations expanded northward again from their refuge areas, with Scandinavia being occupied by humans for the first time about 10,000 years ago, by which time the global human population had risen to about 10 million. Agriculture and the Neolithic period also began about 10,000 years ago in both the Middle East and China. The genetic ancestry of the native European population as a whole is about 80% from the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants who survived the 5,000 years of the Last Glacial Maximum in southern refuge areas and then re-expanded and repopulated the central and northern regions of the continent, and 20% from the Neolithic farmers who expanded from Anatolia into Europe starting about 8,000 years ago, with the latter element concentrated primarily in the Mediterranean lands of southern Europe, indicating that the initial spread of agriculture into central and northern Europe was a process of cultural diffusion rather than a movement of people.
The different races are often popularly defined and named (often inaccurately) by skin color, but as this system is based on only one genetic phenotypic difference, when hundreds are involved, it tends to distort the reality of race and racial differences. In the system of racial classification outlined below the names assigned to the various subspecies and races are, with a few exceptions, based on geographical regions where they are the native type.
Outline of Human Racial Classification:
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA GROUP
I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa
A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
B. Sanid (Bushmen) race





II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
A. Central Congoid race (Geographic center and origin in the Congo river basin)
1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)





B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)





C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)













"OUT-OF-AFRICA" GROUP





I. Australoid Subspecies
A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)





II. Mongoloid Subspecies
A. Northern Mongoloid racial group
1. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in northern China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
2. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
3. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
4. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)





B. Southern Mongoloid racial group
1. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in southern China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the last four partly hybridized with Australoids)
2. Micronesian-Polynesian race (predominantly Southern Mongoloid partly hybridized with Australoids)








III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies
A. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)
B. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; common in Hungary and Turkey)
C. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
D. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
E. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia and Azerbaijan, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
F. Mediterranid racial group
1. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)
2. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, primary element among the Sephardic Jews, common element [circa 20-25%] in Spain, Sicily and southern Italy, minor element [circa 5%] in Greece)
3. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
4. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized perhaps as early as the Neolitihic and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
5. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)





G. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)





H. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine. Its distribution in Europe, and that of its derived Dinaricized Mediterranean type, may be associated with the expansion of the Neolithic Anatolian farmers beginning circa 6,500 B.C.)





I. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and the Czech Republic [Bohemia], important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)





J. Nordish or Northern European racial group (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; important in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)













Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority





Majority or major = 50-60% majority





Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type





Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type





Common = 6-25% minority





Minor = 5% or less minority



The diverse races of the human species outlined above all have their own geographical territory that has historically been exclusively their own, which may be referred to as their racial homeland, and is closely identified with the race that inhabits it. Between most of these exclusive homelands are clinal zones -- areas of contact between different racial territories. These racial borderlands are frequently areas of interracial contact and intermixture where adjacent races merge into one another, creating racially mixed or hybridized populations of intermediate type called racial clines. The Dravidic race of India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, created by the intermixture of the local Caucasoid (Indic or Nordindid) and Australoid (Veddoid) populations, and the Aethiopid race of Ethiopia and Somalia, created by the intermixture of the local Caucasoid (Mediterranid) and Congoid races, are two very ancient racial clines which have stabilized into distinct races of intermediate type. Racial clines of more recent formation, where the racial blends are not yet stabilized, include the populations of many Latin American and Caribbean countries, which were created over the last 500 years by the intermixture of various Caucasoid (mostly Mediterranid), Congoid and Amerindian elements. The population of Mexico, for example, is about 5% Caucasoid, 30% Amerindian and 65% Mestizo, the Spanish term for persons of mixed Amerindian-Caucasoid ancestry. (The same term is used in the Philippines for persons of mixed Filipino-Caucasoid ancestry.) The multiracialization of the populations of North America and, more recently, Europe, has begun to transform them into racial clines. As discussed in other essays on this site, this process of racial transformation will eventually cause the effective extinction or nonexistence of the European racial types in the affected areas unless adequate preservationist measures are taken to prevent it.




Addendum: Degree of Genetic Difference between the Races of Humanity

What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races? Perhaps the best study to date (2010) on this subject is still that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury from Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale (1993). The following table (Fig. 1 below) of estimates of genetic differences between human populations is from their study.

The following table of percentages of genetic differences between human populations presents the estimates for 19 populations from the above table in an easier to read and understand format. The human-chimpanzee genetic difference, giving the greatest degree of difference from the commonly accepted range using the same methodology, is added for context and comparison.

If one were to spatially visualize the first column of the above scale, with a German standing at a distance of 20 feet from an Englishman, a Finn would stand at a distance of 50 feet, an Italian at 70 feet, a northern Indian at 200 feet, a Japanese at 610 feet, a North American Amerindian at 760 feet, a Nigerian at 1,330 feet, and a Chimpanzee at 16,000 feet. The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. The .061% genetic difference between the English and Japanese or Korean populations is 3.8% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. Seen in this context, these are very significant genetic differences. It is also worth noting that for both the English and the Japanese, representing Europeans and Northeast Asians, the greatest percentage of genetic difference is with the Nigerians, and that the degree of this difference, .133% for the English and .149% for the Japanese, is very similar. By comparison, the English and Japanese degree of difference from the Australian Aborigine population, .122% for the English and .062% for the Japanese, is very different, with the English-Australoid difference twice as great as the Japanese-Australoid difference.

The Nordish Race
 
by
Richard McCulloch

Life, in all its many and varied forms and manifestations, high and low, is the product of the process of divergent evolution. The Nordish or Northern European race, centered in northern Europe, is one of those forms of Life, distinct from all others, and exhibits within its varied ranks many traits that are unique unto itself.
Perhaps nowhere on earth is there a greater amount of human variety within a similar area than in Europe. It is a rich treasure house of human diversity, each of its many nations and peoples a treasure of humanity to be cherished and preserved. The development and preservation of this extensive diversity was long nurtured and protected by Europe's relative geographic isolation. This was especially true of western Europe, which "...was a cul-de-sac at the end of the inhabited world, with only fairly narrow access routes from the east, none from the west or the glaciated north, and none from the south before humans could navigate the Mediterranean." [Note 1] As one would expect from this protected insularity, all of the indigenous races of Europe belong to the same subspecies -- the Caucasian. (Non-Caucasians did not begin entering Europe in significant numbers until 1955). But they do not all belong to the same race, as they are not all able to interbreed without negating or diminishing the racial traits of one or both parent stocks. In fact, the European population consists of several different regional racial groups or geographic races whose traits are not genetically compatible but are negated or diminished by interbreeding between the groups.
There are three main regional racial groupings in Europe. The southern region (Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece) is a racial clinal zone (a border area where different races meet and intermix) where the Mediterranean racial group -- which inhabits southwest Asia (the "Middle East") and northern Africa as well as southern Europe -- has long intermixed with invaders from the northern areas of Europe. In this southern European "melting pot" -- which has dissolved many peoples into its solution -- the Mediterranids, in various local types, are generally dominant, having assimilated most of the other elements with which they have been hybridized, although some remnants of the other elements still survive.
In the middle region the Alpine racial group -- including the Alpinid, Dinaric and Ladogan races of southern France, northern Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans, Ukraine and eastern Russia -- is predominant.
The northern region is inhabited by the Nordish racial group ("Nord" being the word for north in both French and German). The latter can be divided into two subgroups: an Inner or Central subgroup consisting of the Nordic, Borreby, Brünn, Fälish, Trønder and Anglo-Saxon subraces and subtypes of the British Isles, Scandinavia, northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium; and an Outer or Periphery subgroup, which includes the Atlantid subtypes of the British Isles, and the Noric, East Baltic and Neo-Danubian subtypes which predominate in northern France, southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and northwestern Russia. These last inhabit the racial clinal zone between the Central Nordish and Alpine racial groups, and are intermediate types resulting from hybridization or intermixture between these two groups, with the Nordish element being generally more numerous and predominant. The term Nordish is here used to refer to the indigenous peoples of northern Europe as a whole, including both Central and Periphery types, and also those peoples in North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere whose ancestors were of Northern European racial origin.
Although this system of classification is too simple to be completely accurate, and certainly too simple to be regarded as complete, it is tolerably accurate in identifying those European population groups which have a sufficient degree of genetic similarity and compatibility that they can interbreed more or less freely within the group without negating -- or significantly altering or disrupting -- their unique and distinctive ensembles of genetic characteristics. These racial groups can therefore be defined as races. Consequently, although these races can be further subdivided into a richly diverse variety of subraces and subtypes, the racial level of classification will be regarded as sufficient for most discussions in this work. A more detailed description of the subdivisions -- subraces and subtypes -- of the Nordish race is given in the outline below, followed by a listing of the countries of Europe showing the distribution of the different European racial types. For a more detailed outline of the Mediterranean, Alpine and other racial groups see The Races of Humanity .
The Nordish race, like many others, can be conceived as a series of concentric circles, with the innermost circle, the racial core or navel, consisting of the most distinct and definitive subracial types, in relation to which, in degrees of closeness or distance, the subracial types of the outer circles are defined. The racial outline given below is based on this principle. Some of the names are derived from archaeological sites where early examples of the types were found, others are based on geographical regions with which the types are associated.

Nordish or Northern European Race
1. Inner Circle of Core or Central Subracial Types
a. Aboriginal Northwest European subraces (The descendants of the first peoples to settle in northwest Europe, who retreated to refuge areas in southern France and northern Spain during the Last Glacial Maximum of 20,000-15,000 years ago [18,000-13,000 B.C.], and then re-expanded northward along the coasts of the Atlantic and the North Sea during the final phase of the Upper Paleolithic period circa 15,000-10,000 years ago [13,000-8,000 B.C.])
1.) Borreby subrace (named after Danish island site where paleolithic remains were found; principal element in Denmark, southwest coast of Sweden, northern Germany, the Rhineland and the Ruhr, majority element in Wallonia)
2.) Brünn subrace (named after paleolithic site near Brno, or Brünn, Czech Republic; predominant element in western Ireland)





b. Nordic or Nordid subrace (The modern Nordic subrace is probably descended from an ancient blending of several proto-Nordic populations whose ancestors spent the Last Glacial Maximum in refuge areas in the Balkans and Ukraine -- the "Kurgan" or burial-mound people of the Ukraine, the "Corded-ware" pottery or battleaxe people of the southern Baltic region, and the "Danubian" or Linearband pottery Neolithic farmers of central Europe -- whose combination and expansion in northern Europe circa 5,500-2,000 B.C. is probably associated with the spread of Neolithic agriculture and the Indo-European language. The "Corded-ware" element is stronger in the Hallstatt Nordic type while the "Danubian" element is stronger in the Keltic Nordic type.)
1.) Hallstatt or Österdal type (named after Austrian site where remains were found and Norwegian valley near Oslo; predominant element in Sweden and southeastern Norway, common in Denmark, western Finland, eastern England and northern Germany)
2.) Keltic type (predominant element in Flanders, majority in the Netherlands and northern and western Switzerland, primary element in England, eastern Scotland and old Frankish country in southwest Germany, common in Wales and Ireland; ancient Franks and northern Kelts [the Germanokelten] were of this type which, despite its name, is perhaps most closely associated with the westernmost and southernmost of the ancient Germanic peoples and their descendants)





c. Blended types of above subraces
1.) Anglo-Saxon or Old Germanic Reihengräber type (Nordic- Brünn blend; predominant element in the Dutch province of Friesland (Frisia) and the Dutch and German Frisian Islands, common in southeast England and northwest Germany)
2.) Trønder type (Brünn-Nordic blend; predominant element in Trøndelagen area of western Norway [whence the name] and Iceland, common in northeast England and Scotland)
3.) Fälish, Dalofalid or Dalo-Nordic type (Nordic-Borreby blend; names from Fälen [German for "plain"] and Dalarna region of Sweden (Kopparberg); primary element on the north German plain, Jutland and the Swedish province of Kopparberg)








2. Outer Circle of Periphery Subracial Types
a. Northwestern periphery types (ancient stabilized blends of Inner Circle or Central Nordish inhabitants of northwestern Europe with Atlanto-Mediterraneans who migrated from the Iberian peninsula up the Atlantic coast as far as Norway during the Mesolithic period circa 8,000-4,500 B.C. They entered Great Britain from the west coast whereas Nordic elements later entered from the east coast from northwest Europe.)
1.) North-Atlantid type (associated with megalithic monuments and long barrow burial sites; primary element in Wales, southeast coast of Ireland and western Scotland, common in England; in coloring commonly combines dark hair with light eyes)
2.) Palaeo-Atlantid type (common in Wales and in western England and Scotland from the Midlands to Glasgow, minor element in Norway; hair and eye coloring both dark)





b. Southern and Eastern periphery types (ancient stabilized blends of Inner Circle Nordish types with neighboring Caucasoid races)
1.) Neo-Danubian type (eastern periphery blend of original Danubian and Kurgan proto-Nordics with Ladogan, with the Nordic element dominant; majority element in Poland and Belorussia, primary element in Hungary, west Ukraine and northwest Russia, important in Finland and the Baltic States)
2.) East Baltic type (northeast periphery blend of Borreby and/or Fälish with Neo-Danubian and/or Ladogan; majority element in Finland and the Baltic States, formerly predominant in Old Prussia, but this element now dispersed throughout Germany as a result of the post-war expulsion of the Prussian population from its ancestral homeland)
3.) Noric or Sub-Nordic type (southern periphery blend of Nordic with Alpine and/or Dinaric, with the Nordic element dominant; principal element in northern France, important element in central Germany and Austria, common in Transylvania and western Ukraine, minor in British Isles)













Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority





Majority or major = 50-60% majority





Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type





Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type





Common = 5-25% minority





Minor = less than 5% minority










There is regional variation within the types, forming local subtypes and varieties. Of the three central Nordish subraces, the Borrebys and Brünns tend to have somewhat larger heads, broader features and heavier body builds than the Nordics. In height they are essentially the same. Of American presidents in this century Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush are good examples of the Nordic subrace, Theodore Roosevelt and Gerald Ford of the Borreby, and John Kennedy of the Brünn. The Palaeo-Atlantids are typically dark-eyed (brown or dark-mixed, the latter a mixture of brown with blue or green). The other Nordish types are predominantly light-eyed (blue, gray, green or light-mixed). Light-mixed eyes (a mixture of blue and green) are particularly common in the Nordic subrace. The two Atlantid types are dark haired. Among the other types hair color is variable from very dark to very light, with the light and medium brown shades generally the most common among adults. Hair color is lightest among children, and usually darkens with age. Among adults the incidence of blond hair varies, from lows of 13-15% in the Walloon Borrebys and the Irish Brünns, to highs of over 50% among the Hallstatt Nordic, Trønder, Borreby and Fälish peoples of Scandinavia, the Anglo-Saxons of Frisia, and the East Baltics of Finland. In England, Scotland and Ireland the incidence of blond hair is much higher in the east than in the west, in Germany it is much higher in the north than in the south. As a rule, the higher the incidence of blond hair the higher also is the proportion of the light blond shades to the dark blond. Red hair is common in the Brünn and Borreby stems (and in those of partial Brünn or Borreby derivation), minimal in the Nordic. For reference, an estimate of the distribution of racial types in the indigenous European populations is given below.










Estimated Racial Composition and Nordish Percentage of Indigenous European Populations:










Sweden = 70% Hallstatt Nordic (Carleton Coon described Sweden as a refuge area for the classic Nordic race), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest coastal region), 10% Fälish (most common in Dalarna [Kopparberg] and the southwest coastal region), 5% Trønder (most common near the central Norwegian border), 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)





Norway = 45% Trønder (most common in the west), 30% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the southeast area around Oslo), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest), 7% Fälish (most common in the south), 5% East Baltic (most common in the far north), 3% Palaeo-Atlantid (found in western coastal areas) = 100% Nordish (92% central and 8% periphery types)





Denmark = 40% Borreby, 30% Fälish, 20% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Anglo-Saxon, 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)





Iceland = 60% Trønder, 22% Borreby, 15% Brünn, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid = 100% Nordish (97% central and 3% periphery types)





England = 25% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman invaders), 15% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% Brünn {indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants}, 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation), 5% Trønder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Fälish (both of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders) = 100% Nordish (73% central and 27% periphery types)





Scotland = 25% Keltic Nordic, 22% Trønder (most common in the northeast), 10% North-Atlantid (most common in the west), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the southeast), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common in the southwest), 10% Brünn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric = 100% Nordish (76% central and 24% periphery types)





Ireland = 40% Brünn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common in the east), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Trønder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Nordish (86% central and 14% periphery types)





Wales = 35% North-Atlantid, 30% Palaeo-Atlantid, 30% Keltic Nordic, 5% other types = 100% Nordish (35% central and 65% periphery types)





The Netherlands = 50% Keltic Nordic (of Frankish derivation), 20% Borreby, 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in Frisia), 10% Fälish, 10% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Central Nordish





Belgium = 60% Keltic Nordic (most common in Flanders, derived from the ancient Belgae and Franks), 35% Borreby and 5% Alpine (both most common in Wallonia) = 95% Central Nordish





Luxembourg = 80% Alpine, 15% Borreby, 5% other Nordish types = 20% Central Nordish





Germany = 25% Borreby (most common in the Rhine and Ruhr valleys and the north), 20% Fälish (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in Baden and Bavaria), 15% Noric, 6% Keltic Nordic (most common in the old Frankish country in the southwest), 5% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the northwest), 5% East Baltic, 5% Dinaric, 4% Hallstatt Nordic = 80% Nordish (60% central and 20% periphery types)





France = 30% Alpine, 30% Noric (most common in the north), 20% Mediterranean (most common in the south and Corsica), 15% Dinaric, 3% Borreby (in the northeast), 2% Nordic = 35% Nordish (5% central and 30% periphery types)





Switzerland = 40% Keltic Nordic and 30% Noric (most common in the north, west and center), 15% Dinaric and 15% Alpine (most common in the south and east) = 70% Nordish (40% central and 30% periphery types)





Austria = 35% Noric, 25% Dinaric, 20% Alpine, 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic = 55% Nordish (20% central and 35% periphery types)





Poland = 55% Neo-Danubian, 10% Ladogan, 10% Alpine, 10% Dinaric, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Noric, 5% East Baltic = 70% Nordish (5% central and 65% periphery types)





Finland and the Baltic States = 50% East Baltic, 15% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the Swedish-settled areas of Finland), 30% Neo-Danubian (most common in southeast Lithuania and northeast Finland), 5% Ladogan = 95% Nordish (15% central and 80% periphery types)





The Czech Republic and Slovakia = 40% Alpine and 15% Noric (most common in Bohemia), 25% Dinaric (most common in Moravia), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in Slovakia) = 35% Periphery Nordish





Hungary = 35% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 25% Turanid (of Magyar derivation), 20% Dinaric (most common in the southwest), 15% Alpine (most common in the south), 2% Nordic, 2% Noric, 1% East Mediterranean = 39% Nordish (2% central and 37% periphery types)





Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine = 40% Neo-Danubian (most common in Belorussia and western Ukraine), 35% Ladogan, 8% Nordic, 7% East Mediterranean (most common near the Black Sea coast), 5% Dinaric (most common in eastern Ukraine), 5% Noric = 53% Nordish (8% central and 45% periphery types)





Spain and Portugal = 75% West Mediterranean, 19% South Mediterranean (most common in the south), 5% Dinaric, 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Visigoth aristocracy) = 1% Central Nordish





Italy = 50% Dinaricized Mediterranean, 20% Dinaric (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in the northwest), 5% West Mediterranean (most common in Sardinia), 5% South Mediterranean (most common in the south and Sicily), 4% Noric (most common in the north), 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Ostrogoth and Lombard aristocracy) = 5% Nordish (1% central and 4% periphery types). Italy, much like the other southern European countries of the Mediterranean region -- Spain, Portugal and Greece -- experienced several waves of Nordish invasions during ancient and early Medieval times, from the Danubians (circa 2,000-1,500 B.C.), who brought the Indo-European language that developed into Latin, and the Kelts (beginning circa 500 B.C.), to the Germanic Ostrogoths and Lombards (A.D. 400-700). These Nordish elements have been gradually assimilated into the majority Mediterranean population, but some of their genetic traits, existing in solution, occasionally recombine to appear in individuals whose other traits may be mostly non-Nordish.





Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Macedonia = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north) = 15% periphery Nordish types





Romania = 35% Dinaric (most common in the west), 25% East Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 10% Alpine, 7% Noric and 3% Nordic (most common in the west) = 30% Nordish (3% central and 27% periphery types)





Albania = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean, 10% Alpine, 5% Noric = 5% periphery Nordish





Bulgaria = 60% East Mediterranean, 15% Alpine, 15% Dinaric, 5% Turanid, 5% Nordish





Greece = 35% East Mediterranean, 25% Dinaricized Mediterranean, 20% Alpine (most common in Epirus), 10% Dinaric, 5% South Mediterranean, 5% Nordish (partly assimilated remnant, or genetic recombinations from solution, of various past Nordish invaders, mostly of Danubian type, going back to the ancient Achaeans and Dorians; most common in the north)










Extra-territorial non-indigenous European ethnic groups:










Jews -- Divided into Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Oriental branches. All trace their pre-Diaspora (the dispersion of Jews outside of Israel) origins to the ancient Hebrews, who originally belonged to the Orientalid or Arabid subrace of the Mediterranid race. It is likely that by the beginning of the Diaspora they were already hybridized with Armenid elements. Racially, the Diaspora is largely a history of further hybridization with the populations of the different regions in which the various Jewish groups resided. The modern Ashkenazic branch associated with eastern Europe, by far the most numerous, is a primarily Armenid blend including lesser elements of Orientalid, Turanid, Ladogan, Alpine, Dinaric and Nordish origin. (Genetic studies of the Ashkenazic Jews have found that their ancestry is 60-70% Middle Eastern [i.e., Armenid and Orientalid] and 30-40% European, with the European elements derived primarily from the maternal lines.) The Sephardic branch is primarily an Orientalid-Armenid blend hybridized with West Mediterraneans. The Oriental branch remains basically true to the pre-Diaspora type.





Gypsies -- originally from India; of Dravidic and Indic races










[Link to Racial Average is Racial Destiny]








In many areas (e.g., Denmark and northern Germany) the various Nordish types are inextricably intermixed (as is also common among Northern Europeans in the United States), often with different subracial classifications between siblings or between parent and child, and with many individuals intermediate between types, but assigned to the type they favor most strongly. The relatively homogeneous population of Hallstatt Nordics in southeast Norway and central Sweden, which Carleton Coon called "a refuge area for the classic Nordic race," is an exception to this rule.
The above outlines and estimates are a synthesis derived from several sources, chief among which are John R. Baker's Race (1974) and Carleton S. Coon's The Races of Europe (1939). The population estimates do not include recent (post-1955) non-European immigrants (e.g., in 1955 the non-European population in Britain was only 50,000), the extra-territorial elements (Jews and Gypsies) of longer standing but ultimately non-European origin, or the Lappoid element in arctic Europe.
The elements classified above as Nordish have been present in Europe since Paleolithic times or before (i.e., before 8,000 B.C.) although there has been extensive movement of elements within the area since then. These elements can be regarded as aboriginal or indigenous to the general northern European area. Before the present (post-1955) era non-Nordish intrusion into this area was very limited, so that a protected racial environment, like that of the Mongoloids in central China or the Congoids in the Congo river basin, could be said to exist. Northern European elements expanded eastward and southward out of this racial heartland, but there was little racially significant intrusion of non-Nordish elements into it. Exceptions to this rule include: the preexisting Lappoid element which remained unobtrusive in the far north; the gradual blending of Borrebys and the original Danubian Nordic Slavs with non-Nordish Ladogans on the eastern periphery; the intrusion of partially Mongoloid Turanid elements from central Asia into the eastern periphery, from the Huns to the Magyars and Tatars, leaving its westernmost influence in Hungary; and the intrusion of extra-territorial elements of non-European origin (e.g., the Jews from Roman times and the Gypsies after 1300). In the post-1955 period this situation of ancient standing has been changing drastically and rapidly due to the massive immigration of other races into Europe, initially into the former colonial powers, then into all the noncommunist countries.
The Nordish people have greatly expanded from their European homeland in the last four centuries. Their greatest acquisition was the North American continent north of the Rio Grande, from which they created the United States and Canada. The celebrated voyages of Christopher Columbus, beginning in 1492, opened Central and South America and the Caribbean for Spanish and Portuguese conquest and settlement, but had relatively little meaning for the Nordish race or for North America. More than a century passed from the time of the last voyage of Columbus to the founding of the first permanent Nordish settlement in the continent that, over the course of the next several centuries, became a vast new homeland for the Nordish race. But contrary to Nordish racial interests -- which required a racially homogeneous Nordish nation to ensure racial independence and preservation -- part (about one million, or about 5%) of the massive traffic in Congoid slaves, originally and primarily directed to Caribbean and South American markets, was redirected to the southern English colonies. This was the beginning of the racial problem, a wound that festered, often bled, defied solution, expanded, spread and grew to the point where the predominance, or very survival, of the Nordish race in North America, and even in northern Europe, is now threatened.
In 2000 the Nordish race numbered about 530 million people, constituting about 21% of the Caucasoid subspecies and about 8.8% of the world's total human population. But due to the drastic decline in its birthrate since 1970, to less than half the world average (to about 1.8 births per woman, or 15% below the replacement level of 2.1 per woman), only about 4.4% of the world's children and new births are Nordish. Of the 530 million Northern Europeans, about 260 million are central and 270 million periphery types. Approximately 345 million are in Europe (135 million central and 210 million periphery types) and 185 million outside Europe (125 million central and 60 million periphery types) in the new Nordish homelands of the United States (142 million), Canada (21 million), Australia (15 million), New Zealand (2.8 million) and South Africa (4.5 million).
The almost reverse proportions of central and periphery Nordish types between the European and overseas populations is noteworthy, and is due to the leading role played by the predominantly central Nordish peoples of northwest Europe, especially the British Isles, in the settlement of the new racial homelands. As a result, the new Nordish homelands outside Europe, which have only 35% of the total Nordish population, have fully 48% of the central Nordish population. To illustrate this, the 142 million Northern Europeans in the United States are about 65% central and 35% periphery types, whereas the Northern Europeans in the countries of eastern Europe are about 15% central and 85% periphery types. There is also a difference in the periphery types themselves, as a major part of those in the U.S. are of the northwestern Atlantid types, chiefly of British derivation, whereas those in eastern Europe are of the eastern types, especially the Neo-Danubian.
In the peopling of the earth during the last five centuries there have been great racial migrations and the creation of new racial homelands. The Nordish or Northern European race, in particular, enjoyed extensive geographical expansion during this period, acquiring the American continent north of the Rio Grande, Australia and New Zealand as new homelands for its further growth and development. But great opportunities are often accompanied by great perils, and the manner of this expansion created new and unprecedented racial dangers for the race that conducted it. In its efforts to remake the world in its own image it sowed the seeds whose harvest now threatens it with destruction.
In almost two centuries of global dominance the Nordish race changed the world, for both good and bad. In changing the world the Nordish race itself did not remain immune from change, for both good and bad. It set forces in motion that eventually exceeded its power to control, but what was done could not be undone. Pandora's box was opened, the dragon's teeth were sown, other races were stimulated, energized and mobilized to pursue their own goals and interests, and to challenge and threaten the most vital interests of the race whose light touch, or heavy hand, had set them in motion.
The Nordish race went out from its homelands to gain the world, but is now in peril of losing everything it has, and everything it is and can be. In its attempt to gain all it unknowingly and unwisely risked all, and is now in danger of losing all. The nature of that ultimate risk and danger is the subject of other essays on this site.
1. Christopher Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (Thames and Hudson, 1993), pp. 121-122.

The Nordish Crisis
 
by
Richard McCulloch

All the races of humanity share in common the same primary vital interest -- preservation, the continuation of their racial existence. Their preservation or continuation is dependent upon the same condition as their creation -- reproductive isolation, the only effective preventative of their intermixture with other races. This is ultimately true for all races, and most immediately true for those whose relatively recessive genetic traits make them more vulnerable to the racially destructive effects of intermixture. In racial preservationist terms the loss or absence of reproductive isolation creates the most severe form of racial problem -- a problem that threatens the very survival and continued existence of the race, a problem that must inevitably result in the destruction or nonexistence of the race, a problem that is nothing less than a racial crisis. The Nordish (Northern European) race is now threatened by such a crisis -- a racial problem that has grown and developed over the past four centuries to the point where it is now causing the destruction of the Nordish race.
The peopling of the earth was achieved by many migrations by many different peoples. In this long series of human movements many lands have been occupied in succession by diverse peoples, the newcomers often replacing or displacing the previous inhabitants. This process is both ancient, in fact older than humanity, and recent, in fact still continuing.
The expansion of the European peoples into the Americas beginning in 1492 was part of this process. This expansion displaced the indigenous Amerindian peoples in those areas where their population density was low, such as North America, but in those areas where their population density was high, such as Mexico and Central America, or regions which were less accessible, such as the mountain and forest regions of South America, they remained predominant. The European expansion into what became known as Latin America (the lands south of the Rio Grande) was undertaken primarily by the Mediterranid peoples of Spain and Portugal, assisted by a large-scale importation of slaves from the Congoid peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. The settlement and development of North America (the United States and Canada) from 1600 to 1880 was, with one significant exception, a Nordish enterprise. That significant exception was the importation of Congoid slaves into the southern English colonies. (About 9.6 million Africans arrived alive in the Americas from the 16th century through the 19th century. Of these, less than 5 percent, 427,000, were brought to what is now the United States. Nearly 4 million went to Brazil, the largest destination.)
That exception was a fateful one, for it transplanted into the new Nordish homeland a population element which the Nordish race could not assimilate without effectively destroying or negating itself. This action violated the vital and primary Nordish racial interest in a racially homogeneous all-Nordish country -- the condition of reproductive isolation from unassimilable racial elements required for long-term Nordish racial preservation. It also divided the developing new Nordish nation into two different socio-economic systems, a difference based on -- and caused by -- the presence of Africans in the South and their absence in the North. The North developed as an essentially monoracial all-Nordish society and economic system similar to the Nordish homelands in Europe. In the South the establishment of African slavery, and the resulting presence of Africans as a third of the population, caused the social and economic development of the region to be distorted, to deviate from the normal and natural course of monoracial development and follow a course of multiracial development different from the North and the Nordish homelands. Most of the best land in the South, that belonging to wealthy plantation owners, supported an African population rather than a Nordish population. This was the beginning of the race problem, a problem whose solution was never adequately addressed, so it continued and grew and eventually expanded into the racial crisis now threatening the whole Nordish race.
The social and economic differences that developed between the North and the South because of the African presence resulted in deeply divisive disagreement and strife. Their conflicting interests were often expressed in political, philosophical or legalistic terms (such as the decentralized "States Rights" and sectionalist "Southern Rights" concepts championed by the South, versus the unified "sea to shining sea" and "manifest destiny" Nordish-American nationalism that was growing in favor in the North), but the ultimate source of their differences was the African presence which caused the socio-economic development of the biracial South to diverge from that of the monoracial North. For Thomas Jefferson and other American leaders of the first "four score and seven years" the racial problem was a "firebell in the night" which caused them great concern for the future of both their race and their country. Their values of human rights and liberty required that the Africans be freed, while their desire for racial preservation required that the races be separated to assure reproductive isolation. [Note 1]
The race problem was never resolved in a manner that satisfied both these concerns. The race problem began with slavery, having been brought to America by slavery, and until the Civil War it remained essentially identical with slavery. The northern states did not permit slavery, and as a result were almost totally Nordish in population. (Illinois and Ohio did not permit even free Congoids within their borders.) The essence of the division, and divisiveness, afflicting the young nation is expressed by the terms used to denote the different factions -- "free states" and "slave states." The people of the monoracialist, all-Nordish free states of the North sought to prevent the expansion of the race problem -- and thus increase the territory occupied exclusively by Northern Europeans -- by opposing the spread of slavery, and thus of the Congoid population, to new territories. The dominant slave-owning class of the Southern slave states sought to open up new territory for the expansion of their biracial socio-economic system, but were frustrated by monoracialist Northern resistance and felt threatened by the growing sentiment in the North in favor of an all-Nordish nation.
The proposals for the abolition of slavery favored by Jefferson, Lincoln and other early American leaders included plans for the compensation of the former owners and the resettlement of the freed African slaves outside of the United States, resulting in an almost monoracial Nordish-American nation. In the minds of most people in the north, the two goals of ending slavery and achieving a racially homogeneous all-Nordish nation -- by the resettlement of the Congoid population in a country of their own -- were inseparable. Each was presumed to be linked to the other. In fact, it can be said that the abolition of slavery was generally regarded as less of an end in itself than as a means to the end of achieving a monoracial Nordish nation. The one was a necessary step to the realization of the other. [Note 2]
If the abolition of slavery had been accomplished peacefully by Southerners and Northerners acting together to serve the vital and best interests of their race -- that is, separation from other races combined with the unity of the Nordish-American people to create a racially homogeneous all-Nordish nation -- it is likely that it would have been coupled with a long term solution to the race problem. But because the members of the dominant slave-owning class in the South were more concerned with their economic interests than with the best interests of their race (this and similar economic interests being a persistent and important cause of the race problem) divisive sectionalism obstructed the opportunity for the North and South to work together to solve the problem. This tragic failure of racial leadership eventually led to the attempt by the South to dissolve the union of the Nordish race in America by secession. This followed the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860, which made it clear that no further expansion of slavery and the Congoid population would be permitted, and that the monoracialist free states would therefore soon outnumber the biracialist slave states. In the traumatic experience of war which followed -- as the North sought to preserve the Union, and the unity, of the Nordish-American people -- vital racial concerns and interests were forgotten in the escalation of partisan passions and the single-minded pursuit of victory, and the war which began with the North attempting to secure the vital racial interests of the Nordish population was largely transformed into a crusade to promote the interests of the African-American population. As a result, the abolition of slavery was accomplished without compensation for the owners and, most crucially, without resettlement of the freed African population in a separate country of their own, and the opportunity to solve the race problem at an early stage was lost. Consequently, the race problem remained unresolved and continued to grow. It also became more complicated.
Before the Civil War the race problem was essentially limited to the southern states and was mainly a simple matter of Nordish and Congoid, or "white" and "black." The white population, and immigration, was almost all Nordish (in fact almost all Central Nordish from northwest Europe), and the small minority that was not Nordish was mostly Alpine. Under the naturalization law of 1790, which remained in effect until the mid-1960s, only "free white persons" could become naturalized citizens of the United States. Non-whites could only become citizens by birth. "U.S. immigration policy, from 1792 until the 1960s, sought to limit immigration to whites. The argument that the American tradition is one of welcoming all ethnic and racial groups is simply false; that tradition is only a generation old." [Note 3]
After the Civil War the race problem expanded when large numbers of Congoids began to migrate from the south to the north, and it became more complicated after 1890 when the majority of immigrants became non-Nordish. Prior to 1890 immigration was overwhelmingly from the Central Nordish countries of northwest Europe, but the massive "new immigration" from 1890 to 1924 was mostly non-Nordish. Southern and Eastern Europeans were only 13% of the immigrants in 1882, but 81% in 1907. Some of the immigrants from these regions were Peripheral Nordish, but the majority consisted of Mediterranids (the predominant element among the immigrants from southern Italy and Sicily) and Armenids (the predominant element among the Ashkenazic Jews from eastern Europe). Many of the new immigrants promoted the values of multiracialism and "The Melting Pot" (the title of a 1909 play by Israel Zangwill), but most Nordish Americans opposed multiracialism, and enacted into law the Johnson National Origins Act of 1924 that greatly reduced non-Nordish immigration -- and largely stabilized the racial proportions of the population -- for the next forty years. This limited act of Nordish racial self-preservation temporarily slowed the growth of the race problem, but it was too little and too late to stop it, and did nothing to solve the problem that already existed
In his very influential 1,500 page study, An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy , published in 1944 as World War II was reaching its climax, Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal summarized the current sentiments of white Americans as follows (Vol. 1, p. 167):
"There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of white Americans desire that there be as few Negroes as possible in America. If the Negroes could be eliminated from America or greatly decreased in numbers, this would meet the whites' approval -- provided that it could be accomplished by means which are also approved. Correspondingly, an increase of the proportion of Negroes in the American population is commonly looked upon as undesirable."
Myrdal called the race problem "An American Dilemma." A dilemma implies the absence of a solution. But over the next two decades racial nihilism rose to a position of ideological dominance and provided its solution to the dilemma -- the rejection of all racial preservationist concerns and the promotion of racial negation and destruction by intermixture. It achieved this dominant position not only in the multiracial United States, but also in the monoracial Nordish lands of Europe, Canada and Australia, which were strongly influenced by the U.S. model to regard multiracialism as an essential part of a modern and advanced society. The result was the promotion of multiracialism in all the Nordish countries -- the practical consequence of which was large-scale non-Nordish immigration into almost all the Nordish homelands and the end of the reproductive isolation required for Nordish racial preservation.
To the author's knowledge, no sociological or historical study has been done that documents, describes or explains the process of multiracialization now occurring in the Nordish countries: how it began; who promoted it; who made the decisions; to what extent the course or consequences of multiracialization were intended or planned, considered or foreseen; to what extent the Nordish citizenry was infomed about the decisions and the consequences and gave their informed consent; statistical documentation of the numbers and racial identity of the immigrants; and the extent of interracial mixture, marriage and adoption. Such a study would face problems, as the governments of the Nordish countries undergoing this process have seemed reluctant to collect or publish accurate information about it, and until they are more forthcoming reliable information on the subject will remain difficult to obtain. But even without such a study, it is clear that the indigenous Nordish populations as a whole had and have little choice in the matter, were and are not well informed about it, and were and are largely unaware of its consequences -- the racial transformation of the ancient Nordish homelands through the gradual displacement and replacement of the indigenous Nordish populations by increasingly non-Nordish populations. It is also clear that whereas the motives behind the earlier stages in the process of multiracialization were almost wholly economic -- the desire of large and influential business interests for a plentiful supply of cheap labor, from African slaves and Chinese railroad workers to Southern European factory laborers and Mexican farm hands -- the motives behind the greatly expanded multiracialization process that began in the 1950s included a significant, and increasingly predominant, ideological component, as the multiracialization of the Nordish homelands and its destructive consequences for the Nordish race became an end in itself under the rule of the ever more powerful racial nihilist ideology.
In the 1938 census there were 30,000 non-Europeans in the United Kingdom. The first shipload of non-white immigrants from the Caribbean, 492 Jamaicans on the Empire Windrush, arrived in Britain amid considerable controversy in June, 1948 [First_Immigrants.JPG], yet in the 1951 census there were still only 50,000 non-whites in the population.

Large-scale non-European immigration into Britain really began in the mid-1950s, ironically as the British themselves were withdrawing from their former colonies. By 2007 the proportion of non-white elements in the population of the United Kingdom had grown to 10% and was projected to increase to at least 29% by 2030 and be a majority by 2100. In the early 1960s large numbers of non-European immigrants and "guest workers" began to enter France, West Germany and the Netherlands.
In the U.S. the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy and Jacob Javits in the Senate and Emanuel Celler in the House of Representatives, reopened the door to large-scale non-Nordish immigration -- with the result that the massive post-1970 immigration has been over 90% non-Nordish -- while the increased racial "integration" promoted by the Civil Rights movement greatly increased the extent of interracial contact and intermixture, as it abolished much of the racial separation (or "segregation") which had provided a limited form of reproductive isolation. [Note 4]
In 1967 Canada -- an almost monoracial Nordish country -- reformed its immigration laws to encourage non-Nordish immigration as it actively sought to transform itself into a multiracial society. In 1969 Tage Erlander, the Swedish Prime Minister since 1946 who had declared Sweden to be a country for white people, was replaced by Olof Palme, who wanted Sweden to play a role of moral activist leadership in the world, which in practice meant promoting and serving the interests of non-Nordish peoples to the extent of sacrificing the most vital interests of the Swedish and other Nordish peoples. In the 1970s non-Nordish immigrants began to enter Scandinavia, with Sweden leading the way, setting an example that Norway and Denmark sought to emulate with the traditional intra-Scandinavian competitiveness. By the 1990s Sweden was transformed into a multiracial society, with a mixed-race Miss Sweden in 2002 (Malou Hanson, below left) and a Congolese immigrant, Folkpartiet (People's Party) legislator Nyambko Sabuni, in the Swedish government as Minister of (Racial) Integration in 2006 (below right).


Also in the early 1970s, Australia abandoned its traditional "whites-only" immigration policy in favor of a "multiracial future" (by which is meant an East Asian, rather than Nordish, future). By January, 1996 the major Australian magazine Bulletin (below) was celebrating the resulting racial transformation of the country, much as Time magazine in the U.S. and Elsevier magazine in the Netherlands (see footnotes 8 and 14 below) were also doing for their countries during the decade. Although the group below is not "morphed" into one representative mixed individual as in the other examples, it should be noted that only nine of the twenty-two people on the cover appear to be Nordish. In the Australian government's advertisement for citizenship (also below) the odds are even more unfavorable for the founding Australian racial stock, with only two out of eleven (the couple on the far right) appearing to be Nordish.


By the 1980s the race problem that had long been a uniquely American dilemma, limited to the United States, had grown into a racial crisis affecting almost all the Nordish peoples, violating their primary and vital interests in independence and the reproductive isolation necessary for their continued existence. [Note 5]
A number of different factors, other than racial nihilist ideology, contribute to this crisis of Nordish racial survival. One is certainly the relative economic well-being of the Nordish countries, which makes them very attractive to immigrants for economic reasons. Another is the "population explosion" in many of the non-Nordish countries, which greatly increases the demographic and economic pressures for immigration. Another is the relative vulnerability of the Nordish race to intermixture, resulting from its relatively low birthrate (actually below the replacement level since the early 1970s, and thus a crisis in itself), the fact that it is a small minority of humanity as a whole (less than 10% of the total world population and less than 5% of total world births), and, most uniquely, from the relative recessiveness of the various traits in its genetic ensemble, which generally causes them to be negated or severely diminished by intermixture.
The non-ideological factors are likely to become even less favorable for the Nordish race in the foreseeable future. By 2050 the world population is projected to increase to 10.2 billion, with over 90% of that growth in the "less developed" countries, while the Nordish race will actually decrease in absolute as well as relative terms (less than 5% of the total 2050 world population and less than 2% of total 2050 world births). As a result, the increasingly less-Nordish formerly Nordish countries are expected to face increasing waves of non-Nordish immigration as millions of refugees flee the poverty of their native countries. [Note 6]
Tables I and II show the racial changes that have occurred in the composition of the U.S. population since 1880 and the changes, based on current trends, that are projected to occur between 1992 and 2050.




Table I: U.S. Population by Race 1880-2050









The Mediterranid category includes Orientalids, Armenids, Turanids and Irano-Afghans, a racial grouping which includes nearly all North Africans and Southwest Asians (the Arab, Iranian, Afghan, Turkish and other "Middle Eastern" peoples) as well as most Southern Europeans. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies all these groups as "White."
The "Hispanic" or "Latino" category is racially diverse, but consists mainly (about 90%) of persons of whole or mixed (Mestizo) Amerindian ancestry from Mexico or Central and South America. The remainder (about 10%) are mostly Mediterranid or Congoid. In many statistics the U.S. Census Bureau and other government bodies include the Mestizo element in the "White" category.
The Asian category (per U.S. Census Bureau classification) includes Asian Indians and Pakistanis as well as East Asians and Pacific Islanders.
The last three columns (columns four, five and six) in Table I are projections based on a study by demographer Jennifer Cheeseman Day, Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1992 to 2050 , U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25-1092, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1992.
Population changes are primarily determined by three factors -- birthrates, immigration rates, and the rate of intermixture between the different elements in the population. The fourth and fifth columns are projections based on the assumption that the demographic trends of the 1980s and early 1990s will continue until 2050. These trends include a birthrate of 1.85 for "Non-Hispanic Whites" (a Census Bureau category consisting of the Nordish, Alpine and Mediterranid categories), 2.45 for "Blacks" (Congoids), 2.68 for Hispanics, 2.9 for Amerindians, 2.3 for Asians, and an immigration level of 880,000 per year (680,000 legal and 200,000 illegal) of which 174,000 would be White (mostly Mediterranid from northern Africa and southwest Asia), 60,000 Black, 324,000 Hispanic and 323,000 Asian. Based on these levels of immigration, which could be greatly exceeded (the actual level of legal immigration in the early 1990s was 1.5 million annually), the study predicts that 81 million members (or 21%) of the population of 2050 will consist of post-1991 immigrants and their descendants (over 95% of whom will be non-Nordish). The sixth or last column assumes the same birthrates, but assumes zero immigration between 1992 and 2050. It shows that even with zero immigration the Nordish element would still be gradually replaced, although at a slower rate. Within a year of the release of the above study its author was already revising her assumptions and projections regarding the Hispanic population, raising their birthrate to 2.9, and increasing their numbers in 2050 by 9 million from 81 to 90 million, and the total population from 383 to 392 million. Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale), Sept. 29, 1993, p. 1A. A later Census Bureau projection estimated a U.S. population of 325.9 million in the year 2020, with 51.2 million (15.7%) Hispanic and 45.4 million (13.9%) Congoid. The Miami Herald , April 21, 1994, p. 1A.
The study has one crucial flaw: it effectively omits one of the three factors that determine population change -- the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements. It does not allow for the effects of racial interbreeding. It assigns all children born after 1992 to the same race as their mother regardless of the race of their father and the child's own actual racial identity, which in the case of racial mixture is often markedly different from that of the mother, especially if the mother's genes are recessive and effectively negated or significantly diminished by the intermixture. This is a critical omission, for although the rate of racial intermixture is difficult to predict its effects are likely to be dramatic if current trends continue, especially among the Nordish population whose genes are commonly recessive and either negated or significantly diminished when mixed with other races. For example, if 6% of the children born to Nordish mothers were racially-mixed children whose racial identity was not Nordish, the real Nordish birthrate would be reduced from 1.8 to 1.7 (or from 14% to 19% below the replacement rate of 2.1). To correct this omission Table II is adjusted to allow for the effects on the Nordish population of an intermixture rate of 6% during the period from 1990 to 2000, 10% from 2000 to 2020, 15% from 2020 to 2030, and 20% from 2030-2050. It also allows for the compounding or cumulative effects of intermixture with each new generation (allowing thirty years per generation). The last column, based on zero immigration, lowers the assumed rate of intermixture for the period from 2030 to 2050 to 16.5% on the grounds that the pool of potential non-Nordish mates available for intermixture would be smaller.
In Table I the assumed rates of non-Nordish immigration and births cause a relative decline of the Nordish population in proportion to the others (i.e., in terms of population share), while the assumed Nordish birthrate causes an absolute decline in numbers. In Table II the assumed rate of intermixture increases both the relative and absolute decline in both the proportions and numbers of the Nordish population.
The rate of intermixture is determined by three factors -- the relative proportions of different racial elements in the population, the extent of contact between the races, and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates. The rate of intermixture is effectively limited by the proportions of different races in a population. In a monoracial society different races are not present, resulting in reproductive isolation and the effective prevention of intermixture. If other races are present only as a very small minority the rate of intermixture is still necessarily limited to a low level. When other races are present in numbers equal to or exceeding that of a particular race the potential rate of intermixture for that race is effectively unlimited. Within the given proportions of different races in a population, the actual rate of intermixture is determined by the extent of contact between the races and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates. The greater the extent of contact between the races the higher the rate of intermixture will tend to be. To the degree that contact between the races is minimized or prevented, a degree of reproductive isolation is present which reduces the rate of intermixture. If contact between the races is extensive there is no reproductive isolation and racial discrimination in the selection of mates becomes the only effective limit on the rate of intermixture. If two races are present in equal numbers, and contact between and within the races is equally extensive, so that 50% of the pool of potential mates are from each race, there should be a 50% rate of intermixture if there is no racial discrimination in the selection of mates. If the degree of racial discrimination is 50% the rate of intermixture would be 25%. Although the rate of Nordish intermixture with other races is difficult to predict, it is likely to increase due to a number of interrelated and interacting trends, including increasing proportions of other races in the population and thus in the pool of potential mates, more extensive contact between the races, a decreasing level of racial discrimination in the selection of mates, cultural and ideological influences, and the "snowballing" effect -- the increasing momentum or velocity in the rate of intermixture -- caused by the increasing numbers of mixed-race persons themselves.
Allowing for intermixture, my projections in generation intervals of 30 years for the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S., which in 1992 was 27.7 million, are as follows: 2020 = 22.4 million; 2050 = 15 million; 2080 = 9 million; 2110 = 5 million; 2140 = 2.7 million (i.e., a 90% reduction in 150 years). This projection is based on the assumption that fully 50% of each Nordish generation would strictly discriminate on racial grounds in their selection of a mate and refuse to mate with a member of another race or a racially-mixed person who is only partly of their own race. The other 50% would not racially discriminate in their choice of a mate, with the consequence that the racial proportions among their mates would reflect the racial proportions of the population (specifically, the pool of prospective mates) as a whole. (Thus the 15 million Nordish-Americans of the under-15 generation of 2050 would comprise only about 20% of their generation of Americans as a whole, so that 50%, or 7.5 million, who racially discriminated in their choice of a mate, and 20% of the remainder, or 1.5 million, who did not racially discriminate but by chance chose a mate of their own race, totaling 9 million, would produce the 9 million Nordish-Americans of the generation of 2080.) Since each Nordish generation would constitute an ever smaller proportion of the total population, it would be increasingly difficult for 50% to racially discriminate successfully in their choice of mates. Even among the current generation of Nordish youth, who have been heavily indoctrinated with the racial nihilist belief that any kind of racial discrimination is morally evil, it is unlikely that 50% would practice strict racial discrimination in the choice of a mate.

To describe the situation in biological terms, the habitat of the Nordish race is being invaded by competing life-forms or races. [Note 7] If the different races do not interbreed the competition will be decided solely by numbers, in which the non-Nordish races, both in their potential numbers of immigrants and higher birthrates, enjoy a decisive advantage. If they do interbreed -- and it should be assumed that different races which cohabit the same territory will eventually interbreed -- the race whose genetic traits are dominant will enjoy an advantage increasing the power of its numbers by a factor based on the extent of its genetic dominance over its interbreeding rivals. Because the distinctive ensemble of Nordish genetic traits is generally recessive compared to non-Nordish traits the effects of interbreeding tend to favor the non-Nordish races. Consequently, the ability of a Nordish population to assimilate non-Nordish elements without significant alteration or diminished distinctiveness of its racial identity and genetic traits is very limited. Even with members of the Alpine racial group, a ratio of six-to-one in favor of the Nordish population is required to achieve assimilation without significant alteration of its racial identity and traits. With other races higher ratios are required, each member of the non-Nordish element effectively accounting for multiple members of the Nordish element in the equation of intermixture. For the Nordish race the results of intermixture are clearly unfavorable, a grim mathematics of alteration, diminishment and extinction.
For the most part, the non-European races of humanity are not similarly threatened. Not only are their genetic traits more resistant to alteration or diminishment by intermixture, their demographic problems also tend to be the opposite of the Nordish race -- excessive growth rather than decline. For the foreseeable future, the one billion-plus people of India (as of May, 2000), the 1.3 billion of China, and the soon-to-be one billion people of Africa and 700 million of Latin America, are not likely to be threatened by immigration from other regions or races. Their racial existence appears secure. The crisis of racial survival caused by racial nihilism and multiracialism is thus almost exclusively a Nordish crisis. What is actually foreseeable, given current trends, is the growth and expansion of the African, Asian and Latin American races into the homelands of the European peoples, especially the Nordish race, which will be gradually replaced by a mixed race of part-Nordish origin, with the Nordish proportion steadily diminishing as new waves of non-Nordish immigrants are continually added to the mixture.
In little more than three decades the countries of northwestern Europe (including Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) acquired populations of non-European immigrants that are too large for the native populations to assimilate without negating or destroying their racial identity. Yet given the fact that different human populations sharing the same territory do eventually interbreed, it must be assumed that they will attempt to assimilate these unassimilable elements, and in the process destroy themselves. If their commitment to multiracialism and racial nihilism remains unchanged, and recent demographic trends in immigration, differential birthrates and racial intermixture continue, one can project that by the year 2100 the remnants of the native populations of northwest Europe will be too small to constitute a viable continuation of their previous existence. They will be effectively extinct.
In a rare and unusually candid statement about this usually ignored or evaded process of Nordish extinction, a Dutch Minister of Education and Science stated in 1989:
I think that the Dutch will in the long run disappear. The [immigrant] ethnic groups' population growth is much faster than that of the Dutch. It is obvious that this process will continue, even after the year 2100. This is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. I don't regard this as positive or negative. Apparently we are happy with this development. [Note 8]
The Nordish countries of northwestern Europe, North America and Australia are being transformed by the cumulative effects of non-Nordish immigration, differential birthrates, interracial adoption and intermixture into non-Nordish countries. Over the course of generations their Nordish populations will gradually become extinct as the diminishing remnants are blended into the mixed solution of the racial melting pot. According to the U.S. Endangered Species Act, which defines species as including subspecies, an endangered species is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A threatened species is "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future." By this standard the Nordish race is already endangered. [Note 9]
Extinction is a gradual process of racial destruction that occurs over a period of generations, with the cumulative amount of racial loss increasing in each generation until the process is complete. As part of this process the race undergoing extinction also suffers the loss of its political, social, cultural and economic independence, control over its own life and destiny, and the exclusive possession of its own homeland, nation, country or territory. As this process is conducted under racial nihilism, the race being dispossessed of its culture and country is first dispossessed of its sense of nationhood or national identity, the close historical association or identification between a particular population, the nation they formed and the country or homeland they occupied. Their racial and national identities are denied and taken from them by redefining them to be inclusive of other groups -- in effect defining their identities out of existence, as if their identities must first be denied and destroyed before their right to exist is denied and they are destroyed. The rights of exclusive possession or ownership of a people or race to its homeland, heritage, peoplehood, nationhood and very identity are denied by asserting that immigrants of other races are part of that nation, belong to that people, and have a right to live in that country and share that identity as much as the historical racial population. [Note 10]
The cultural and ideological dominance of racial nihilism is now so strong that it is regarded as morally wrong (and perhaps illegal) for a Frenchman to assert that France belongs to the (indigenous) French, and that only the indigenous French should be described as French, or for an Englishman, Dutchman, German or Scandinavian to make a similar assertion of exclusive racial ownership of their ancestral homeland and national identity. Their peoplehood, nationhood, racial heritage, identity and ownership of their own countries are being denied and taken from them, and any opposition to this process is strongly condemned by the culturally and politically dominant elements that promote racial nihilism. Their countries are being lost as homelands for future generations of their race, as those generations are themselves being lost through the racial destruction that is part of the same process.
Typical of the multiracialist "spin" constantly published in the major media is the cover pictured below from an article in USA Weekend magazine for Thanksgiving 2002 that turns the holiday into a celebration of, and thanksgiving for, racial diversity, and explicitly celebrates the evidence it publicizes for racial intermixture among the Mayflower descendants.

Various arguments are used to justify or rationalize the multiracialization of the Nordish world. In the United States, where it began, multiracialization has often been justified by the argument that America is "a nation of immigrants." But this argument is merely an evasion of the fundamental issues and concerns of race, especially racial preservation and independence, and ignores the fact that, with the exception of the Congoids who were imported as slaves, the immigrants to America before 1890 were overwhelmingly Nordish, and gave the new country a distinctly Nordish racial identity. The "nation of immigrants" argument is really a confusing smokescreen to cover and promote the immigration of non-Nordish peoples into the Nordish homelands. While it was first and still most commonly used to justify non-Nordish immigration into the United States, it has also been used to legitimize non-Nordish immigration into Canada and Australia, where immigration was almost exclusively Nordish until recent decades, and even into Europe, where it is patently false as the indigenous European peoples have been there for 40,000 years. An example of the latter is the assertion by the French Interior Minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement (as reported by the BBC on July 28, 2000)..."that Europe should be prepared to take in millions of migrants in the next 50 years to offset population decline....[and] that Europe, a land of immigration [emphasis added], will become a place where racial mixing occurs and public opinion needs to be enlightened and convinced."
Another common argument for multiracialization is that immigrants of different races enrich or strengthen a country. But a people or race is not enriched or strengthened by the violation and loss of its independence, its control over its own life and destiny, and the conditions of reproductive isolation and separation required for its preservation and continued existence. Indeed, such a development must be regarded as the most severe form of impoverishment and enfeeblement that a race or people can suffer. If a country is identified with the people or race that has historically inhabited it (contrary to racial nihilist practice, which divorces a country or nation from any racial identification) then it also must be regarded as impoverished and weakened, rather than enriched and strengthened, by multiracial immigration. Similarly, it is argued that multiracialism represents progress or improvement. But again, no race can properly regard the violation and loss of the conditions it requires for continued life as progress or improvement.
Humanitarian arguments are also used to justify non-Nordish immigration into the Nordish homelands. But humanitarian assistance can be provided to non-Nordish peoples in their own homelands, a solution that would protect rather than violate the right of the Nordish peoples to their own countries and the conditions they require for continued life. It is also argued that democracy requires multiracialism, and that opposition to multiracialism is undemocratic, although democracy has long thrived in monoracial Nordish countries. Actually, "multiracial democracy" should itself be regarded as both undemocratic and as a contradiction in terms, as it denies the right of different peoples or races to self-determination or self-rule, to government of themselves, by themselves and for themselves, to independence, and even to existence, thus condemning them to "perish from the earth" rather than affirming their right to endure and be preserved. To the extent that the Nordish peoples accept the multiracialization of their countries they are accepting the denial of their own right to exist, sacrificing their ultimate or most vital interest -- their continued life.
The following selections from a special report on race issues in the United Kingdom and elsewhere by Anthony Browne, posted on The Guardian Unlimited (the website of The Manchester Guardian) on September 3, 2000, are a rare instance of a mainstream news report that partially reveals the consequences of multiracialism, addressing the consequences of immigration and differential birthrates but ignoring the consequences of racial intermixture.



UK whites will be minority by 2100

Whites will be an ethnic minority in Britain by the end of the century. Analysis of official figures indicate that, at current fertility rates and levels of immigration, there will be more non-whites than whites by 2100. It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease. Whites will be a minority in London by 2010.
In the early 1950s there were only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the UK. By 1991 that had risen to 3 million - 6 per cent of the population. The population of ethnic minorities has been growing at between 2 and 4 per cent a year. Net immigration has been running at record levels, with 185,000 newcomers last year. Government forecasts suggest that immigration on its own will be responsible for half the growth of the British population over the next couple of decades.
New immigrants, who are on average younger than the population at large, also tend to have higher fertility rates. In contrast, the population of white British citizens is static. Their fertility rate is very low - at under 2 children per woman -- and there is overall emigration of British citizens.
The analysis of the figures showed that if the population of ethnic minorities grows at 4 per cent a year, whites will become a minority before 2100. The demographer who made the calculation wished to remain anonymous for fear of accusations of racism.



The last days of a white world

We are near a global watershed - a time when white people will not be in the majority in the developed world, Britain included. It was news and no news; the most significant milestone in one of the most profound changes to affect the US in the past century, and yet a non-event. Last week the US Census Bureau issued figures showing that non-hispanic whites made up 49.8 per cent of the population of California [probably about 75-80% of the "non-hispanic whites" are Nordish]. Anglo-Saxon whites are already a minority in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. Now they are an ethnic minority in the country's most populous state, the one most usually identified with the American dream. 'It's my hope we can all see our state's diversity as a cause for celebration and not consternation,' said California's lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamente, a Latino.
As recently as 1970, eight out of 10 Californians were white. Fuelled by immigration at its highest rate since the start of the last century, and higher fertility rates, the Asian and Latino populations of California have risen by almost a third since 1990. At the same time, with limited immigration and low birth rates, the population of non-hispanic whites has fallen by 3 per cent. By 2040, hispanics are expected to be the overall majority in the state. Where California goes, the rest of America is predicted to follow. At present 72 per cent of the US population is non-hispanic whites; the US Census Bureau predicts they will become a minority between 2055 and 2060.
The shifting sands of the US reflect wider -- and highly controversial -- changes elsewhere in the world. It is an area in which few demographers dare to tread for fear of being accused of racism. 'You cannot quote me - a word out of place and I get crapped on from a very great height,' said one academic. 'Whatever you say you are deemed racist'.
[A]round the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population. The United Nations collects and produces a vast array of statistics on population, but produces none relating to race or ethnic origin. Indeed few countries collect their own figures on ethnicity - in Europe, only the UK and the Netherlands do. However, the UN's State of the World Population 1999 predicted that 98 per cent of the growth in the world's population by 2025 will occur in lesser developed regions, principally Africa and Asia. The most significant reason for this is lower birth rates in rich countries: in 61 countries, mainly the rich ones, people are no longer having enough babies to replace themselves.
In its World Population Profile 1998, the US Census Bureau predicted that by the second decade of this century all the net gain in world population will be in developing countries. 'The future of human population growth has been determined, and is being determined, in the world's poorer nations,' it said. The global centre of gravity is changing. In 1900 Europe had a quarter of the world's population, and three times that of Africa; by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa. The aging and declining populations of predominantly white nations have prompted forecasts of -- and calls for -- more immigration from the young and growing populations of developing nations to make up the shortfall.
Last year net immigration to Britain reached 185,000, an all-time record. The number of ethnic minority citizens has risen from a few tens of thousands in the 1950s, to more than 3 million -- or around 6 per cent of the total population. While the number of whites is virtually static, higher fertility and net immigration means the number from ethnic minorities is growing by 2 to 3 per cent a year. One demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'
Lee Jasper, race relations adviser to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, predicted a similar future, telling The Observer : 'Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries.' In Britain, that is almost certain to happen in London, and in the relatively near future. 'At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London. The demographics show that white people in London will become a minority by 2010,' said Jasper. 'We could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.'
British National Party chairman Nick Griffin said: 'I don't think there's any doubt that within this century, white people will be a minority in every country in the world.' For Griffin, however, it is a major cause of alarm: 'Every people under the sun have a right to their place under the sun, and the right to survive. If people predicted that Indians would be a minority in India in 2100, everyone would be calling it genocide.' Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who arrived in London from Uganda in 1972, said such fears are basically racist: 'Only white people worry about this. She added: 'There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it's foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?'
Jasper said the concerns of the British National Party are based on outdated ideas. 'The racial mix of nations changes all the time. There is no way that ethnicity of blood can be tied to a specific geographic place in a global world. You can no longer look at ethnic states, saying that Germany is Anglo-Saxon and so on.' Jasper felt the process would strengthen Britain. 'Diversity strengthens a country. It makes it more exciting. We have hundreds of languages spoken, when we go out to eat we never eat English, we eat Thai or French or Indian. It makes London a very cool place to live and work.'
Back in California, in a land built by immigrants, Bustamente put a positive spin on the end of the white majority: 'If there are no majorities, then there's no minorities.' In Europe, with its 40,000-year-old indigenous white population, the rise of a non-white majority may not be greeted with such equanimity.
No country, society, people or nation can be both Nordish and multiracial. It can either be one or the other, but not both. The movement toward one is movement away from the other. Nordish America is becoming the America of the past. If present demographic trends continue, the America of the future will not be a Nordish America. America will have a non-Nordish future if the dominant proponents of multiracialism succeed in realizing their dream. The future prospects for the Nordish countries of northwestern Europe, Canada and Australia are essentially the same. If present trends continue they too will have a non-Nordish future, and their Nordish peoples, like the Nordish Americans, will all too soon "belong to the ages."
Every species or race requires a habitat with the conditions needed to sustain its life. A land or habitat that lacks the conditions needed to sustain life, where life can only diminish, lessen and wither to the end of extinction and death, is a wasteland. The Nordish race requires a monoracial habitat, providing it with the condition of reproductive isolation essential to sustain its life. For the Nordish race, a multiracial society is a wasteland, an environment where the Nordish race cannot continue to live, where its life cannot be sustained, where its freedom, independence and control over its own life and future are denied, and where, in the end, it will lose its very existence. Again, a society or country cannot be both Nordish and multiracial, cannot have both a Nordish future and a multiracial future, only one or the other. There is no future for the Nordish race in a multiracial society. There is no future for the Nordish peoples in any homeland or habitat, whether in America, Australia, Britain, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany or elsewhere, that is multiracialized into a wasteland incapable of sustaining Nordish life.
Yet multiracialization is what is happening. The Nordish habitats are being systematically destroyed by their transformation into multiracial wastelands that are no longer able to sustain Nordish life. And this is being done knowingly, willfully, deliberately and intentionally by the dominant proponents of racial nihilism, who have effectively sentenced the Nordish race to death by multiracialization. Opposition or dissent to this racial death sentence, or advocacy of the rights of the Nordish race to life, liberty and independence, is condemned as immoral and unworthy of consideration by the culturally and politically dominant racial nihilist elements. They celebrate the multiracialization of the formerly Nordish homelands and rejoice in the unfolding process of Nordish dispossession, replacement and extinction. [Note 11]
The multiracialization of the Nordish countries is so widely supported and promoted by the dominant elements in the major political parties, the communications and entertainment media, the educational establishment and the various religious denominations that it is occurring without significant opposition, debate or discussion of the consequences. Indeed, this support is typically of such passionate intensity as to be incapable of objective discussion and dogmatically intolerant of any dissenting opinion. The source of this intensity can, to a large extent, be attributed to the influence of so-called "Left-wing" ideologies, which have long promoted a nihilistic version of egalitarianism that would eliminate all human differences or distinctions. In the nineteenth century the "Left" identified the aristocracy and "bourgeois capitalists" as the "class enemies," "exploiters" or "oppressors" to be overthrown by revolution and destroyed. In the twentieth century it increasingly targeted the Nordish race as the enemy, as an oppressive and evil racial elite that must be overthrown by any means necessary. Consistent with this view, the "Left" has become distinctly and particularly anti-Nordish in a sense that exceeds the general anti-racial values of racial nihilism, and this bias has caused it to single-out the Nordish race for marginalization, devaluation, dispossession and extinction. By the end of the 1960s this identification and bias had become explicit, as illustrated by the following account concerning the militant Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society:
I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention, and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, "Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies." At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, "Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies." I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down. [Note 12]
As this account indicates, by the late 1960s various radical elements explicitly desired the nonexistence, destruction or extinction of the Nordish race, and were even willing to consider violent means to achieve this genocidal goal. Fortunately, to date there has been no actual attempt to destroy the Nordish race by killing its newborn babies. Instead, the Nordish race is being destroyed by other means, chief among which is the multiracialization of its homelands, which violates its right to exist by depriving it of the condition of reproductive isolation it needs to continue its existence. By this means the not so distant future existence of the Nordish race, and Nordish babies, is preemptively negated. In fact, although the ideological position of the currently dominant elements is not as explicitly anti-Nordish as that of the radical Weathermen, its long term goals and the long term effects of its policies are essentially the same -- the replacement, dispossession and effective extinction of the Nordish race in all of its homelands.
With regard to the Nordish race the dominant political and cultural elements are in complete agreement. They are united in their opposition to its preservation and independence and in their denial of its vital rights and interests, including its right to exist, as demonstrated by their opposition to the conditions of reproductive isolation and separation it requires for continued existence. If it is assumed that the dominant elements are aware that different races which share the same territory eventually interbreed, and are also aware of the destructive consequences of such intermixture for the Nordish race, then the multiracialization of the Nordish countries conducted under their direction indicates that they are, in fact, anti-Nordish in the most profound sense -- deliberately, knowingly and insistently inflicting on the Nordish race conditions of life that are causing its destruction. By the definition of the United Nations Genocide Treaty their policies could, and should, be described as genocide. [Note 13]
The general passivity and lack of opposition among the Nordish population with regard to multiracialism and its destructive consequences can be attributed to various causes. Certainly the common human desire to conform to the dominant value system or ideology -- which is currently racial nihilism -- plays an important role. So does ignorance, the lack of knowledge or awareness of what is happening, of its long term effects or consequences, and of alternatives. Much of this ignorance is certainly willful, as many do not want to know either what is happening or its consequences. Thus many engage in denial when informed of the facts, or attempt to evade the issue. Many others are intellectually and emotionally committed to the cause of multiracialism and intermixture, some to the extent of actually desiring its destructive effects on their race. Another important cause is a simple lack of caring, a seeming obliviousness by many people to racial concerns and interests which effectively consigns their race to oblivion. (A similar attitude with regard to the natural environment long permitted its desecration and destruction and hindered its preservation and conservation.)
The ignorance, denial, and lack of awareness, caring and concern on this matter can be partly attributed to the fact that the process of racial replacement and destruction by multiracialism is gradual, occurring over a period of generations, and thereby escapes the attention of those whose perspective is limited to more short range or immediate concerns. But more important is the fact that it is a subject largely ignored, evaded, repressed or denied by the dominant political, cultural and media elements, or portrayed as a morally improper matter for caring or concern. There has long been an air of unreality in the manner in which the dominant elements have evaded the consequences of multiracialism, hiding the destructive truth behind an oft-repeated mantra of fictions, distortions, denials and deceptive platitudes. [Note 14]
There is also a prevailing state of disorientation among the Nordish peoples regarding their racial identity and interests. The Nordish race has suffered an extensive alienation of the affections of its members, many of whom have been separated from their natural affiliation and allegiance, loyalty and love, by the dominant anti-Nordish influences in the culture and educational institutions, which often portray the Nordish race as collectively evil and guilty of misdeeds against other races, and therefore unworthy of existence. Under these anti-Nordish influences large numbers of the Nordish population have been turned against their race, against its legitimate rights and interests, against the conditions it requires for continued existence, and against its preservation and continued life. The resulting racial dysfunction greatly weakens the ability of the Nordish peoples to affirm the value and importance of their existence and assert their vital rights and interests.
But perhaps the most important factor in the seeming indifference and passivity of the Nordish race in the face of its unfolding dispossession and destruction is hopelessness, the feeling that nothing can be done, that the process of racial destruction is inevitable and resistance is futile, and that there is no acceptable alternative to the current racial nihilist trend. This feeling of hopelessness is fostered by the dominant racial nihilist elements, which portray the current trends that are causing the destruction of the Nordish race as inevitable, and claim there is no alternative -- no other choice -- that is morally tolerable or, in other words, that the only alternatives are those offered by the immoral forms of racism.
This lack of alternatives and choices is in part a legacy of reductionist and extremist logic, which denies the possibility of another course between the two destructive extremes of racial nihilism and immoral racism, equating all pro-racial sentiments and ideas with the latter. It is also a legacy of the anti-Nordish bias of the dominant elements, which has fostered a racial double-standard in the culture that is highly prejudiced against even the most vital and fundamental Nordish rights and interests, regarding their assertion as inherently evil and violative of the rights and interests of other races. The result is an intellectual void or vacuum among the Nordish population on the subject of race, empty of all thoughts and feelings that affirm and promote racial life and continued existence. It is a void in which racial love and caring are not permitted to exist. It is the void of racial nihilism.
The apparent lack of morally acceptable alternatives lends credibility to the claim by the dominant racial nihilist elements that multiracialism is inevitable. To the extent that this claim is accepted all opposition to multiracialism, or consideration of possible alternatives, is regarded as futile, and serious discussion, debate and dissent are effectively preempted and suppressed. The claim of inevitability is a common propaganda device to discourage and suppress resistance, thereby turning wishful thinking into a self-fulfilling reality. It was a favorite propaganda tool of the promoters of communism. It is also a favorite myth of those who promote the racial nihilist dream of "One-World, One-People, One-Race," to be achieved through the racially destructive effects of multiracialism. But multiracialism and its destructive consequences are no more inevitable than communism. Contrary to the claims of such ideologies, the future is not predetermined. [Note 15]
In Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol , when Ebenezer Scrooge saw the deadly consequences of his current direction and course he asked the Ghost of the Future, "Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of the things that may be, only? Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change....Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life!" He believed there were alternatives, that there was still hope for a different future if he changed direction and altered the course of his life.
So it is with the Nordish race. The certain ends foreshadowed by the trends described in this work, the future indicated by the demographic projections, and the deadly consequences for the Nordish race if the present course is persevered in or continued, are not what must be. They are not the inevitable future, only what will be if the present course and direction is continued. The present course leads to Nordish destruction, loss of independence and racial death. If the direction is changed, altered or departed from, a different future, a future of Nordish preservation, independence, continued life and existence, is possible. That would be the future of the Racial Compact.
If we set our course in the direction of the recognition of racial rights, affirming the value of racial existence and the importance of human racial diversity -- not just of some races but of all -- a "New World Order" of peaceful racial coexistence, of the different races of humanity sharing the earth together, respecting the right of each to continued existence and independence within the secure borders of its own homelands, would be realized. It would be a true solution to the racial dilemma that has troubled the Nordish race almost from the beginning of its expansion beyond its original North European homeland.
The racial dilemma is no longer recognized as such by the dominant racial nihilist elements, as they no longer recognize racial existence and life as something to be valued, preserved and continued, but as something to be denied and negated in pursuit of the universalist ideal of a unified world and uniform humanity. Toward that end they promote multiracialism and its inevitable genocidal consequences for the Nordish race, reducing it to the nothingness of extinction through racial intermixture and replacement. But contrary to their beliefs, the nonexistence of the Nordish race would not make the world a better place, but a much worse and poorer place. The loss of the Nordish race would be a tragedy of cosmic proportions, eternally diminishing and impoverishing the future of humanity. Fortunately, change is possible. There is an alternative to the destructive solutions offered by both racial nihilism and the immoral forms of racism, a solution that would make the world safe for human racial diversity -- the preservationist solution of the Racial Compact.


Notes

1. Or, as Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography , "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the Congoids] are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." And in his Notes on the State of Virginia , "When freed, he [the Congoid] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture." Quoted in Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (Arlington House, 1971), pp. 71 and 90. Throughout his life Jefferson's thoughts were centered on the..."single project of preserving the purity of the Anglo-American race. Jefferson was obsessed, in particular, by the fear that his precious Anglo-Saxon nation would be corrupted by intermixture with nonwhites. Fear of miscegenation was perhaps the most consistent aspect of his thought, from youth to old age." Michael Lind, The Next American Nation (The Free Press, 1995), p. 370.
2. Throughout the North, even the staunchest opponents of slavery tended to believe, like Jefferson, that the slaves, once emancipated, should leave the country. Typical was Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin , who wanted to return the freed slaves to Africa and thereby open up the South to increased Nordish settlement. James Monroe and John Tyler were among the antebellum American presidents who advocated plans for the emancipation of the American Congoid population coupled with their repatriation to Africa or resettlement in some other separate homeland. The cost of compensating their owners, and their transportation to their new home, would be provided by the sale of government owned Western lands. Another president, James Madison, became president of the American Colonization Society, which was organized for the purpose of removing the Congoid population from the nation, and included in its membership (among other prominent Americans) such luminaries as Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall and Roger B. Taney. In its publication, The African Repository , it spoke for the consensus of racially-responsible American opinion and advocated the emancipation of all slaves coupled with the deportation of the Congoid population to Africa or some other suitable country. These efforts were opposed by the slave-owning planter oligarchy of the South, whose most notable spokesmen were John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis.
Abraham Lincoln, like Jefferson an advocate of both freedom and geographical separation for the American Congoid population, recognized that monoracial conditions of reproductive isolation are required if racial intermixture is to be prevented, stating, "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation....The enterprise [the resettlement of the American Congoid population in a separate country of their own] is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way....Let us be brought to believe it is morally right...and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." Speech of June 26, 1857. Frederick Douglass, the most prominent African-American leader of Lincoln's time, who met with him on several occasions, said Lincoln..."was preeminently the white man's president, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man." Quoted in Weyl and Marina, p. 169. On August 14, 1862, Lincoln addressed a delegation of Congoid leaders in the White House and told them of his plan to resettle the African-American population outside the territory of the United States, specifying Central America. In this he was reflecting the sentiments of the great majority of Nordish-Americans. When this plan foundered on the unwillingness of the Central American countries to accept the African-American population, Lincoln in early 1863 proposed a plan..."to remove the whole colored race into Texas, there to establish a republic of their own." Weyl and Marina, pp. 211-229. This proposal is clearly inconsistent with Lincoln's primary war goal of preserving the Union if the Union is defined in territorial terms, but if the Union that Lincoln and the North were striving to preserve is defined in racial terms, as the Union of the Nordish-American people, it is perfectly consistent.
3. Lind, The Next American Nation , p. 228. "[T]he basic conception of the American people as a branch of the Anglo-Saxon tribe, whose members remained part of a single race...was the conception of American identity shared by most of the Founding Fathers...and generations of later American leaders....The idea that the United States is or should be 'a nation of immigrants,' not only non-Germanic but nonwhite, would have struck most Americans before World War II as bizarre." Ibid ., p. 19. Anglo-America defined its... "national community as the Anglo-Saxon race....To be an American in Anglo-America...was to be an Anglo-Saxon (or Teuton) in race....Commitment to political principles...was less important...than membership in a particular race....[W]hen the framers of the federal Constitution and their successors in the first half of the nineteenth century spoke of the American people, they meant white Americans of English descent, or immigrants from the British Isles and the Germanic countries...who had assimilated to the Anglo-American norm." Ibid ., p. 27.
4. "[D]uring the past two decades, America has produced the greatest variety of hybrid households in the history of the world....The huddled masses have already given way to the muddled masses....Over a period of roughly two decades, the number of interracial marriages in the U.S. has escalated from 310,000 to more than 1.1 million....The incidence of births of mixed-race babies has multiplied 26 times as fast as that of any other group." Jill Smolowe, "Intermarried With Children," Time , Special Issue on "American Diversity" (Fall, 1993), p. 64. When the popular press, or the U.S. Census Bureau, refers to interracial mixture they are usually referring to mixture between different subspecies.
5. The racial transformation of Canada since 1967, like most other Nordish countries, has been rapid and profound. The subject, usually avoided as too sensitive for public discussion, was addressed somewhat indirectly in late 1993 by Jean Chretien, the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada, when he was asked by journalist David Brinkley if he agreed with predictions that Vancouver would be an "Oriental [East Asian] city in about ten years or less." He replied,
Oh, apparently Vancouver will grow very fast....And of course, there's a lot of people from Asia who are becoming Canadian immigrants and like to locate in Vancouver. I was in a school this week and probably half of the students that I was talking to were looking oriental, but of course, good Canadian citizens. You know, the mix of population is changing in Canada quite rapidly. The French and English component is reducing very fast in relation to all the newcomers....I welcome that, it's given a flavor to Canada that's pretty good.
This Week With David Brinkley , #630, ABC telecast, Nov. 21, 1993.
In the early 1990s, 250,000 immigrants were entering Canada legally each year, of whom 48% (120,000) were from East Asia, 16% from Africa and the Middle East, and 15% from Latin America. The Miami Herald (March 11, 1994), p. 16A. In proportion to its population of 26.8 million (1992), this level of immigration is about double the U.S. rate.
6. "War, poverty, and oppression are driving people into Western Europe in unprecedented numbers. The region receives more than two million immigrants a year, almost triple the influx into the United States." "Europe Faces an Immigrant Tide," National Geographic , Vol. 183, No. 5 (May 1993), p. 102.
"As the better-off families of the northern hemisphere decide that having only one or two children is sufficient, they may not recognize that they are in a small way vacating future space to faster growing ethnic groups both inside and outside their national boundaries. But that is, in fact, what they are doing." Paul Kennedy, Preparing for the Twenty-First Century (Random House, 1993), p. 45. The population explosion is occurring in Africa, Latin America and Asia. "In 1950 Africa's population was half of Europe's, by 1985 it had drawn level (at about 480 million each), and by 2025 it is expected to be three times Europe's (1.58 billion to 512 million)." Ibid ., p. 24. (Africa's population projection allows for 40 million AIDS deaths.) Also, perhaps 50 million of those 512 million projected inhabitants of Europe in 2025 will themselves be of African ancestry. Between 1960 and 1993 the African population grew from 281 million to 650 million. In 1960 the average Kenyan woman had 6.2 children, in 1980 8.2 children. Ibid ., p. 218. In 1960 the Latin American population was 210 million, in 2025 it is expected to be 762 million, with 150 million in Mexico. Ibid ., p. 219. From 1985-1990 China's birthrate was 2.4, India's 4.3. China and India are each expected to have populations of 1.5 billion by 2025. Ibid ., p. 169. Since the early 1970s the Nordish birthrate has been about 1.8 per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1. Kennedy discusses the racial fears and anxieties caused by relative demographic decline, such as the fear of being overwhelmed by large-scale immigration, the fear that one's race will be altered through intermixture, and anxiety based on the belief that one's racial group is special and must be preserved. Ibid ., pp 39-41. What he fails to mention is that these fears and anxieties are relevant only in multiracial societies where racial existence is not protected by separation, and that these issues and concerns are rendered moot by separation. Also, it is normal to regard whatever one loves, values or cares for -- including one's race -- as "special," and to desire its preservation, and to be fearful or anxious if its preservation is threatened. He asks, "Can Europe's relatively rich societies insulate themselves from the demographic pressures building up elsewhere...?" Ibid ., p. 255. He could ask the same question of the Nordish populations of the United States, Canada and Australia. The answer is that they may not be able to insulate themselves from all the destructive effects of the population explosion on the planet, but they can insulate themselves from the racially destructive effects of immigration and intermixture if they choose to assert their rights to reproductive isolation, racial independence and preservation.
7. Much of the adversarial behavior, values and attitudes that have been described by the term "racism" are a natural result of the competition or struggle of different life-forms or races for supremacy or predominance in -- or possession of -- the same territory or habitat. This racial competition or struggle is ultimately a matter of survival or continued life. By definition it is a multiracial struggle which requires the presence of more than one race in the same territory, and can only occur in countries with multiracial populations. In a monoracial country this competition -- and the adversarial behavior, values and attitudes of "racism" that are associated with it -- have no reason to exist. The United States has experienced such competition -- in various stages, forms and levels of complexity and intensity -- from the beginning of its multiracial history. The other Nordish countries have only begun to experience it in the last few decades as they too have become multiracial societies.
8. From an interview in the Dutch magazine Vast & Zeker , quoted in the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad , December 11, 1989, p. 1, in an article entitled, "Ritzen: Blanke ras verdwijnt" (Ritzen: The White race disappears ). The article states, "Minister Ritzen (Education and Science) expects that the white race will eventually disappear. He is also pessimistic about the survival of the Dutch culture and the Dutch people. He reckons that because of the birthrate of foreigners, the Dutch will eventually disappear."
Robert Schouten, a correspondent for the Dutch newspaper Haagsche Courant , echoes Ritzen's prediction in his column "View From the Hague" in NATO's Sixteen Nations , Vol. 36, No. 8/91 (August, 1991), p. 6, where he writes, "The one million inhabitants of the capital Amsterdam now include 23 percent of people of non-Dutch origin. By the year 2050 this will increase to 50 percent. Blond hair and blue eyes are on the way out."
The mass non-Nordish immigration which began in the 1960s, and the resulting racial intermixture, are the proximate causes of this Nordish extinction. A cover article in Elsevier (Feb. 5, 1994, pp. 24-29), the Dutch version of Time magazine, states that 13% of the marriages in the Netherlands in 1992 were "mixed." The issue's cover features a hypothetical face of a racially-mixed woman (produced by a computer process called "morphing") with the caption "the new Dutch person" (De Nieuw Kaaskop -- literally, "the new Cheesehead," a slang term for the Dutch Elsevier_kaaskop1.JPEG).

The caption continues to state that, "A nation's color is changing. There are more and more 'doubleblood' Dutch people, born of a mixed relationship." The enthusiasm for this fatal development for the indigenous Nordish population is evident in the text of the lead-in to the article, "Dutch people with 'doubleblood:' beautiful examples of the human race. Soon there will be many more. Our nation slowly but surely changes color." That this development extends beyond the Netherlands is well-known to the Dutch reading public, and the article views this trend positively, stating, "The result of all inter-ethnic relations are the New Dutch. But also the New English and the New Americans. All over the Western world this new, combined race is making great strides." Unfortunately, those strides are being made at the expense of the continued existence of the indigenous Nordish peoples of the Western world.
9. In the early 1990s non-Nordish immigrant mothers accounted for over 10% of the children born in Germany and Sweden. Additionally, due to the loss of reproductive isolation caused by multiracial conditions, a significant proportion of the children born to native German and Swedish mothers are of mixed-race parentage and non-Nordish in their racial identity, but are counted as native German or Swedish births in government statistics. Also, many non-Nordish children are imported into the Nordish countries through adoption by Nordish parents, and are not counted as immigrants, but as part of the native population. Similarly, many non-Nordish women are imported into the Nordish countries as brides for Nordish men, and are not counted as part of the immigrant population. (For example, in one typical year -- 1991 -- some 2,200 German men married Filipino or Thai women.) Referring to the combination of the low native German birthrate with the large influx of alien immigrants into Germany, economist Bernd Hof is quoted as saying, "The Germans have decided to die out." Carla Rapoport, "Them," Fortune International , July 13, 1992, p. 22. The largest immigrant group in Germany are the Turks. In 1991 3,580 German women married Turkish immigrants.
When the author was in Scandinavia in 1989 he was struck by the presence of large numbers of non-Nordish children, either adopted, the children of non-Nordish immigrants, or the offspring of mixed pairings. At the Stockholm town hall he saw the wedding party of a Swedish woman and a Congoid immigrant, perhaps part of a futile and self-destructive effort to assimilate an alien element so genetically incompatible as to be effectively unassimilable. Even among a group of child folk dancers in Fälun, Sweden, one of the children was a Bangladeshi adoptee. In their own racial homelands, their own place in nature, these children are part of the continuation of life, but in the homeland and society of another race, where each one of them would effectively negate the recessive genetic traits of multiple times their own number of the indigenous children, they are agents of the destruction of life -- in effect a soft form of genocide -- rather than its renewal and continuation.
Perhaps nothing is more sacred to Swedish folk culture and symbolic of Swedish national identity than the annual Midsummer's Day festival observed on June 23. The largest and most important observance is held at Skansen, a large park dedicated to Swedish folk tradition located on the heights overlooking Stockholm harbor. One ancient custom of this festival is the wearing of crowns of summer flowers by the girls and young women, a symbol of fertility, health and the renewal of life dating back to its pre-Christian origins (below left) [midsummer.jpg]. The author attended this festival in 1995 and was charmed by the wholesome ambiance of folk costumes, music and dancing, all consistent with the original purpose of promoting racial identity and continuation, but was disturbed by the disproportionate numbers of mixed-race children that were present, whose parents seemed determined to thrust them into the center of the festival and thus into the center of Swedish national identity. In 1999 the Skansen observance of the festival was advertised throughout the Stockholm mass transit system with a poster of a mixed-race girl (below right) [skansen99.JPG], symbolizing the triumph of racial nihilism over racial preservationism -- and the ongoing process that is causing the destruction of the indigenous Swedish people by intermixture and replacement -- at the very heart of Swedish national identity.

Presumably, those who chose this girl for the ad considered her to represent the new future of Sweden, or at least the future that they want and intend to promote. Additional examples of this racially negating and destructive anti-Swedish selection process can be seen in the racially non-Swedish women chosen to be Miss Sweden 1998 (MissSweden98.jpg), Miss Stockholm 1999 (MissStockholm99.jpg) and the Stockholm television weathergirl (s_cooard.jpg).




One might wonder what Swedish girls and women they have replaced, and what Swedish future they are replacing. That is what needs to be seen, for which I provide examples from 1962 (NatGeo4-63.JPG) and 1999 (MissSweden99.jpg). This is what will be lost, unless the proper and natural state of Swedish racial existence is restored.


10. When the author was in Edinburgh, Scotland during the festival in 1986, he attended an exhibition at the Scottish National Gallery entitled "The Enterprising Scot." One of the exhibits was a film defining the Scots which began with the word "nation" and then showed, in succession, an Asian Indian, a Congoid, an East Asian and a North European. The author naively expected these diverse types to be described as examples of different nations, with the last being an example of the Scottish nation, but then they were described as "Scotsmen all," in a rather obvious attempt to deny the racial identity of the Scottish nation and promote multiracialism in accordance with the values and goals of racial nihilism.
11. As described by one enthusiastic celebrant of multiracialization, "Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history....if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality." Ben J. Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 84. Actually, this is "bad news" for those who favor Nordish preservation and independence, or those who believe that the existence of the Nordish race also has a purpose. It is "heartening news" (or "good news") only for those who believe the purpose of America is the fulfillment of the racial nihilist dream of a "universal" (multiracial) society in which Nordish America, in fact the Nordish race and its existence, are "transcended," or risen-above, replaced or relegated to the past -- in fact destroyed -- by a supposedly "higher" form of multiracial (non-Nordish) existence.
12. Doug McAdam, in "Picking Up the Pieces," Part 5 of the PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties , televised January 23, 1991. In 1991 McAdam was a professor of Sociology at the University of Arizona. He is currently (2010) at Stanford. The Weatherman convention McAdam refers to is probably the last of its National Council meetings held from December 26 to December 31, 1969 in Flint, Michigan.
Per Wikipedia:
Flying to the event, Bernardine Dohrn and John Jacobs ran up and down the aisles of the airplane, seizing food, frightening the passengers. The meeting, dubbed the "War Council" by the 400 people who attended, adopted Jacobs' call for violent revolution. Dohrn opened the conference by telling the delegates they needed to stop being afraid and begin the "armed struggle." Over the next five days, the participants met in informal, random groups to discuss what "going underground" meant, how best to organize collectives, and justifications for violence. The "War Council" ended with a major speech by Jacobs. J.J. condemned the "pacifism" of white middle-class American youth, a belief which they held because they were insulated from the violence which afflicted blacks and the poor. He predicted a successful revolution, and declared that youth were moving away from passivity and apathy and toward a new high-energy culture of "repersonalization" brought about by drugs, sex, and armed revolution. "We're against everything that's 'good and decent' in honky America," Jacobs said in his most commonly quoted statement. "We will burn and loot and destroy. We are the incubation of your mother's nightmare."
It can be assumed that the term "white" as used in the debate McAdam attended was defined narrowly so as to apply more or less exclusively to the Nordish race. Many of the attendees at that convention, such as Mr. McAdam, were themselves Nordish. Most of the others belonged to non-Nordish racial groups that are popularly referred to as "white," and are so defined by the census bureau, but who almost certainly did not define themselves or their racial groups as "white" in the context of this debate. It should be noted that at the time of the above debate the Nordish birthrate was falling rapidly and within a few years (i.e., the mid-1970s) fell below the replacement level, where it has remained ever since. To the extent that many members of the Nordish race have been motivated to reject or restrict their reproduction because of anti-Nordish ideological or cultural influences, the two events can be regarded as related. (If present trends continue -- or, as the Weathermen might say, if the wind keeps blowin' in the same direction -- very few Nordish babies will be born a century from now, making the above debate somewhat academic in the long term.)
13. According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group...(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
14. The air of unreality is especially pronounced on the subject of racial intermixture and its destructive effects on the Nordish race. It should be a fundamental axiom of sociology that different races interbreed under conditions of extensive contact, and that intermixture is consequently inevitable in a multiracial society, yet the reality of intermixture and its effects are still largely ignored, evaded or denied. Even such an avid advocate of multiracialism as Ben J. Wattenberg -- whose "universal nation" (see note 10 above) is just another name for the multiracial society, or what Israel Zangwill before him termed the "melting pot" -- evades the destructive, in fact genocidal, effects of multiracialism on the Nordish race.
Similarly, a special issue of Time magazine on the subject of "American Diversity" (Fall, 1993), which addresses "...the promise of the future: An America that's the world's first truly international nation" (a contradiction in terms), discusses intermixture but not its destructive consequences. On its cover is a hypothetical face of a racially-mixed woman (produced not by genetics, but by a computer process called "morphing") with the caption "the new face of America." [Time_Fall_1993.JPG]

Never mentioned is the fate of the Nordish race in America -- extinction through intermixture -- which this "new face" implies, and the rich variety of distinctively Nordish faces which will be lost through intermixture and replaced by the racially-mixed face. (The message and style of this special issue, altered to suit the Dutch situation and audience, were essentially repeated in the cover article of the Feb. 5, 1994 issue of Elsevier, the Dutch version of Time, discussed in note 8 above.)
15. It is true that some actions have inevitable consequences. This is a matter of cause and effect. For example, taking a sufficient dose of poison inevitably causes death. In the same sense it can be accurately stated that Nordish racial death is an inevitable consequence of a sufficient degree of racial intermixture, which itself is an inevitable consequence of multiracial social conditions, creating a chain of cause and effect with Nordish extinction being the ultimate effect and multiracial conditions the proximate cause. What is not inevitable, despite the claims of deterministic ideologies, are the actions that cause the consequences.

The Right to Racial Life
by
Richard McCulloch
In 1968 a multiracial singing group called "Up With People" toured the United States promoting the oneness message of one world, one people and one race. Among other places, they visited the college where the author was a freshman, sending out multiracial teams of their youthful members to visit various classes. The team that visited the author's American history class claimed a religious justification for the unification of the different races and peoples of the world into one race and people. When the author asked them why the different races were created in the first place, and why were they then separated from each other on different continents, without contact until relatively recently, if it were indeed the will of the Creator to join and mix them together into one race, as they claimed, one of them replied that she had heard that question before, but none of them answered it. Even accepting their non-evolutionary and non-scientific perspective, deductive reasoning from the facts given in this question would not support their logically unsupported position, but would lead to conclusions quite contrary to their assertions. Faced with a question their premises could not answer, they ignored it.
An ideology, or system of ideas, beliefs and values, must enjoy a major degree of cultural dominance and control to be in a position to ignore facts that question or disprove its premises, to dismiss other ideas or values without serious consideration, or to discredit different beliefs just for being different. It must attain the level of being cultural dogma or orthodoxy, guarded and protected from heretical questions and beliefs by its control of the most influential cultural institutions. From the communications media of television, motion pictures, radio, newspapers, books and magazines, to the schools and universities, churches and civic groups, legal system and major political parties, and all levels of government, the ideology of oneness currently enjoys this level of cultural dominance, and has enjoyed it in increasing degree for most of this century. As the orthodox dogma of our culture, taking precedence over all others, and in consideration of its terminal effects on the Nordish (Northern European) race, it is important that it be carefully examined.
The ideology of oneness here examined is not a form of mystical or transcendental oneness or unity with Life, God or the Universe. Nor is it that most complete form of bonding that is the expression of total love between a man and woman. It is the ideology that promotes the union and intermixture of the diverse subspecies and races of the human species into one race. After evolving in different directions under conditions of separation for thousands of generations, it would have the races converge into one race in which the racial differences created by divergent evolution would be eliminated. Consistent with this policy of eliminating racial differences, it minimizes their value, importance and extent. As the agent between and among the different races, acting to bring them together and promoting their intermixture, it is racial nihilism.
Racial nihilism is the application of the ideology of oneness to racial relationships. In racially homogeneous societies, such as most of the non-Nordish countries, its practical effect is minimal. In heterogeneous, multiracial societies, such as America has become, and most other Nordish homelands are in the process of becoming, its effects are maximal, and for the Nordish race fatal. Although the ideology of racial nihilism has long been variously espoused and accepted by cultural elements in all the Nordish countries, its actual effects were first experienced by the Nordish race in America. That other Nordish homelands are now permitting large-scale non-Nordish immigration, and experiencing the effects of multiracialism and racial nihilism, can be largely attributed to the influence and example of America. In fact, in the post-1950 period, multiracialism and racial nihilism have become a central part of the ideology called "Americanism." [Note 1] A central tenet of this ideology is that America consists of all races and belongs equally to all races. It explicitly denies that America is the rightful homeland of one race, or rightfully belongs to one race. It generally expresses its argument in terms of racial equality, but the real issue is one of racial possession and ownership. It urges Nordish Americans to welcome and embrace the racial diversity of multiracialism, but since racial diversity was created by racial separation and reproductive isolation, and requires those same conditions for its preservation and continuation, it is actually asking Nordish Americans to welcome and embrace their racial dispossession, replacement and destruction.
The acceptance of this ideology by the Nordish race deprives it of the major new homeland won and built by the epic effort of its previous generations, and of the conditions it needs to continue to exist there. This was not always so. The great majority of the Northern Europeans who settled in America before 1890 regarded it as a Nordish homeland, and certainly did not want, or anticipate, its transformation into a racially mixed country. The modern ideology of "Americanism" would now regard the values of these pre-1890 Americans as "un-American." But the ideology of racial nihilism is not uniquely American. It affects, and endangers, the entire Nordish race.
True to the "One-World, One-Race" creed, the ideology of racial nihilism seeks the elimination of the racial differences created by divergent evolution. To achieve this goal it promotes convergent devolution, the reversal of the process of speciation by means of racial intermixture. In theory, all races would sacrifice their separate existence to achieve this goal, but in practice the Nordish race is the most endangered. The homelands of the other races -- in central Africa, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Mexico, India, the Middle East and elsewhere -- are not presently threatened by racial nihilism, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable future. Their homelands remain essentially monoracial. The only non-Nordish elements presently involved in the devolutionary process are those that have migrated to the Nordish homelands, who by their presence deny the Nordish race the conditions it requires for existence and create the conditions that can end its existence. The Nordish race could lose its existence through replacement by, or intermixture with, these racial invaders, but the non-Nordish elements that remain in their own homelands will continue to exist, unchanged, unaffected and unthreatened by racial nihilism.
The only thing resisting racial nihilism, or with reason to resist it, is racism. Specifically, the racial preservationist form, type or kind of racism, as this is the form of racism most antithetical to racial nihilism. This racism may be conscious or unconscious, from nurture or nature, from the environment or in the genes, and it may be euphemistically called by different names, but if it resists or opposes the values or consequences of racial nihilism, in theory or practice, it is racism.
There are many different definitions of the noun racism, and of the adjective racist.. They mean many different things to many different people. Obviously, there are many different kinds or types of racism, both as an ideology and as actions. A useful beginning point for a definition is the one given above -- as that which, or those who, resist or oppose racial nihilism. In this negative position, at least, all forms of genuine racism should be united. The forms of action, means or methods of this resistance can vary, but are the same available to, and shared and used by, most other ideologies or causes. Only the ideology itself, with its ideas and values, is unique to racism. Therefore it is by its ideology that racism should be defined.
Racism is not an ideology in the same sense as most others. It has a difference. It is based on a biological relationship, an evolutionary or genetic bond, an attachment that is a part of nature, an objective fact of life and reality, with generations of ancestors and the possibility of uncounted generations of descendants. It is not just an idea, not just the product of human thought. It is in the genes, not just the mind. In this it differs from the various ideologies that concern themselves with politics, economics or religion. Much of the behavior and attitudes associated with racism have their origins in evolution, not ideology, and are governed by forces much deeper than conscious thought. With this understanding, we can achieve a more accurate definition of racism.
Racism holds that racial interests and values are matters of primary, major and central importance and concern. Other interests, loyalties and values are less important and thus secondary to those of race. Racial concerns and affiliations come first. If there is a conflict between racial interests and nonracial interests, whether economic, political, sexual, cultural, national or religious, or pertaining to occupation, gender, age or social class, the racial interests take priority. Racial considerations take precedence over all others. Racism judges all things -- all actions, events, behavior, ideas or values -- by the standard of what is good or best for the race. It evaluates everything on the basis of its effect on the race -- whether it is good or bad for the race, healthy or unhealthy, wholesome or unwholesome, unifying or divisive, strengthening or weakening, augmenting or diminishing, improving or worsening. In these judgments vital (life-essential) interests take priority over non-vital ones, long-run interests over short-run, major over minor, and primary over secondary. Moral values are founded on racial values, and seek to serve and promote the best interests of the race. Under the principles of racial rights fostered by the Racial Compact and the Racial Golden Rule, the vital (life-essential), major or primary rights and interests of one race take priority over the non-vital, minor or secondary rights and interests of other races.
In its most transcendental form, racism embraces the principle that race and Creation are one, and regards the true, fair and legitimate best interests of the race to be consistent with, and even identical to, the true best interests of Life, Creation and the Universe as a whole. It sees identity of interest, and no conflict, between the race and Creation. It considers the vital interests of the race, its preservation, salvation and ascent, its continued existence and upward evolutionary development and progress, to be of major importance to the great plan of Life.
Racial nihilism, from its position of cultural dominance, tends to portray that which resists or opposes it (i.e., racism) as evil and based on hatred. But resistance and opposition to that which would destroy one's race can be motivated by feelings other than hate. Love of one's race, of its unique traits and qualities, and the consequent desire to preserve its well-being, independence and continued existence, would provide an even stronger and more enduring motivation to resist racial nihilism. Those primarily motivated by positive feelings of love for their race would also naturally be expected to have negative feelings, or hatred, for those things which threaten or cause harm or destruction to that which they love, but these negative feelings would be secondary and derivative, derived from the primary positive feelings which are the true source of the motivation, and according to which it should be defined and classified.
Racism, when primarily motivated by positive feelings, can be defined as love of one's race and loyalty to, and support for, its legitimate and vital interests. Vital interests are those which are life-essential. They are the conditions required for continued existence, development, health and well-being, to preserve the race in undiminished, undiluted, unaltered and distinct form. They are the conditions required for successful reproduction and the avoidance of intermixture with other races (misreproduction or malreproduction, the most harmful form of nonreproduction). They are racial separation, reproductive isolation, self-determination, sovereignty, freedom and independence.
Racism, in its positive form, is the system of values, ideas and beliefs which considers one's race to be valuable and important. It favors and promotes those conditions of existence and life -- political, religious, spiritual, economic, cultural and social -- which are conducive to the preservation and well-being of one's race. It supports the race-creating process of divergent evolution or speciation, and the conditions which promote this process. It favors the separation, reproductive isolation, independence and freedom of different races and their exclusive control over their own destiny in accordance with the Racial Golden Rule and the Racial Compact.
Racism is racial loyalism, loyalty to the interests of one's race. Racists are racial loyalists, loyal and true to the vital and best interests of their race, to the interests of its past and future generations, to the line that made them, that gave them life and being, to their ancestors who created them and their descendants who depend on them for creation. They would not knowingly or willingly fail or betray their race and the trust placed in them.
Racism is racial preservationism and protectionism. Much of the behavior and attitudes that constitute Nordish resistance to racial nihilism, that are resented by non-Northern Europeans and defined as prejudice, discrimination and intolerance by racial nihilism, are actually the efforts of Northern Europeans to preserve and protect their race from that which can diminish or destroy it.
Nordish racism measures every value or action by the standard of what is best for the race. It regards the legitimate interests of the race, those consistent with the right to racial life and the Racial Golden Rule, as identical with the interests of Creation itself. It promotes racial separation, freedom and independence, the conditions required for continued Nordish life. It is dedicated to the cause of Nordish life.
Nordish racial preservationism is racial separatism. Separation from other races is the primary requirement for continued Nordish existence, and the most vital (life-essential) of all Nordish racial interests. It is the preservationist imperative. Any supposed form of Nordish racism which contradicts this rule does not promote what is good or best for the race, and cannot be regarded as true racism. Racial supremacism, which involves one race being supreme and ruling over others, or being the master of others, prevents racial separation and independence as it requires interaction between the races, between the rulers and the ruled, between the master race and their subjects, and violates the Racial Golden Rule and the Racial Compact by denying the rights of the ruled races to freedom and self-determination. This is totally contrary to the best interests of the race, and to the ideology of moral racism.
Racial separatism has nothing to do with the system of racial segregation practiced in the "Jim Crow" era of the American south, or with the practice of petty apartheid in South Africa. These are examples of systems of racial supremacism, not separatism. True racial separatism is not about separate water fountains, restrooms, restaurants, hotels, beaches, movie theaters, playgrounds, amusement parks or buses, nor even about separate schools, work places, churches, or neighborhoods. By the standards of true racial separatism such measures are only half-measures, and in the long run little better than no separation at all. Such measures do not create a monoracial society as required for continued Nordish existence, but merely impose an unstable hierarchy on a multiracial one. They only delay the destructive effects of racial nihilism by shifting them from the short term to the long term, creating a growing peril that may doom future Nordish generations. True racial separatism is separate countries, separate territories, separate governments, separate economies and separate cultures, independent and free of other races, with self-determination and self-control of their own affairs, their own future, and their own destiny. It is racial liberation, independence and freedom, setting the different races free from control or harm by others.
Racial preservationism is racial livism. It is the desire for continued life and existence on the racial level, comparable with what might be called "livism," or the desire for continued life on the individual level, except that this desire is so taken for granted that such a word has never been considered necessary. It is the form of racism that believes that a race has a right to live, a racial right to life, and a right to the conditions it requires for continued life and existence. It is the ideology, the system of ideas and values, that supports the right to racial life.
Nordish racial preservationism is the only ideology that can save the Nordish race. It is the only ideology that wants to save the Nordish race, that wants the Nordish race to continue to live and have the conditions it needs to live. It is the only ideology that believes the Nordish race has a right to racial life and to the conditions it requires for continued life, and it is the only ideology that supports and promotes those rights. In all these things it is the opposite of racial nihilism.
The conditions in which the Nordish race exists have long since passed the point where they need to be changed in a very major way if the Nordish race is to continue to live. Only the application of the ideas and values of moral racism on a grand scale, to restore the conditions of racial separation and independence needed for continued Nordish existence, can save the Nordish race from extinction and fulfill its right to racial life.
The most extreme action that can be taken against a race is to oppose its most vital interests, the conditions it requires for existence, its right to racial life. Such an action or position is the ultimate action or position against, or anti, that race. There is no action that can be more anti or against a race than to be anti or against the conditions it needs to live. Thus opposition to Nordish separation and independence is anti-Nordish in the most extreme possible degree, resulting in its racial death. The racial nihilist campaign against racial preservationism, denying the Nordish race the conditions it needs to live, is ultimately a campaign against the Nordish right to life.
The choice facing the Nordish race is a fateful one. It is between racial preservationism and racial nihilism, racial life and racial death, the continuation of the racial-genetic line or its termination. The proponents of racial nihilism and Nordish racial death dominate the news media, the government, the schools and the culture, and the air is constantly filled with their singing of the Nordish death song. Conformism pressures most Northern Europeans to join its chorus and sing in harmony, and censure befalls those who voice a discordant note, or sing with less than total enthusiasm. The sound of the Nordish life song is so faint that most are unaware of its existence. But the Nordish race will be saved only if enough Northern Europeans join in unison to raise the song of Nordish racial life and vanquish the song of death.
Do Northern Europeans think their race and its unique traits and characteristics, its talent, spirit and beauty, its men, women and children, all that it is, has been and could be, are worth defending, worth protecting, worth saving, worth preserving? Would they be willing to strive against the seemingly all-powerful racial nihilist tide that is sweeping them away from their race, drowning them in the buffeting waves of different races, and pulling them under to genetic submergence? Do they still possess a meaningful sense of racial consciousness, of racial identity, of who and what they are, of what race made them and to what race they belong? Some do and some do not. Racial preservationists are those who do. They are those who care. They are those who love their race, who are loyal to its interests, who want it to live, and who consider it valuable and important enough to be worth their utmost efforts to save and preserve it.
For many years the Nordish race has been losing the struggle for the hearts and minds, the love and loyalty, of those who belong to it and owe it all they are. The outcome of this struggle will decide whether the Nordish race will live or die. This struggle has often focused on issues of rights and questions of what is right. The right now at issue, now in question, is whether the Nordish race has a right to live.

1. Since 1986 there has even been a holiday -- January 15, Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday -- which has in practice been dedicated to the promotion and celebration of the racial nihilist dream and its effects.

The Racial Golden Rule
by
Richard McCulloch
"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees & the stars; you have a right to be here."
Desiderata , Anonymous








"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or, in the negative form, "do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." This simple moral maxim of live and let live, the essential basis of good will in relations among and between men, in both its positive and negative forms, is called the Golden Rule. It can be traced to the origins of ethical thought in many different cultures, and can be regarded as the most basic rule governing social relationships between equals. It is a rule requiring equal treatment, fairness, a single standard applied to all alike, quid pro quo, something for something, an equal exchange, mutual respect of rights, and reciprocity. Its mutuality means that it is shared in common, granted by all to all. Its reciprocity means that it is returned. The treatment you give to others is returned by others giving the same treatment to you.
Reciprocity is the basis for the voluntary recognition of rights among equals. Each recognizes and respects the same rights for others that they want others to recognize and respect for them. This mutual and reciprocal recognition and respect of rights and interests is given freely by each in the belief that in doing so they best secure and guarantee these same rights and interests for themselves. All are treated fairly and equally. Double standards, which treat some differently from others -- either to their benefit or detriment, unfair to others or themselves -- are prohibited.
Some rights and interests are more important than others. Some are major and some are minor. Some are primary and some are secondary. Some are vital and some are non-vital. Vital rights and interests are the most important of all. They are essential for the preservation of life, its health and well-being. Life is the supreme right and interest, upon which all others depend. Life includes independence, or control over one's own life, without which it has no real meaning. In a conflict between rights and interests, the greater, or more important, right or interest takes precedence over the lesser. Life is the greatest right and interest, and takes priority over all others.
The Racial Golden Rule is the application of the ethical Golden Rule to the interaction and relationships between different races. Racial rights and interests can be classified as vital or non-vital, primary or secondary, and legitimate or illegitimate. Vital rights and interests are life-essential, the conditions required for continued racial existence, health and well-being. Non-vital rights are not life-essential. All vital rights and interests are also primary (in fact, the most primary of all) but not all primary rights are vital. Non-vital primary rights are those which are closely related to vital rights, assist and support them, and never conflict with or violate them. Secondary rights and interests are those which have no relationship, and provide no support or assistance, to the requirements of life. Legitimate rights and interests are those which do not conflict with, or violate, a greater right or interest than themselves. A right which conflicts with a right greater than itself is illegitimate.
Under the Racial Golden Rule, a non-vital right or interest of one race which conflicts with, or violates, a vital right or interest of another race is illegitimate. Similarly, a secondary right of one race which conflicts with a primary right of another race is also illegitimate. The vital rights and interests of a race are the conditions it requires for continued life and independence. These are racial separation and freedom. Racial justice requires that vital rights be accorded priority over non-vital rights. To do otherwise, and sacrifice the vital interests of one race by giving priority to the lesser interests of another race, would be the ultimate racial injustice.
The Racial Golden Rule of reciprocity recognizes the right of each race to life and to the conditions it needs to live. It respects the right of each race to independence, self-determination, freedom, exclusive ownership of its own existence and sovereign control of its own affairs. To secure these vital rights and interests it supports racial separation, racial independence and non-interference in the affairs and development of other races.
The Racial Golden Rule opposes racial supremacism -- the control, domination or rule of one race by another. Racial supremacism violates reciprocity, prevents separation and independence, and conflicts with the vital right of the subject race to control over, and ownership of, its own life. Under racial supremacism one race is the master of another, or several others, with control over its existence or nonexistence. The subject race is reduced to the status of being a mere means to serve the ends and interests of the master race.
Racial supremacism can be open or disguised, accomplished or implemented by force or guile. Whatever its form, its effects are to deny the dominated race its vital rights and interests, the conditions of separation, independence and control over its own affairs and development that are part of its right to life. It is an aggressive, offensive, imperialist and chauvinist form of racial interference. The race it subjugates and dominates, whose independence it denies, is its victim.
Under the Racial Golden Rule all rights are reciprocal and shared in common by all races. All have the right to racial life. All have the right to racial independence, the exclusive ownership of, and control over, their own life, without which their life would have little meaning or purpose except as a means to serve the ends and interests of other races. All have the right to self-determination and sovereign possession of their own territory. The proponents of the Racial Golden Rule claim these rights for their own race and, in reciprocity, recognize them for other races as well.
The Racial Golden Rule is consistent with divergent evolution and the moral racism of the racial compact. It supports racial separation and independence as required for continued racial existence and divergent evolution. It promotes the right of each race to self-rule and self-determination, to shape its own evolution and destiny, free from control, domination, intrusion or interference by other races. It is consistent with the so-called "Prime Directive" on the television series Star Trek , which prohibits interference with other peoples or cultures, including any attempt to give aid or advice, or otherwise influence their development, and respects their independence and their right to make their own choices and follow their own destiny.
The Racial Golden Rule is inconsistent with racial nihilism and devolutionary racial intermixture. It conflicts with the racial nihilist goal of the "melting pot," which would eliminate human diversity by reduction into a racially mixed solution. It would make the world safe for human racial diversity, which can only be preserved and continued by the same conditions -- racial separation and reproductive isolation -- by which it was created.
The Racial Golden Rule asserts the right of every race to racial freedom through racial separation and independence. To secure racial freedom and separation it respects the requirement of every race for its own exclusive racial territory or homeland, its own independent and sovereign government. It declares for every race the freedom to follow its own path, to control its own life and existence, to determine its own course of development and to pursue its own happiness and evolutionary destiny. It is a declaration of racial independence, freedom and diversity, holding it to be self-evident that all races were created different, and have a right to be different, to be themselves, with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness.
The Racial Golden Rule rejects the alternatives to racial freedom, separation and independence. These alternatives are either a multiracial society or a system of racial supremacy. The first is racially destructive and violates the racial right to life by denying the conditions required for life. The second is unjust to the oppressed race, denying its right to control of its own life, and whether imposed by brutal force and terror, or guile and subversion, is unacceptable in any form.
The Nordish race, as the race most seriously threatened with effective extinction by multiracialism in the foreseeable future, has more at stake in the Racial Golden Rule than the others. Its very existence is dependent on it. The presence of non-Nordish races in the Nordish racial homelands is in direct conflict with the vital (life-essential) right of the Nordish race to its own exclusive territory, as required for the conditions of racial separation and independence it needs for continued life and control of its own life. The Nordish right involved in the conflict is nothing less than its right to life.
The right of non-Northern Europeans to live in the Nordish racial homelands, to live among Northern Europeans, and to have equal rights with Northern Europeans in the Nordish homelands, is not a vital or primary right. It is not essential for their continued life or well-being. The right involved is not their right to life, but a claimed right to live in the Nordish homelands. They each have their own racial homelands where the great majority of their race resides in a state of racial security and safety, unthreatened by other races. They can live very well in a state of independence and separation from Northern Europeans, and have done so for the whole of their existence before the last few generations. But this alleged right does violate the vital and primary rights of the Nordish race, denying it the conditions it needs for life. In this conflict between the vital right of the Nordish race to the conditions of separation and independence it requires for life, and the non-vital right of non-Northern Europeans to dwell, and enjoy equality, in the Nordish homelands, the Racial Golden Rule accords priority to the vital right over the non-vital.
The Racial Golden Rule accords this same priority to the vital rights of all races, and in reciprocity each race should support the vital rights of all other races in return for recognition of its own vital rights. That the vital rights of the Nordish race are endangered, and those of the other races are not, is its problem, and one it must solve for itself, for this variance in degree of racial vulnerability, jeopardy or peril is matched by a corresponding variance in respect and support for racial interests. The vital rights and interests of the Nordish race, the one race most threatened by the effects of multiracialism, are not accorded priority over the non-vital rights and interests of other races, nor even equal status with them, but are regarded as illegitimate by the dominant culture and morality. They are not even considered to be worthy of concern or consideration, but are denied and sacrificed as a matter of course for the sake of the non-vital rights of other races. The dominant racial nihilist culture and morality reveals itself, by this double standard of rights and interests, to be an anti-Nordish culture and morality. It has preempted the rule of "live and let live" with an anti-Nordish double standard of "live and let die." The "live" applies to the non-Nordish races, the "let die" to the Nordish.
Considering the different interests involved, vital versus non-vital, a morality which considers the non-vital right or freedom of a non-Northern European to live in a Nordish homeland to be more important than the vital right of the Nordish race to racial freedom, separation and independence, to life and control of its life, must be regarded as violating the rule of reciprocity and equality of rights. It must also be regarded as teaching, promoting and practicing a profound anti-Nordish bias. It is, in fact, a morality of Nordish destruction, denying the Nordish race the right to racial life, and under the Racial Golden Rule must be regarded as morally intolerable.
The anti-Nordish double standard of the dominant culture and morality, sacrificing the vital rights of the Nordish race to serve the non-vital rights of other races, creates conditions so adverse to Nordish life that they can be described as genocidal, or "race-killing," in effect. It is opposed to the conditions of separation and independence required for continued Nordish life, hostile to vital Nordish rights and interests, and discouraging to Nordish reproduction. It does not consider the Nordish race, or its continued existence, to be valuable or important. It belittles the Nordish race, its culture and its achievements, to foster the perception that its loss would be a small loss, and its replacement by other races a positive development.
The Racial Golden Rule is the only morality fully consistent with opposition to genocide. It actually goes beyond opposition to genocide, as it is the only morality truly committed to the right to racial life, and to the conditions required for racial preservation, independence and freedom. But the dominant racial nihilist culture and morality, with its anti-Nordish double standard, uses allegations of past genocidal actions to deny the Nordish race the conditions required for its continued life, and to justify its genocide, while any resistance by Northern Europeans to the genocide of their race, and support for the conditions it needs to live, is portrayed as leading to the genocide of other races. This hypocritical position is the result of a reductionist form of reasoning, which reduces all thought on the subject of genocide to just two extreme alternatives -- either racial intermixture or racial conflict and mass murder. Both of these alternatives are racially destructive and genocidal. The possibility of another alternative, the alternative of the Racial Golden Rule, opposing racial destruction and genocide in any form and by any means, dedicated to racial preservation, the right to racial life and the right of all races to the conditions of racial separation and independence required for life, is not considered.
The most extreme solution to any difference is to eliminate the difference, either by killing those who are different or by mixing the two different types into one uniform type. Both are destructive of life and of the diversity of Creation. The pro-life, pro-diversity and pro-Creation alternative is the Racial Golden Rule. Neither side kills the other or sacrifices itself, its existence or its vital rights and interests. Instead, both sides practice mutual and reciprocal respect for the vital rights and interests of the other -- the essential basis of good will between the races.
Racial nihilist reductionism claims that the only alternatives open to the Nordish race are either to kill other races or to kill itself -- to sacrifice itself, its life and existence, its future and destiny, to a process of extinction by intermixture and replacement. The Nordish race is following the second option, but not facing it or admitting it to itself, as it is the option of inaction, requiring nothing but passive acquiescence, the easy choice that does not require a choice, that does not require conscious awareness. But there is another choice, that of the Racial Golden Rule, in which no race need die or sacrifice its existence, but all be allowed to live and be secure in the recognition of their right to life.
The Racial Golden Rule is opposed to the presence of any race within the homeland or territory of another. It is against any race being where it does not belong, violating the vital rights and interests of another. It applies this rule equally to all races. It is against the presence of non-Northern Europeans in Nordish countries, and is equally against the presence of Northern Europeans in non-Nordish countries. It is against all control of Northern Europeans by non-Northern Europeans, and is equally against all control of non-Northern Europeans by Northern Europeans. It is against all interference by non-Northern Europeans in Nordish affairs, and all interference by Northern Europeans in non-Nordish affairs. It is opposed to any race being the master of others.
The ideological position of moral Nordish racism, serving and loyal to the best interests of the Nordish race, is consistent with the Racial Golden Rule. It does not oppose in any way the continued healthy existence, well-being, independence or vital rights and interests of any other race, and expects other races to reciprocate and take the same position toward the Nordish race. It does not want to transform other races into Northern Europeans (and decries efforts by non-Northern Europeans to imitate Nordish traits with plastic surgery, hair bleach and light colored contact lenses, even if such imitation is the sincerest form of flattery), but neither does it want the Nordish race to be transformed, by intermixture or any other means, into another race. In the spirit of racial good will, it wants all races to be preserved and continued as themselves in their own sovereign homelands and expects other races to share this position. Those who do not share this position are not acting in a manner consistent with good will, and are in effect supporting racial destruction or genocide.
The presently dominant culture and morality (and those many persons -- Nordish and non-Nordish -- who conform to its values and teachings) does not consider the continued existence of the Nordish race to be a matter of importance. In fact, it is implicitly hostile to it, as demonstrated by its explicit hostility to the conditions the Nordish race requires for existence. By contrast, practitioners of the Racial Golden Rule of live and let live and mutual good will among the races, although they may not have as great an interest in the continued existence of other races as they do in the preservation of their own, do strongly support the continued existence of other races, would consider it a great loss if any of them should cease to exist, and would certainly never promote their nonexistence, nor deny them the conditions they require for existence, or oppose those who were working for their legitimate rights and interests, and expect the same consideration and good will for their own race in return.
Practitioners of the Racial Golden Rule are less concerned with what opinion other races hold of their race than that they respect its vital rights and interests -- its right to racial life and the conditions of racial separation, independence, self-determination and freedom it requires for continued existence and control of its own life. Other races can think what they please of their race -- good, bad or indifferent. They can hate it or love it, value it or despise it, insult it or praise it, consider it ugly or beautiful, primitive or advanced, ignorant or enlightened, evil or noble, whatever they wish, provided they respect its vital rights and interests, as it should theirs.
The only friendly relations between races that have value, or can be regarded as truly friendly, are those based on reciprocal respect for vital rights and interests. No true friendship, and no true friend, would threaten or deny one's right to life. If other races are offended that the conditions required for Nordish life include separation and independence from them, and their exclusion from Nordish territory, and if they would sacrifice vital Nordish rights and interests for the sake of their non-vital ones, they should not be regarded as friends nor as acting in a spirit of good will. A race is entitled -- indeed, required for self-preservation -- to be intolerant of anything, or anyone, that violates or endangers its vital interests.
The proper place of every race, the place where it belongs, is in its own homelands, not in the homelands of other races. When members of one race live in, or immigrate to, the homeland of another race they violate the vital rights and interests of that race, denying its right to separation, independence, control of its own life, and life itself. The process of populating the various regions of the earth, of the movement of expanding populations into undeveloped and sparsely populated areas (such as North America and Australia before the European expansion) was over by 1880. By that year every major habitable area was sufficiently settled and developed for the inhabiting race to legitimately claim it as its own and assert all rights of possession and ownership. Every movement of peoples since then has been into already established racial territory; either into territory already belonging to the same race or into territory already populated and developed by another race. In the latter case, the vital rights of the inhabiting race were violated by the new arrivals, who broke the Racial Golden Rule.
Under the Racial Golden Rule -- the only standard for governing racial relationships which supports the right to racial life -- all races have their right and proper place, the place where they rightfully belong, the place where they have a right to be. That place is in their own countries, their own homelands. They, and only they, have a right to be there. No other race has a right to be there. If another race is there it is trespassing, violating the legitimate rights of that race and breaking the Racial Golden Rule.
Northern Europeans do not belong in the homelands of non-Nordish races. It is not their proper place. They do not belong there. They do not have a right to be there. Their presence there violates the rights of the non-Nordish race to exclusive possession of its own territory as required for separation and freedom. Reciprocally, by the same standard, non-Northern Europeans do not belong in the Nordish countries. It is not their proper place. They do not belong there. They do not have a right to be there. Their presence there is morally intolerable. It violates the ethical rule of live and let live, the basis of racial good will, and the vital, life-essential rights of the Nordish race. Denying a race its right to life is the most extreme form of racial ill will and racial injustice.
Unfortunately for racial justice and good will, the Racial Golden Rule is not the standard governing contemporary racial relations. This fact is especially detrimental to the Nordish race. Since 1957 there has been a massive movement of alien races into the ancient homelands of the Nordish race in Europe. It is not their proper place. They do not belong there. They do not have a right to be there. Their presence there violates the Racial Golden Rule and the vital rights of the native European populations, denying their racial freedom, independence and self-determination, and the conditions of racial separation and reproductive isolation they require to maintain their racial integrity and continue their existence.
The Nordish race cannot be expected to surrender parts of its ancient homelands to other races. The restoration of Nordish racial separation and independence in those countries would therefore require that the alien races return to their native racial homelands, whether in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. If the British could leave India the Indians can leave Britain. If the Dutch could leave Indonesia the Indonesians can leave the Netherlands. If the French could leave Algeria the Algerians can leave France. If the Europeans could leave Africa and Asia the Africans and Asians can leave Europe. They must leave, or violate the Racial Golden Rule of live and let live, and deny the Nordish race in Europe the conditions it needs for continued life.
The Nordish race can be expected to surrender extensive territories of its much larger new homeland in North America to other races. Indeed, considering the large size of the non-Nordish population in North America, and its long period of residence there (proportionately much larger and longer than the non-Nordish populations in the Nordish European homelands), no other means of achieving racial separation and independence would be consistent with the Racial Golden Rule. Each major racial group in the United States and Canada would be allotted its own exclusive territory for its own separate country and sovereign nationhood. Of the possible solutions to the American racial dilemma that would restore the conditions the Nordish race requires for continued life, this would be the most just and fair.
Mohandas Gandhi is widely cited as an example of ethical behavior for his efforts on behalf of his people. He worked to achieve Indian independence from Britain by nonviolent means. He promoted the primary and legitimate rights of his race to freedom and control of its own life and destiny. All this was consistent with the Racial Golden Rule and the principles of racial justice. But his name is now most frequently invoked by those who promote multiracialism and deny the vital right of the Nordish race to the conditions of separation and independence it needs to live.
It is ironic that Indians and Pakistanis have now invaded Britain (non-violently, by immigration) in numbers twenty or more times greater than there ever were Britons in India, and have settled there to stay, whereas the British were temporary residents, blatantly denying the British people their exclusive right to their ancient homeland, claiming to be equally British with the inhabitants of hundreds of generations, and claiming the country to be equally theirs. Today, a Northern European who sought freedom and independence for his race as Gandhi did for his would be condemned as immoral by the very persons who praise Gandhi most highly. This is another example of the prevailing anti-Nordish double standard. But if there is to be racial justice and good will the vital rights of all races should be respected. If Gandhi's cause was right for India, a version of it promoting the racial right to life is even more urgently needed to help save the Nordish race.
Under the Racial Golden Rule non-Northern Europeans would not be permitted to enter the Nordish homelands for the purpose of establishing residency. They could be permitted temporary entry for limited and legitimate purposes, but they would not be permitted to live there. This rule would apply to all non-Nordish immigrants, including refugees and adopted children. As non-Northern Europeans, they do not belong in the Nordish homelands, and their presence there violates the Nordish right to racial separation, independence and continued life. They belong in their own racial homelands, among their own people, who must deal with their own refugees, take care of their own orphans and solve their own problems in accordance with full racial independence and self-determination. For the Nordish race, threatened with racial death by the already too-numerous other races in its midst, each new non-Nordish immigrant into its homelands, and each new non-Nordish child born in its homelands, is just another nail in its coffin.
Interracial adoption -- which steals children away from their own race, the race to which they belong and of which they are a part, their own racial ancestry and heritage, and their own racial environment, to be raised by, and belong to, another race, not their own, to which they do not naturally belong, of which they are not a part -- is perhaps the most tragic of all the violations of the Racial Golden Rule. The adoptees, the race from which they were taken, and the race on which they are imposed, in violation of its right to racial separation and protection from destructive intermixture, are all victims of this practice.
Northern Europeans who adopt non-Nordish children are often imbued with a missionary desire to convert or transform other peoples into facsimiles of themselves, to turn them into pseudo-Northern Europeans. They believe that what they are doing is for the good of the non-Nordish adoptees, that they are doing them a favor in separating them from their own race and their own destiny to be joined with the Nordish race and to become, by intermixture, part of the Nordish racial destiny. They are so convinced that anything which sacrifices, denies, violates or harms the vital interests of their own race is good that they cannot see that they are violating the vital interests of the non-Nordish adoptee as well. They are blinded by a form of self-righteous fanaticism that turns them against their own race and compels them to serve the non-vital interests of other races, whatever they conceive them to be, at the expense of the vital interests of their own.
Under the Racial Golden Rule the Nordish race has a right to live, a right to exist, a right to be here, no less than any other child of the universe. The dominant forces of racial nihilism deny that the Nordish race has a right to live, or even a choice in the matter. To achieve their goal of Nordish nonexistence they must overcome the Nordish will to live, overcome the desire of the Nordish race to survive and continue its existence, overcome its desire for freedom and independence. To do this they must turn the Nordish race against itself, against its vital rights and interests, against its own life. They must get it to destroy itself, to commit racial suicide. They must get it to be tolerant of its own destruction, and intolerant of its own salvation. They must turn it into its own worst enemy. It is a battle of ideas, beliefs and values, and the battlefield is the hearts and minds of the Nordish race.
The Right to Racial Life
by
Richard McCulloch
In 1968 a multiracial singing group called "Up With People" toured the United States promoting the oneness message of one world, one people and one race. Among other places, they visited the college where the author was a freshman, sending out multiracial teams of their youthful members to visit various classes. The team that visited the author's American history class claimed a religious justification for the unification of the different races and peoples of the world into one race and people. When the author asked them why the different races were created in the first place, and why were they then separated from each other on different continents, without contact until relatively recently, if it were indeed the will of the Creator to join and mix them together into one race, as they claimed, one of them replied that she had heard that question before, but none of them answered it. Even accepting their non-evolutionary and non-scientific perspective, deductive reasoning from the facts given in this question would not support their logically unsupported position, but would lead to conclusions quite contrary to their assertions. Faced with a question their premises could not answer, they ignored it.
An ideology, or system of ideas, beliefs and values, must enjoy a major degree of cultural dominance and control to be in a position to ignore facts that question or disprove its premises, to dismiss other ideas or values without serious consideration, or to discredit different beliefs just for being different. It must attain the level of being cultural dogma or orthodoxy, guarded and protected from heretical questions and beliefs by its control of the most influential cultural institutions. From the communications media of television, motion pictures, radio, newspapers, books and magazines, to the schools and universities, churches and civic groups, legal system and major political parties, and all levels of government, the ideology of oneness currently enjoys this level of cultural dominance, and has enjoyed it in increasing degree for most of this century. As the orthodox dogma of our culture, taking precedence over all others, and in consideration of its terminal effects on the Nordish (Northern European) race, it is important that it be carefully examined.
The ideology of oneness here examined is not a form of mystical or transcendental oneness or unity with Life, God or the Universe. Nor is it that most complete form of bonding that is the expression of total love between a man and woman. It is the ideology that promotes the union and intermixture of the diverse subspecies and races of the human species into one race. After evolving in different directions under conditions of separation for thousands of generations, it would have the races converge into one race in which the racial differences created by divergent evolution would be eliminated. Consistent with this policy of eliminating racial differences, it minimizes their value, importance and extent. As the agent between and among the different races, acting to bring them together and promoting their intermixture, it is racial nihilism.
Racial nihilism is the application of the ideology of oneness to racial relationships. In racially homogeneous societies, such as most of the non-Nordish countries, its practical effect is minimal. In heterogeneous, multiracial societies, such as America has become, and most other Nordish homelands are in the process of becoming, its effects are maximal, and for the Nordish race fatal. Although the ideology of racial nihilism has long been variously espoused and accepted by cultural elements in all the Nordish countries, its actual effects were first experienced by the Nordish race in America. That other Nordish homelands are now permitting large-scale non-Nordish immigration, and experiencing the effects of multiracialism and racial nihilism, can be largely attributed to the influence and example of America. In fact, in the post-1950 period, multiracialism and racial nihilism have become a central part of the ideology called "Americanism." [Note 1] A central tenet of this ideology is that America consists of all races and belongs equally to all races. It explicitly denies that America is the rightful homeland of one race, or rightfully belongs to one race. It generally expresses its argument in terms of racial equality, but the real issue is one of racial possession and ownership. It urges Nordish Americans to welcome and embrace the racial diversity of multiracialism, but since racial diversity was created by racial separation and reproductive isolation, and requires those same conditions for its preservation and continuation, it is actually asking Nordish Americans to welcome and embrace their racial dispossession, replacement and destruction.
The acceptance of this ideology by the Nordish race deprives it of the major new homeland won and built by the epic effort of its previous generations, and of the conditions it needs to continue to exist there. This was not always so. The great majority of the Northern Europeans who settled in America before 1890 regarded it as a Nordish homeland, and certainly did not want, or anticipate, its transformation into a racially mixed country. The modern ideology of "Americanism" would now regard the values of these pre-1890 Americans as "un-American." But the ideology of racial nihilism is not uniquely American. It affects, and endangers, the entire Nordish race.
True to the "One-World, One-Race" creed, the ideology of racial nihilism seeks the elimination of the racial differences created by divergent evolution. To achieve this goal it promotes convergent devolution, the reversal of the process of speciation by means of racial intermixture. In theory, all races would sacrifice their separate existence to achieve this goal, but in practice the Nordish race is the most endangered. The homelands of the other races -- in central Africa, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Mexico, India, the Middle East and elsewhere -- are not presently threatened by racial nihilism, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable future. Their homelands remain essentially monoracial. The only non-Nordish elements presently involved in the devolutionary process are those that have migrated to the Nordish homelands, who by their presence deny the Nordish race the conditions it requires for existence and create the conditions that can end its existence. The Nordish race could lose its existence through replacement by, or intermixture with, these racial invaders, but the non-Nordish elements that remain in their own homelands will continue to exist, unchanged, unaffected and unthreatened by racial nihilism.
The only thing resisting racial nihilism, or with reason to resist it, is racism. Specifically, the racial preservationist form, type or kind of racism, as this is the form of racism most antithetical to racial nihilism. This racism may be conscious or unconscious, from nurture or nature, from the environment or in the genes, and it may be euphemistically called by different names, but if it resists or opposes the values or consequences of racial nihilism, in theory or practice, it is racism.
There are many different definitions of the noun racism, and of the adjective racist.. They mean many different things to many different people. Obviously, there are many different kinds or types of racism, both as an ideology and as actions. A useful beginning point for a definition is the one given above -- as that which, or those who, resist or oppose racial nihilism. In this negative position, at least, all forms of genuine racism should be united. The forms of action, means or methods of this resistance can vary, but are the same available to, and shared and used by, most other ideologies or causes. Only the ideology itself, with its ideas and values, is unique to racism. Therefore it is by its ideology that racism should be defined.
Racism is not an ideology in the same sense as most others. It has a difference. It is based on a biological relationship, an evolutionary or genetic bond, an attachment that is a part of nature, an objective fact of life and reality, with generations of ancestors and the possibility of uncounted generations of descendants. It is not just an idea, not just the product of human thought. It is in the genes, not just the mind. In this it differs from the various ideologies that concern themselves with politics, economics or religion. Much of the behavior and attitudes associated with racism have their origins in evolution, not ideology, and are governed by forces much deeper than conscious thought. With this understanding, we can achieve a more accurate definition of racism.
Racism holds that racial interests and values are matters of primary, major and central importance and concern. Other interests, loyalties and values are less important and thus secondary to those of race. Racial concerns and affiliations come first. If there is a conflict between racial interests and nonracial interests, whether economic, political, sexual, cultural, national or religious, or pertaining to occupation, gender, age or social class, the racial interests take priority. Racial considerations take precedence over all others. Racism judges all things -- all actions, events, behavior, ideas or values -- by the standard of what is good or best for the race. It evaluates everything on the basis of its effect on the race -- whether it is good or bad for the race, healthy or unhealthy, wholesome or unwholesome, unifying or divisive, strengthening or weakening, augmenting or diminishing, improving or worsening. In these judgments vital (life-essential) interests take priority over non-vital ones, long-run interests over short-run, major over minor, and primary over secondary. Moral values are founded on racial values, and seek to serve and promote the best interests of the race. Under the principles of racial rights fostered by the Racial Compact and the Racial Golden Rule, the vital (life-essential), major or primary rights and interests of one race take priority over the non-vital, minor or secondary rights and interests of other races.
In its most transcendental form, racism embraces the principle that race and Creation are one, and regards the true, fair and legitimate best interests of the race to be consistent with, and even identical to, the true best interests of Life, Creation and the Universe as a whole. It sees identity of interest, and no conflict, between the race and Creation. It considers the vital interests of the race, its preservation, salvation and ascent, its continued existence and upward evolutionary development and progress, to be of major importance to the great plan of Life.
Racial nihilism, from its position of cultural dominance, tends to portray that which resists or opposes it (i.e., racism) as evil and based on hatred. But resistance and opposition to that which would destroy one's race can be motivated by feelings other than hate. Love of one's race, of its unique traits and qualities, and the consequent desire to preserve its well-being, independence and continued existence, would provide an even stronger and more enduring motivation to resist racial nihilism. Those primarily motivated by positive feelings of love for their race would also naturally be expected to have negative feelings, or hatred, for those things which threaten or cause harm or destruction to that which they love, but these negative feelings would be secondary and derivative, derived from the primary positive feelings which are the true source of the motivation, and according to which it should be defined and classified.
Racism, when primarily motivated by positive feelings, can be defined as love of one's race and loyalty to, and support for, its legitimate and vital interests. Vital interests are those which are life-essential. They are the conditions required for continued existence, development, health and well-being, to preserve the race in undiminished, undiluted, unaltered and distinct form. They are the conditions required for successful reproduction and the avoidance of intermixture with other races (misreproduction or malreproduction, the most harmful form of nonreproduction). They are racial separation, reproductive isolation, self-determination, sovereignty, freedom and independence.
Racism, in its positive form, is the system of values, ideas and beliefs which considers one's race to be valuable and important. It favors and promotes those conditions of existence and life -- political, religious, spiritual, economic, cultural and social -- which are conducive to the preservation and well-being of one's race. It supports the race-creating process of divergent evolution or speciation, and the conditions which promote this process. It favors the separation, reproductive isolation, independence and freedom of different races and their exclusive control over their own destiny in accordance with the Racial Golden Rule and the Racial Compact.
Racism is racial loyalism, loyalty to the interests of one's race. Racists are racial loyalists, loyal and true to the vital and best interests of their race, to the interests of its past and future generations, to the line that made them, that gave them life and being, to their ancestors who created them and their descendants who depend on them for creation. They would not knowingly or willingly fail or betray their race and the trust placed in them.
Racism is racial preservationism and protectionism. Much of the behavior and attitudes that constitute Nordish resistance to racial nihilism, that are resented by non-Northern Europeans and defined as prejudice, discrimination and intolerance by racial nihilism, are actually the efforts of Northern Europeans to preserve and protect their race from that which can diminish or destroy it.
Nordish racism measures every value or action by the standard of what is best for the race. It regards the legitimate interests of the race, those consistent with the right to racial life and the Racial Golden Rule, as identical with the interests of Creation itself. It promotes racial separation, freedom and independence, the conditions required for continued Nordish life. It is dedicated to the cause of Nordish life.
Nordish racial preservationism is racial separatism. Separation from other races is the primary requirement for continued Nordish existence, and the most vital (life-essential) of all Nordish racial interests. It is the preservationist imperative. Any supposed form of Nordish racism which contradicts this rule does not promote what is good or best for the race, and cannot be regarded as true racism. Racial supremacism, which involves one race being supreme and ruling over others, or being the master of others, prevents racial separation and independence as it requires interaction between the races, between the rulers and the ruled, between the master race and their subjects, and violates the Racial Golden Rule and the Racial Compact by denying the rights of the ruled races to freedom and self-determination. This is totally contrary to the best interests of the race, and to the ideology of moral racism.
Racial separatism has nothing to do with the system of racial segregation practiced in the "Jim Crow" era of the American south, or with the practice of petty apartheid in South Africa. These are examples of systems of racial supremacism, not separatism. True racial separatism is not about separate water fountains, restrooms, restaurants, hotels, beaches, movie theaters, playgrounds, amusement parks or buses, nor even about separate schools, work places, churches, or neighborhoods. By the standards of true racial separatism such measures are only half-measures, and in the long run little better than no separation at all. Such measures do not create a monoracial society as required for continued Nordish existence, but merely impose an unstable hierarchy on a multiracial one. They only delay the destructive effects of racial nihilism by shifting them from the short term to the long term, creating a growing peril that may doom future Nordish generations. True racial separatism is separate countries, separate territories, separate governments, separate economies and separate cultures, independent and free of other races, with self-determination and self-control of their own affairs, their own future, and their own destiny. It is racial liberation, independence and freedom, setting the different races free from control or harm by others.
Racial preservationism is racial livism. It is the desire for continued life and existence on the racial level, comparable with what might be called "livism," or the desire for continued life on the individual level, except that this desire is so taken for granted that such a word has never been considered necessary. It is the form of racism that believes that a race has a right to live, a racial right to life, and a right to the conditions it requires for continued life and existence. It is the ideology, the system of ideas and values, that supports the right to racial life.
Nordish racial preservationism is the only ideology that can save the Nordish race. It is the only ideology that wants to save the Nordish race, that wants the Nordish race to continue to live and have the conditions it needs to live. It is the only ideology that believes the Nordish race has a right to racial life and to the conditions it requires for continued life, and it is the only ideology that supports and promotes those rights. In all these things it is the opposite of racial nihilism.
The conditions in which the Nordish race exists have long since passed the point where they need to be changed in a very major way if the Nordish race is to continue to live. Only the application of the ideas and values of moral racism on a grand scale, to restore the conditions of racial separation and independence needed for continued Nordish existence, can save the Nordish race from extinction and fulfill its right to racial life.
The most extreme action that can be taken against a race is to oppose its most vital interests, the conditions it requires for existence, its right to racial life. Such an action or position is the ultimate action or position against, or anti, that race. There is no action that can be more anti or against a race than to be anti or against the conditions it needs to live. Thus opposition to Nordish separation and independence is anti-Nordish in the most extreme possible degree, resulting in its racial death. The racial nihilist campaign against racial preservationism, denying the Nordish race the conditions it needs to live, is ultimately a campaign against the Nordish right to life.
The choice facing the Nordish race is a fateful one. It is between racial preservationism and racial nihilism, racial life and racial death, the continuation of the racial-genetic line or its termination. The proponents of racial nihilism and Nordish racial death dominate the news media, the government, the schools and the culture, and the air is constantly filled with their singing of the Nordish death song. Conformism pressures most Northern Europeans to join its chorus and sing in harmony, and censure befalls those who voice a discordant note, or sing with less than total enthusiasm. The sound of the Nordish life song is so faint that most are unaware of its existence. But the Nordish race will be saved only if enough Northern Europeans join in unison to raise the song of Nordish racial life and vanquish the song of death.
Do Northern Europeans think their race and its unique traits and characteristics, its talent, spirit and beauty, its men, women and children, all that it is, has been and could be, are worth defending, worth protecting, worth saving, worth preserving? Would they be willing to strive against the seemingly all-powerful racial nihilist tide that is sweeping them away from their race, drowning them in the buffeting waves of different races, and pulling them under to genetic submergence? Do they still possess a meaningful sense of racial consciousness, of racial identity, of who and what they are, of what race made them and to what race they belong? Some do and some do not. Racial preservationists are those who do. They are those who care. They are those who love their race, who are loyal to its interests, who want it to live, and who consider it valuable and important enough to be worth their utmost efforts to save and preserve it.
For many years the Nordish race has been losing the struggle for the hearts and minds, the love and loyalty, of those who belong to it and owe it all they are. The outcome of this struggle will decide whether the Nordish race will live or die. This struggle has often focused on issues of rights and questions of what is right. The right now at issue, now in question, is whether the Nordish race has a right to live.

1. Since 1986 there has even been a holiday -- January 15, Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday -- which has in practice been dedicated to the promotion and celebration of the racial nihilist dream and its effects.
 
Separation: The Preservationist Imperative
by
Richard McCulloch

A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.
Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857




In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man . At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: "Separate or die." Those were his last words to me, and that is fitting, for that simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, that racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of the Northern European race, the founding and still the majority American racial type, which I refer to as the Nordish race. It is a simple matter of either-or -- either racial separation or racial death. Second, that the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests. [Note 1] None of these things can save us. Only separation can. Separation is the preservationist imperative.
The reason separation is necessary for racial preservation is simple -- the evolution and continued existence of different races is made possible by reproductive isolation. When different populations are reproductively isolated they cannot interbreed or intermix, and consequently evolve in different directions, developing into different races with their own unique and distinct ensemble of genetic traits. Reproductive isolation requires an absence of physical contact. As a practical matter, this requires geographic separation.
There is already a law of biology (Gause's law of exclusion) which states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist in the long term in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat (i.e., lacking the race-creating and preserving condition of reproductive isolation) will eventually intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with the most racially destructive consequences for the race with the more recessive genetic traits.
For the Nordish race, with its many recessive genetic traits, the consequences of extensive intermixture are racial destruction, and as intermixture is unavoidable in a multiracial environment, the inevitable consequence of multiracial conditions is the destruction or extinction of the Nordish race. Since the Nordish race requires racial separation for its continued existence or preservation, to oppose racial separation is to effectively oppose the preservation or continued existence of the Nordish race, to effectively propose and support Nordish racial destruction or extinction, and this is the position of the presently dominant or "mainstream" elements.
Since intermixture is an unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions, those conditions themselves are the proximate cause of intermixture, and the blame for racial intermixture and its destructive consequences belongs to all those who promote, support or defend multiracial conditions and oppose the separation-isolation which is the only effective means to prevent intermixture and secure racial preservation. This is true even for persons who ostensibly oppose racial intermixture, for if they support multiracial conditions of existence -- or oppose separation, which amounts to the same thing -- they are in fact supporting the cause of intermixture. They might say they favor the reimposition of a segregationist, white supremacist or "traditional" society, where intermixture is prohibited by law and custom, but a multiracial society is not a "traditional" society. The "traditional" society of the Nordish race, the type of society in which it was created and preserved for many thousands of years, is a monoracial society. Such a society provides reproductive isolation, the condition required for both racial creation and preservation, and does not need to prohibit intermixture by law or custom because by its very monoracial nature it prevents intermixture far more effectively than any law or custom ever could. Thus the only effective cure for intermixture, the only way to prevent it from destroying the Nordish race, is to restore it to its traditional, separate monoracial existence.
Unfortunately, the fact that separation is required for Nordish preservation is either not known or evaded by far too many people, thus permitting multiracial conditions to proceed toward their inevitable consequences without those consequences being recognized and addressed. It often seems as if everyone in the "mainstream" behaves and speaks as if they were racial ingénues, ignorant, thoughtless and naive regarding racial realities and consequences. Even those race-conscious conservatives regarded as being on the extreme right fringe of the limits of "respectability" on the racial issue (typically defined by opposition to affirmative action and support for immigration restrictions), by their evasion or denial of the requirement for racial separation for racial preservation, offer no more than palliatives to soothe the symptoms of this fatal disease without effecting a real cure. In fact, many mainstream conservatives and liberals actually view intermixture as a cure, as a means to promote national unity and prevent ethnic differences from fracturing or tearing the country apart, and thus as highly desirable. Such intermixture (euphemistically referred to as assimilation) is of course the true end of multiracialism, revealing it as a sham, a temporary or transitional social condition which provides the means for racial destruction by the assimilation of (i.e., intermixture with) incompatible elements. Multiracialism is thus the prelude to Nordish extinction. The prelude might seem long, lasting generations or even centuries, but the extinction that follows is forever. Racial preservationist alternatives -- i.e., separation if multiracial conditions already exist, or immigration restrictions to prevent the creation of multiracial conditions where they do not yet exist -- are not considered, but are evaded or denied.
The pattern of evasion or denial of the necessity for racial separation for racial preservation, the unwillingness or inability to face racial realities and the consequences of multiracialism, is made possible by the fatal fantasy of the Nordish race. This fatal fantasy is the false belief or misconception that the Nordish race can continue to exist in a multiracial society. [Note 2] It is the escapist fantasy for Northern Europeans who refuse to face the threats to their survival. This misconception is fatal because it permits people to evade and deny the consequences of multiracialism rather than face them and take action to prevent them. When the ultimate destinations of two different paths cannot be clearly seen, there is a natural tendency to take the easier path and deny the need or desirability of the more difficult course. Separation would certainly be difficult, and so its necessity for preservation has long been evaded and denied. But this pattern of evasion and denial is itself the first difficulty, the first obstacle along the path to separation, that must be overcome before separation can be achieved. Separation will be achieved only when enough people want it to be achieved, and this will probably happen only when it is widely recognized as necessary for racial preservation. Therefore the first important step on the road to racial separation and preservation is to free the Nordish people of the fatal fantasy, so they can see, recognize, understand and face the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism rather than evade them.
The current process of displacement, replacement and destruction of the Nordish race is caused by four interacting processes -- non-Nordish immigration, a high non-Nordish birthrate, a low Nordish birthrate (actually below the replacement level for more than 20 years), and racial intermixture. In a multiracial society all of these processes result in members of the Nordish race being replaced by members of other races. But in a monoracial society both intermixture and immigration by members of other races would be effectively prevented, and the differential birthrates of two races in different countries could not result in the replacement of one by the other. A low Nordish birthrate would result only in a smaller population. Also, it could be recognized as a problem, and its causes addressed and hopefully corrected. In contrast, the currently dominant racial nihilist ideology and value-system of the multiracial society is so hostile to Nordish preservation that any attempt to recognize, address or solve the problems threatening Nordish existence would face strong resistance and condemnation, and in any event would be ultimately futile without separation.
Racial nihilism, the ideological foundation of multiracialism, regards the very existence of different races (or at least the Nordish race) as something regrettable or even evil -- as if the original sin of our ancestors was their divergence into different races -- and thus something not worthy of preservation, or even acknowledgment. The only traits it considers valuable and important are those which all humans share in common, which are universal to all, not any which are particular to a certain group, in which they differ or are unique and distinct. It promotes the destruction of racial diversity through racial intermixture to create one universal race, and welcomes the growing population of racially-mixed persons as its ideal. As Shirlee Taylor Haizlip writes in The Sweeter the Juice, "Genes and chromosomes from Africa, Europe, and a pristine America commingled and created me...I am an American anomaly. I am an American ideal. I am the American nightmare. I am the Martin Luther King dream. I am the new America." In a multiracial society racially-mixed persons are not -- as the fatal fantasy would have us believe -- an aberration, or -- as an Alabama school principal naively remarked -- a mistake. They are in fact the natural, normal, unavoidable and inevitable end product of a multiracial society. They are the personification of the racial nihilist and multiracialist version of the American Dream -- that America is, must be, and was meant to be a multiracial society -- that has now been exported to the formerly monoracial Nordish homelands of Europe.
This was not the dream of our Nordish-American ancestors. Quite the opposite. They desired a monoracial nation, and with the exception of the Southern states -- where the black population was concentrated -- that is essentially what they had. Until the 1890s the non-black population of America was overwhelmingly Nordish, and the country and its culture had a distinctly Nordish racial identity and character, which remained predominant until the 1960s. (One indicator of the extension of this predominance into the 1960s is the fact that all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts were Nordish.) Yet, ironically, the prevailing hostility to racial conservation, and acceptance of the racial nihilist version of the American dream, is shared by many who are identified as "conservatives." Those mainstream conservatives who are not explicitly hostile to racial conservationist concerns are generally indifferent to them. Most are interested in conserving the political and economic system, some in conserving the Western cultural heritage, but it would be difficult to find a prominent conservative willing to publicly express an interest in conserving the race that created the heritage they profess to cherish.
As an example, consider a statement by John O'Sullivan, former editor of National Review, widely regarded as the premier publication of American conservatism. In an article entitled "America's Identity Crisis" (Nov. 21, 1994, p. 76), in which he ostensibly defends American nationality and cultural continuity by supporting immigration restrictions, he effectively denies all concern for racial identity and continuity, saying "[I]f...black Americans were to become the majority in 2050 (which is, of course, demographically unrealistic), we would view this with indifference. A changing ethnic balance resulting from differential ethnic birthrates among people of the same nationality...should not make white Americans feel culturally dispossessed." But what about racially dispossessed? He divorces race from nationality and culture, asserting that only the latter are a legitimate matter of concern, and that other "white" Americans should share this racial nihilist view. Yet he still invokes the soothing fantasy that there is no need for concern by reassuring the reader that a black majority is demographically unrealistic, displaying the long outdated tendency to define the racial issue in narrowly white-black terms. But it is now universally accepted by the pundits -- they say beyond serious dispute -- and acceptable to publicly state in the mainstream media, that although blacks alone will not be a majority by 2050, "non-whites" as a whole certainly will be. So Mr. O'Sullivan, or his spiritual descendants, will have the opportunity in 2050 to view a majority non-white America with indifference, unless separation intervenes. In fact, he would probably be indifferent to know that the Nordish race, currently (1995) 57% of the population as a whole, 50% of the population under the age of 15, and 47% of births, will by 2050, at an immigration level of 880,000 per year (i.e., the current official legal level; 40% below the current actual legal level), and allowing for differential birthrates and intermixture, be reduced to 32% of the population as a whole, 20% of the population under the age of 15, and 19% of births. Even if all immigration were stopped it would still be reduced to 41% of the population as a whole, 28% of the population under the age of 15 and 27% of births.
Anyone who has witnessed the dramatic worsening in the Nordish racial situation in just the last thirty years should be aware of how rapidly the process of destruction can develop. If present trends continue, I project that by the year 2050 the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S. will be reduced by 25-30% (the lower figure based on zero immigration) due to the effects of intermixture alone. By 2050 intermixture alone will likely cause the Nordish population in the U.S. to be reduced by 15-18 million (the lower figure again based on zero immigration). Furthermore, the loss will not stop in 2050, but will only accelerate with each generation. [Note 3] Are there any mainstream conservatives who, if they were aware of this, would not be indifferent to it, who would wish to prevent it and conserve the Nordish race?
Far too many people fail to think in long range terms about the eventual consequences of multiracialism. Do they really think that the multiracial society can continue indefinitely, go on forever just as it is at this moment, never changing? Unfortunately, few people seem to give the subject serious thought. This lack of awareness and urgency is largely due to the fact that racial destruction is a gradual process, occurring incrementally, not all at once. Yet it is not something that will suddenly occur as a singular event in the distant future, nor something that is not imminent and can therefore be evaded or ignored. It is a process that is occurring now and has been occurring on a significant scale for more than a generation. Great loss and destruction has already occurred. Many members of the Nordish race have already been lost through intermixture, and many more are being lost every day. Would Mr. O'Sullivan still be indifferent to the demographic changes that will occur -- even if all immigration were stopped -- if he understood that they were not only a matter of shifting proportions, not even only a matter of Nordish displacement and replacement, but a matter of Nordish racial destruction and extinction, of the eventual nonexistence of his race, as a result of the multiracial conditions he defends? If he were still indifferent with this knowledge he would not be alone. A common reaction to it is a shrug explained by the remark that "We won't live to see it," or a desolate rhetorical "Who cares?" This indifference and lack of caring is both a product and a cause of the prevailing ideology of racial nihilism.
Racial nihilism is now so dominant that it is not considered morally acceptable to advocate or support racial preservation, to be pro-race, to love or value racial differences or view them as important and desire their continued existence. It is barely acceptable to support cultural preservation, and few "conservatives" are publicly willing to conserve more than this. Cultural preservationists are somewhat protected in their opposition to multiculturalism by the fact that many "liberals" also oppose multiculturalism for fear that it will obstruct and slow the process of intermixture-assimilation. But they need not fear. Multiculturalism probably will not slow the process of intermixture enough to really matter. The growth of multiculturalism only means that Western culture will be replaced along with the race that created it, to the dismay of those conservative grave diggers who are only too happy to bury the Nordish race, but who become grave robbers in their ghoulish desire to preserve the culture and institutions of the West disembodied from the race that created them. Yet for racial preservationists multiculturalism does provide another supporting reason for separation. Cultural preservationists should be made aware that separation for racial preservation would also be the surest means -- perhaps the only means -- to achieve their goal of cultural preservation. It should be presumed that race and culture go together, that multiracialism and multiculturalism go together, that racial and cultural replacement and destruction go together, and that racial and cultural preservation go together. Only willful evasion and denial, or folly, or madness, would permit any other presumption.
Separation is the only preservationist solution effective in the long-term, and to fail to realize this -- or worse, to deny it -- is to fall victim to the fatal fantasy. After generations of this fantasy, of evasion and denial of racial realities, the racial situation has reached a crisis point where we can no longer afford to continue this racial madness and folly. We can no longer afford to be racial ingénues, innocent of racial knowledge, ignorant of racial reality and the racial consequences of our actions, deluding ourselves with the false hope that minor changes, or a return to an earlier stage in the process of racial replacement, will suffice to prevent the process from reaching its fateful conclusion. Such minor measures, or attempts to restore the status quo ante, can do no more than slow the process. Only a major measure -- separation -- can effectively assure racial preservation.
The first goal of a separation-for-preservation movement would be to raise the issue of racial preservation to public awareness, to place it on the public agenda, to make it a subject of debate and discussion in the forum of public opinion, where it must be addressed and can no longer be evaded. Every politician, every holder of public office or would-be holder of the public trust, would be required to clearly state their position on the issue of racial preservation, to go on the record as for or against, pro or con. Eventually, it must become the overriding, dominating issue of our time, taking precedence over all others, so that all other issues become secondary, and differences on all other issues are subordinated to alliances based on agreement on the issue of racial preservation. The first supporters of racial separation-for-preservation will be those who already love and value their race and only need to know that separation is necessary for its preservation and can be achieved by moral means. Later supporters -- the majority -- will be those who require a more extensive process of education to convince them that separation-for-preservation is both necessary and morally right, for reasons ranging from the traditional liberal concern for rights and independence to a conservationist ethic in favor of preserving human racial diversity. Their support will be critical and decisive. If and when the Nordish race wins their support it will be saved. If it fails to win their support it will be lost. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that a separation-for-preservation movement be based on an ideology with well-defined values, goals and methods that are morally acceptable to the majority of the Nordish race.
As a practical matter geographic separation will always be required for reproductive isolation. In the past geographic distance and barriers in themselves were usually sufficient providers of geographic separation and reproductive isolation. But due to the transportation advances of the modern age, we can no longer rely on geographic distance and barriers alone to provide reproductive isolation. We must provide it for ourselves by creating monoracial nations with well-guarded borders that effectively prevent entry by members of other races. (A multiracial society is unable to protect itself from immigration by foreign races because it has no racial identity, and therefore no racial identity to protect.) Given the projected rapid rate of demographic change in the U.S., with the rapid decline in the Nordish portion of the population, the sooner a partition is achieved the more favorable the terms will be for the Nordish-American people. In another essay, Racial Partition for Racial Preservation, I propose a partition settlement that would be appropriate for the present generation. [Note 4]
The original meaning of the Indo-European word "paradise" in the Avestan (Old Iranian) language was "walled-around" (pairi, around + daeza, wall), and referred to a walled-in park or garden. (From this the Greeks referred to a garden or park as a paradeisos .) The wall was necessary to protect the life-forms in the garden by separating them from the life-forms outside. Without that walled separation the life-forms outside the garden would not be kept outside and the life in the garden would be overwhelmed and replaced. If the Nordish race is to have its paradise, a place where it can survive and its life be preserved, it must also have a "wall" that effectively separates it from other races and provides it with the protected monoracial habitat and reproductive isolation it needs for its preservation. Without a wall of secure borders separating the Nordish race from other races there will be no protected habitat, no reproductive isolation, no paradise for the Nordish race where its existence can be safely preserved, but only the wasteland of the multiracial society where it cannot live, only die, where its existence cannot be continued, only destroyed.
The monoracial existence of our past was a racial paradise. We lost that paradise first with the creation of new multiracial societies, then with the transformation of our old monoracial societies into multiracial societies, exchanging our monoracial paradise for a multiracial wasteland where our race cannot survive. We must regain that lost paradise if our race is to be preserved.
Separation is the preservationist imperative. It is necessary for Nordish racial survival. This is the bottom line, the point where no retreat, appeasement or surrender is possible without surrendering the very existence of the Nordish race by perpetuating the multiracial conditions that are destroying it. Thus separation must be the clear goal of all our efforts. Anything less is simply not worth the effort. I realize that this goal will be difficult to achieve, but the truly amazing thing is that so far we have not really even begun to try. To date, no serious effort of any significance has been made by Nordish-Americans to promote and achieve the goal of racial preservation by political-geographic separation. To achieve this goal we will need to gain the support of the majority of Nordish-Americans, with the other Nordish nations hopefully then following our lead on the path of racial preservation as they are now following us on the path of racial destruction. This admittedly seems to be a daunting task, but it is one that must be undertaken. The future existence of the Nordish race depends upon it.

Notes
1. Legitimate racial rights and interests are primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests and those secondary or non-vital rights and interests which do not violate or conflict with the primary or vital rights and interests of other races.
2. Works of science fiction set several centuries in the future which feature a still-thriving Nordish population in a multiracial society (such as the various Star Trek series) are among the most obvious and misleading examples of this fatal fantasy. Imperial Earth , by Arthur C. Clarke, which portrays a future where the Nordish race no longer exists due to racial intermixture, is one of the very rare truthful exceptions to this rule, although Clarke only mentions this fact as an aside midway through the story, and treats it as a matter of no concern or importance.
3. Allowing for intermixture, my projections in generation intervals of 30 years for the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S., which in 1992 was 27.7 million, are as follows: 2020 = 22.4 million; 2050 = 15 million; 2080 = 9 million; 2110 = 5 million; 2140 = 2.7 million (i.e., a 90% reduction in 150 years). This projection is based on the assumption that fully 50% of each Nordish generation would strictly discriminate on racial grounds in their selection of a mate and refuse to mate with a member of another race or a racially-mixed person who is only partly of their own race. The other 50% would not racially discriminate in their choice of a mate, with the consequence that the racial proportions among their mates would reflect the racial proportions of the population (specifically, the pool of prospective mates) as a whole. (Thus the 15 million Nordish-Americans of the under-15 generation of 2050 would comprise only about 20% of their generation of Americans as a whole, so that 50%, or 7.5 million, who racially discriminated in their choice of a mate, and 20% of the remainder, or 1.5 million, who did not racially discriminate but by chance chose a mate of their own race, totaling 9 million, would produce the 9 million Nordish-Americans of the generation of 2080.) Since each Nordish generation would constitute an ever smaller proportion of the total population, it would be increasingly difficult for 50% to racially discriminate successfully in their choice of mates. Even among the current generation of Nordish youth, who have been heavily indoctrinated with the racial nihilist belief that any kind of racial discrimination is morally evil, it is unlikely that 50% would practice strict racial discrimination in the choice of a mate.
4. If partition is not achieved in the current generation, it is likely that the Nordish racial grouping would have to settle for much less favorable terms of partition in the future, with a much smaller proportion of territory, as by 2020 (allowing for intermixture) they would be only 53% of the population, and by 2050 only 38%. Of course, by that point their situation would be so desperate that they would be fortunate -- and probably unlikely -- to obtain any terms of partition.

 


Race: Reality and Denial




By
Richard McCulloch




 

(A shorter version of this article was published in the Winter, 2002 issue of The Occidental Quarterly at http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html)
In July of 2001 I went to see the movie Cats and Dogs. I arrived early enough to see the advertisements that are shown before the previews, and was surprised by one that boldly stated, "Wake up. Race is a myth. Racism is real. www.endracism.org." The effect was surreal. How could this Orwellian falsehood be on the screen? I had encountered examples of racial denial for almost a decade, but mostly on the fringes, in places not noticed by the masses, in obscure publications and websites. But seeing it on the silver screen made it seem so mainstream, so acceptable, so normal.
As an American of Northern European (Nordish) ancestry who loves my race and wants it to be preserved, I have long been concerned by its declining prospects. But sitting in that theater the continued existence of my race seemed more uncertain than ever, for nothing is more certain than that the political purpose of race denial is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the end, if not of every race, most certainly of my race. How can it be that the existence of that which I love and wish to preserve is being denied in this mainstream setting? How can it be possible that this mid-American audience is being given a powerful message that the object of my love and devotion does not exist, is not real, and that it is not acceptable to believe that it does exist?
If this message is now appearing on the screen of a movie theater, what is the message in the education system? The current "politically correct" teaching on the subject of racial reality is represented by the highly acclaimed 2003 PBS documentary series Race: The Power of an Illusion, and its matching website at http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm, produced by Larry Adelman and widely distributed and used throughout the education system. The essential message of this series is found in its ten points, or "quick facts," which are discussed in order below. The title of the series reveals its conclusion and message, that race is an illusion, not real, and a harmful illusion at that. In its December, 2003 issue Scientific American had an article on the subject which essentially supported the now "politically correct" position. The deceptive nature of this semi-orchestrated campaign is symbolized by the cover illustration. Of the six female faces supposedly representing individuals from different races only one face is real, a real person, the one of the Nordish blue-eyed blonde in the upper right corner. The other five faces are computer-generated modifications of the real face and not real examples of any race, although they are represented as such. The deceptive effect is to minimize the real differences of race by "nordicizing" all the races, making them appear to be much more similar to the Nordish race than they actually are.



How did all this come to pass? The denial of racial realities is nothing new. It has been around at least since the time of Franz Boas. It is the degree of denial that is new. Denying racial reality has taken many forms over the last century, escalating in degree as the cultural dominance and control of its promoters has grown. There has been denial of many racial differences, especially the mental differences that cannot be seen. There has been denial of the scope and magnitude of racial differences in an attempt to minimize them. There has been denial of the consequences of multiracial conditions, particularly racial intermixture and its racially destructive effects. Now it is the very reality and existence of the different races, of tangible things that can be seen, that is denied.
Given the history of escalating race denial over the preceding century, we should have expected this development. We should have seen it coming. Perhaps when we each first came across a claim that races were not real we dismissed it as incredulous nonsense not worthy of concern or response, as something no one would take seriously. But we should have taken it seriously. Now it is approaching a position of politically correct dominance in the media and academia, with all that this means. The very belief in the existence of different races is now in some quarters being equated with racism, and from there reductionist logic and causation link it ultimately with genocide. In such quarters they beg their argument by explicitly stating that the reality of race must be denied in order to end racism and prevent genocide. [Note #1]
It is a sad commentary on our worsening situation that the reality of race is even doubted, much less increasingly denied by the dominant culture. The denial of race is actually just the latest escalation in the efforts by the currently dominant multiracialist power structure to preempt, block and prevent consideration of Nordish racial interests and the real issues that confront the Nordish race, including the ultimate issue of racial preservation or survival. We have long been familiar with other tactics used for the same purpose which include, but are not limited to:
1. The minimization or trivialization of racial differences to portray them, and race itself, as having no meaning, importance or value, and thus as not worth preserving. The claim that race does not exist, or is not real, is the ultimate form of this tactic.
2. The claim that the Nordish race is already mixed. This is asserted both for the Nordish race as a whole and for specific individuals who do not appear to be mixed, although these claims are usually not specific or substantiated by evidence. These claims are presented as proof that racial mixture does not harm the Nordish race or its existence in any way, so it is not a threat and opposition to it is unjustified.

These tactics are really a cover or smokescreen to evade the real issues of Nordish racial interests, especially racial preservation. I have found that, when pressed, those who claim the Nordish race is mixed are those who want it to be mixed, and those who deny race are those who do not want race to exist, or at least do not want the Nordish race to exist. For it is the Nordish race, the race and racial type and traits of the peoples of Northern Europe, that they are specifically concerned with, and that is the central focus of their promotion of racial denial and mixture. The Nordish race is the race that the race deniers really do not want to exist, whose existence they want to destroy, and whose existence they therefore deny, even to the extent of denying the existence of race in general.
But these assertions are more than just wishful thinking by those who wish the Nordish race did not exist. They are also a means of wish fulfillment, a self-fulfilling prophecy, by preventing consideration of ultimate Nordish racial interests, for the traits that are minimized, trivialized, demeaned and denied, and by these tactics threatened with destruction, are the traits of the Nordish race. It is really the existence of the Nordish race that is being minimized, trivialized, demeaned, and denied, and the purpose of all these tactics is to prevent, evade and avoid consideration of the fact that the Nordish race is threatened with destruction. Denying the reality or existence of a race, or a people, greatly facilitates their destruction and reduction to non-existence.
I have been involved in many discussions, debates or arguments concerning the reality of race since my website (www.racialcompact.com) went on the internet in early 1998. Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European extinction. [Note #2] More recently my involvement in these arguments has tended to be indirect, as visitors to my site who have used the material they found there in their own exchanges with race deniers have sought my advice and assistance.
These arguments usually follow a similar pattern. The race denier begins with attempts to discredit the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of all one's physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of classification. The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from their argument, either because they do not know how to define it, or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity has been created, they deny the reality of race. But if you press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of races -- the apparent focus of their argument -- but the issue of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue for them is the same as it is for me, the preservation of the Northern European peoples and their racial types. The difference is that they are against Northern European preservation and I am for it.
A common tactic of the race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of race, without setting a standard of what would constitute sufficient proof. This is related to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race. Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an effective refutation of the race denial argument.
So, what is this thing called race? To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical appearance or phenotype. Race thus refers both to populations and to the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply, those populations and phenotypes to which it refers. This is, admittedly, circular logic, like Gertrude Stein's "a rose is a rose is a rose." But the existence and reality of things that are tangible, material, physical, and visible, that are clearly obvious to operable senses, is normally accepted as self-evident and not requiring external proof, as the proof is self-contained, in themselves. Reasonable people do not question their existence, or require proof of their reality based on some arbitrary standard. If the existence of something is denied, and the object is presented, its existence must be admitted. To deny the existence of something that is visibly present is unreasonable. The object that is denied by race deniers, race, is visibly present in abundance, both as individuals and as populations, far beyond any reasonable requirement.

The Evidence for Racial Reality
But if more proof is asked for, what kind of proof is required for the reality of race? What standard of proof is reasonable? If concrete proof is not enough, and the proof of abstract logic is required, the best proof is a convergence of proofs -- proof from different and independent lines of evidence that converge in mutual and consistent support for the same conclusion. Among the convergent lines of evidence that are consistent in mutually supporting the reality of race are geography, history, phenotype, evolutionary theory, forensic science and, most recently, genetic studies.
Races are geographically real. They are geographical populations, with a geographic distribution. They are, or were until recent times, geographically separated from other races. Their origin and existence is connected to a specific geographic region they have historically inhabited. The connection of geography and race is seen in the strong correlation between the degree of racial difference and the geographic distance separating the original habitats of the different races. The geographic connection occurs because races are breeding populations forming a common gene pool and stable racial environment over many generations, and before modern transportation advances this required that the native homeland of the race be geographically limited and compact. The continuation or preservation of the race also required geographic separation from other racial elements to prevent intermixture or replacement that would alter or destroy the race. This meant that other races had to be excluded from its geographic range, that its possession of its native homeland had to be racially exclusive. This exclusivity did not have to be total or absolute, but sufficient to create and preserve the race. Although migrations of racial elements outside of their original homelands have occurred, especially in the last five centuries, often intermixing with other races to create intermediate forms, the populations that remain in the original homelands act as control groups or standards of reference for racial classification and study. Emigrant populations that expanded the geographic range of their race into new habitats, and restricted their reproduction within their own race, continued to be of the same race as those in the native homelands, and in their racial heritage and origins they remained identified with those homelands. These geographic populations are facts on the ground, existing in the real world, in their own part of the world exactly where one would expect to find them, there for all to see. They are facts that can be observed and measured as part of objective reality, marked by their distinguishing physical characteristics or racial phenotype. National Geographic magazine, in its long history of publication, has published countless articles that irrefutably document the geographic connection, distribution, and reality, of race.
Races are historically real. The major races of Europe, Asia and Africa that we know today, as well as many of their subraces, are documented in the written historical record from its beginning over three thousand years ago, and in the artistic record over a thousand years earlier. The races of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific enter the historical record from the moment when the first Western explorers found them. From the dawn of history to our own time the existence, geographic location, distinguishing physical features and movements of these races have been a recognizable part of the historical record. Races are also prehistorically real. Modern pre-historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have pushed our knowledge of the modern races back thousands of years before the beginnings of written history. It is clear that the races we know today have existed, in a continuum of generations, for many thousands of years.
Races are phenotypically real. Phenotype, the physical part of race that we can see, and so must admit that race is at least that if nothing more, is tangibly and visibly real. It is also the visible proof that race is inherited, that it is genetically transmitted from generation to generation with scientific consistency and predictability. This means that race is genetically real, determined by the genes, that it is in the genes and from the genes, which means that race is a biological phenomenon, and biologically real. Phenotype -- the genetically inherited and determined traits of physical appearance -- is also the definitive racial identifier used to classify race. Every race has a certain range of different phenotypes or racial elements within its population. But there is no phenotypic overlap between the major racial divisions of humanity. If you took three groups of one hundred individuals each from Nigeria, England and China -- with each group being representative of their native populations ­ the average person would have no difficulty identifying which group was which. Even if they were all mixed together, the average person would have no difficulty separating them by phenotype into their correct racial category with complete accuracy. However, phenotypic overlap is often found between the racial subdivisions within the major racial divisions. If you took three groups of one hundred individuals each from three different subdivisions of the Caucasian racial division, represented by England, Italy and Syria -- with each group being representative of their native populations -- the average person would again have no difficulty identifying which group was which. Although there would be some phenotypic overlap between the English and Italian groups, and between the Italian and Syrian groups, each group would contain a large majority of phenotypes that would be rare or absent from the other groups. If the groups were mixed together the average person would probably be less than completely accurate in separating the English from the Italians, or the Italians from the Syrians, but it is likely that he would be completely accurate in separating the English from the Syrians. Phenotype proves that race is real. But it also shows that part of that reality is that race is a continuum, marked by many subdivisions with subtle gradations of racial change that correlate with spatial and temporal distance.
On page 211 of their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004), authors Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele explain the role of phenotype in racial classification. Unlike those biologists who make politically correct denials of the scientific reality of race without providing any standard of what is required for race to be considered real, Sarich and Miele do provide us with standards for race for non-human species that are accepted by biologists. There is no accepted genetic standard as genetic knowledge is still too incomplete (as the authors point out, until very recently dogs could not be genetically distinguished from wolves), but there is a long-accepted phenotypic standard based on "sorting accuracy." Basically, by this standard, if the biologists who specialize in the study of a species can sort two different populations of the species based on phenotype or physical traits with 75% or more accuracy they are considered to be separate races. The authors point out that although races, unlike species, are not discrete, so some phenotypic overlap is to be expected of them, the fact is that there are at least twenty human populations that can be phenotypically distinguished from each other with a sorting accuracy of 100%. By the actual standards applied by biologists to non-human species, that of 75% or more sorting accuracy, there are literally hundreds of separate human races. The authors state that most people could even achieve close to 100% sorting accuracy in distinguishing the populations of Athens and Copenhagen. I would add that most people could also probably achieve a greater than 75% sorting accuracy in distinguishing the indigenous populations of London and Paris. So it is only by hypocritical double standards, applying different standards to the human species than non-human species, that biologists can deny the reality of human races. This standard allows the authors to state: "if we employ a straightforward definition of race -- for example, a population within a species that can be readily distinguished from other such populations on genetic grounds alone (that is, using only heritable features) -- then there can be no doubt of the existence of a substantial number of human races."
In my discussions with race deniers I find that they almost never provide an accurate definition of race, and usually no definition at all, so my first step is to both demand and provide an accurate definition. Sarich and Miele note this problem when they begin "this trip out of political correctness and into reality" by providing an accurate working definition of race, as follows: "Races are populations, or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features" (page 207).
Evolutionary theory supports the reality of human races. It assumes that the extent of biological variation within a species correlates with the extent of its geographic range. The greater the geographic range the greater the degree of biological variation. Race is biological variation. The human species has had a hemispheric geographic range for perhaps 100,000 years and a global geographic range for at least 10,000 years, and displays the high degree of biological variation that evolutionary theory expects and predicts from such a widely distributed population. Biological variation is the driving force behind evolution and the creation of new species. It is caused by the separation of populations by geographic distance or barriers. It would be inconsistent with evolutionary theory if the human species, with its unsurpassed level of geographical population separation, did not display a highly developed degree of biological variation, developing or evolving into different races. There is a logical progression to evolution. It is continuous, from phylum to class to order to family to genus to species to race. It does not stop with species. It creates races, which develop in turn into new species. Race is the evolutionary stage of a population before it becomes a different species. To deny it is to claim that evolution has stopped.
Forensic science supports the reality of the human races, and can racially identify race from skeletal remains with great accuracy, as described by forensic scientist George Gill: [Note #3]
The "reality of race" depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established -- major races: black, white, etc. -- then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
Race is genetically real. Genetics is the newest branch of evidence to support the reality of race. Ironically, genetics is the line of evidence that race deniers favor, in fact it is often the only one that they will accept, in the belief that it supports their contention that race is not real. In reality, and in spite of the obligatory protestations to the popular press by geneticists to the contrary, race does exist in the genes and is genetically determined. There are also many genetic differences between the races in genes that are not determinative of race. There are countless genetic studies that show racial differences in the frequencies of different gene sequences and genetic traits, although the term population is commonly used as a euphemism for race.
The primary reason that race deniers claim that genetics proves that race is not real is the percentage of genetic differences between the races. They claim that the percentages are too small to constitute different races. They do not say what standard is applied to determine what percentage of genetic difference is required to constitute a race, only that the difference between human populations is too small. But no percentage of genetic difference has ever been asserted as a basis for racial classification. Indeed, until the last two decades scientists and laymen alike had little idea what the percentage of genetic differences was between races, or between species. When they make this argument, race deniers do not mention that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is also much smaller than the layman would tend to expect. Most genetic studies show a genetic difference of 1.24% to 1.7% between humans and chimpanzees, with the most commonly cited figure being 1.6% [Note #4]. But this represents far more than the genetic difference between races. It is more than the genetic difference between species, and even more than the genetic difference between genera. It represents the genetic difference between taxonomic Families, because humans and chimpanzees are in different biological Families. Humans are in the Family Hominidae (of which they are the only surviving species) and chimpanzees, our species' closest living relatives, are in the Family Pongidae.
What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races? Perhaps the best study to date on this subject is that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury (1993) [Note #5]. Nei and Roychoudhury use a different methodology than that of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1988) which in their opinion "introduced unreasonable branching patterns into phylogenetic trees," a reference to Cavalli-Sforza's grouping of Northeast Asians in the same cluster with Caucasians rather than with Southern Chinese and Southeast Asians. The following percentages of genetic differences between human populations and the phylogenetic tree below are from their study. The chimpanzee percentage is added for context and a standard of comparison.

If one were to spatially visualize the first column of the above scale, with a German standing at a distance of 20 feet from an Englishman, a Finn would stand at a distance of 50 feet, an Italian at 70 feet, a northern Indian at 200 feet, a Japanese at 610 feet, a North American Amerindian at 760 feet, a Nigerian at 1,330 feet, and a Chimpanzee at 16,000 feet. The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. [Note #6] The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. The .061% genetic difference between the English and Japanese or Korean populations is 3.8% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. Seen in this context, these are very significant genetic differences. It is also worth noting that for both the English and the Japanese, representing Europeans and Northeast Asians, the greatest percentage of genetic difference is with the Nigerians, and that the degree of this difference, .133% for the English and .149% for the Japanese, is very similar. By comparison, the English and Japanese degree of difference from the Australian Aborigine population, .122% for the English and .062% for the Japanese, is very different, with the English-Australoid difference twice as great as the Japanese-Australoid difference. The phylogenetic tree below graphically illustrates the genetic relationships of the different populations.

Phylogenetic tree (above) for 26 representative human populations from Nei and Roychoudhury (1993). The major divisions of human populations are Africans (A), Caucasians (B), Greater Asians (C), Amerindians (D) and Australopapuans (E).

This phylogenetic tree shows that genetic studies group the populations of humanity into superclusters and clusters that are consistent with the traditional racial divisions and subdivisions, providing genetic proof that race is real and that the traditional racial classifications are accurate. The political statements made by geneticists to the popular press to the effect that their studies show that "race is not a valid scientific concept," or that "race has no genetic or scientific basis," should be seen in this context and perspective. Such politically motivated statements cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific process as practiced by these geneticists, tending to discredit their studies.
A secondary genetic argument of the race deniers is attributed to Harvard professor Richard Lewontin, who first proposed it in 1972. This is the claim, based on a standard measure of variation known as "Wright's fixation index" or FST, that only 15% of human genetic variability is racial, or between different populations and unique to each race, while 85% is non-racial or race neutral, between individuals and common to every race, presumably from the beginning of the modern human species. Lewontin and others have used this measurement to argue that the variation between different human populations is too small to justify classifying them as different subspeces or races, with the implication that the Nordish part of the 15% of genetic variability that is racial is expendable for the achievement of a world in which race, or at least the Northern European or Nordish race, does not exist. This claim is really a value judgment, and one which has been increasingly adopted as politically correct by the academic community, consistent with its ongoing Boasian agenda to minimize, trivialize and deny the importance or reality of race and racial differences, and thereby delegitimize and discredit racial preservationist concerns. It is repeated as point 5 of the 10 points in the PBS series Race: The Power of an Illusion, discussed below. But those who make this value judgment, beginning with Lewontin, fail to provide a standard for the FST measurement for context and comparison. This is for good reason, as Lewontin's value judgment is not supported by, or consistent with, the FST measurement system itself, but contradicts it. Addressing this issue, the degree of variation between different human populations, the inventor of the FST measure, the late Sewell Wright, stated emphatically that "if racial differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies." (Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn, 2006, pp. 191-193.) And in fact this is the case, as the populations of many other species with levels of variation similar to that found between different human populations are classified as subspecies. (see http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html)
Finally, there is also the question of whether the FST measurement system is really the most accurate method of measuring the variation between populations. Sarich and Miele (Race: The Reality of Human Differences, p. 169) detail Harry Harpending's 2002 calculation showing that the true proportion of human genetic variability that is racial is 32.5%, not 15% as measured by the FST system, upon which standard the "Lewontin fallacy" is wrongly claimed to be based:
First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons. The increase in variability in between-population comparisons is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent [not 85 percent] that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 = 32.5 percent [as opposed to 15/100 = 15 percent]
The cumulative effect of theses converging lines of evidence should make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that race is real. But before we come to the conclusion that the claims of the race deniers are beyond reason, some of their more common arguments should be examined.

Arguments for Racial Denial
(1) The genetic ignorance argument. We do not yet know what genes are actually involved in determining racial differences, or how they do it. Race deniers use this to claim that race is not genetically real. Yet no one can reasonably dispute that race consists of inherited traits, transmitted by parents to their children, and inherited traits must be genetic traits, as the only means known by science to transmit inherited traits is through the genes. Also, we do not yet know what genes are involved in causing many diseases that are known to be inherited, yet because we know they are inherited we know they are caused by genes, and the search for these genes is the purpose of most genetic studies.
(2) Argument by trivialization. This argument admits the reality of population differences, both physical and genetic, but claims they are of no importance and are not great enough to qualify as racial differences. This argument attempts to make the issue of racial reality a subjective value judgment, and belittles the biological variation that exists between the diverse human populations as being of no value or importance, and not a legitimate matter for concern, love or devotion. Basically, this argument asserts that the only human traits that are valuable or important are those traits shared by all humans in common, while racial differences, those traits that are unique to particular populations and not shared by all, are of no significance.
(3) Argument by false definition. Race deniers frequently confuse race and species in their argument, setting a standard for race that is the same as the standard for species, implicitly applying the definition of species to race. Since humanity is one species, with no different human species, it is then argued by false definition that there are no different human races, defining race out of existence. The distinguishing difference between species and race, of course, is that species cannot interbreed, or at least do not interbreed under natural conditions, while races can and do interbreed when there is extensive contact between them. Race deniers wrongly use the existence of hybrid or racially-mixed individuals and populations, which prove that the different human populations interbreed and are therefore races rather than species, as proof that all humans are of one race, not different races, confusing race with species and defining race out of existence. As one recent study states:
If biological is defined as genetic then a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races.[I]t is difficult to conceive of a definition of 'biological' that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation. [Note #7]
An example of the effort to define race out of existence can be found on the website of Palomar College. [Note #8] It sets up a strawman, a false definition and very narrow and strict standard of what constitutes race, allowing it to deny the reality of race on the grounds that human variation does not meet that standard or definition:
"Most physical anthropologists would agree that this human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was in our prehistoric past."
But if races did exist, were real, in our prehistoric past, when did they cease to exist and stop being real? What happened to them, that caused them to no longer be races? How did it happen? When did it happen? What is the standard that determines what degree of human variation is sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, for race to be considered to be real? When was this standard created, and who created it? What standard, if any, did it replace? Did the reality of race ever depend on a standard set by physical anthropologists? Was not the term "race" common usage to refer to identifiable populations and individuals, and defined as those identifiable populations and individuals, long before physical anthropology existed? And if the use of the term race to refer to identifiable populations and individuals predated the existence of physical anthropology, how and why should physical anthropologists presume to redefine it out of existence? Or is it not that races have changed, but that the racial composition of academia has changed, that classrooms, student bodies, campuses and faculties have been multiracialized, and that this multiracial environment discourages any expression of racial consciousness and identity, even the belief that race is real, as racially divisive?
So, how should race be defined? As with other things that exist, an accurate definition of race is one that describes it as it is, as it really is, as it really exists. The definitions of race in the encyclopedias and dictionaries that I grew up with described something real, race as it really is, and by those definitions race exists and is real. Race and the reality of race have not changed. It is the definitions of race that have changed, as the race deniers attempt to change the definition of race to redefine it out of existence. If race does exist as described in earlier standard definitions, but does not exist as described in the new definition of the race deniers, that means that the new definition is wrong and does not accurately describe the reality of race, not that race is not real. An accurate definition describes something as it is, not by some abstract concept of what it should be, and then declare that it does not exist when it does not match that concept. Race is not an abstract concept but something that is tangibly and visibly real. The race deniers who say they do not believe in the "concept" of race know this. They know what the common usage of the term race refers to, what the accurate definition of race is, and what we mean when we refer to race. They know what we are talking about, and they know it is real. But the race deniers are too clever by half. They know the only way they can deny race is to create a false definition under which race does not exist, and by which they can pretend to refute the reality of race. The reasons for their success in this argument, like their motives, are political, not scientific.
(4) Argument by false methods of racial identification and classification. Similar to #3 above, this argument claims that the traditional typological methods of racial identification and classification based on morphological traits or phenotype is arbitrary. It contends that other methods would yield very different results, classifying different types ­ as measured by these different methods ­ into groupings that differ from the traditional racial groupings, making them meaningless and arbitrary. Blood groups, for example, are not distributed in a manner that coincides with the traditional racial groupings. But the traditional methods of racial classification by racial typology or physical appearance are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on, reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively observable and verifiable reality. They are the traits that differ between these real populations, the differences in physical appearance by which these populations can be accurately distinguished and identified, and by which they are and have been accurately distinguished and identified for millennia. Those traits that are not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations are not valid methods of racial identification in the real world.
(5) The continuum and differentiation arguments. This is an argument based on the real complexity of race, that refutes the many simplistic concepts and systems of racial classification and then pretends that it has refuted the reality of race. The reality is that race is a complex of multiple continuums with gradations of intermediate, hybrid or mixed types (called clines) between the distinct types at the ends of the continuums. These clines are geographically distributed in clinal zones located between the regions inhabited by the distinct types. Race deniers argue that these intermediate, mixed or clinal types make scientifically accurate differentiation between the races impossible. Dividing lines between races in the intermediate ranges of the racial continuums are often difficult to determine and appear arbitrary, especially in simplistic classification systems that attempt to fit all human populations into a few major races. The race deniers exploit this complexity to discredit the accuracy of the simplistic classification systems and then deny the reality of the complexity. But the existence of continuums or clines, rather than disproving the reality of race, is actually a characteristic of race and thus serves as proof of its reality. If there were no racial continuums or clines there would be no intermediate forms, no interbreeding between the races, and humanity would be divided into species rather than races. Without different races there could be no continuums or clines between them, so the existence of continuums is proof of the existence of races. As stated in the study cited above, "The existence of such intermediate groups should not overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level." [Note #9]
(6) The scientific obsolescence argument. This argument claims that the idea of race is based on a false, outdated and obsolete concept of science from a previous era, e.g., the "colonial era," the 17th century, etc. In other words, it says that belief in race is backward, outdated and "old-fashioned," an adjective that has great weight with those who like to see themselves as advanced thinkers. It cites false beliefs or myths about race from those earlier eras that are easily refuted as proof of this claim, and by refuting these false beliefs pretends that it has refuted the reality of race. Every branch of science has suffered from many false beliefs and theories during its history. Physics, biology and medicine began in the 6th-4th centuries B.C. and each has had a long history of false beliefs and theories, yet these sciences are still recognized as valid. They are not regarded as obsolete because of discarded false beliefs.
(7) The social or political construct argument. Race deniers and deconstructionists often claim that race is a social or political construct that has no biological or genetic reality. This argument includes the claim that the idea of race was created in America, with the first contact of Europeans with other major races and the subsequent centuries of their political and social inequality, and that America exported its concept of race to Europe and the rest of the world. This argument (which shares some ideas with #6 above) often gains credence from biologists and geneticists who try to avoid the political controversies surrounding race by claiming it is not relevant to their studies. But it collapses when confronted with an accurate definition of race and the most basic evidence of racial reality. The irony is that the idea that race is not real has itself been socially and politically constructed during the last several decades. The following newspaper article from 1996 shows this process of construction and many of the race denial arguments and techniques, with my comments in brackets: [Note #10]
WASHINGTON -- Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups. [What 'spectacular" advances? Genetic studies show the validity of race, and other sources claim that "most scientists" accept that validity.] Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents [Argument #1 above. Not inherited from parents? No scientist is quoted as saying this.]...."Race has no basic biological reality," said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist.Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. "In the social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is not," said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley. [Argument #7]
The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to contradict common sense. [Races not the product of genes? As in the similar statement above, no scientist is quoted as saying this.] "The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no such thing as race," said C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. "The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves intellectuals." [The pre-emptive argument, #13 below]
The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. "Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology...have completely revamped the traditional notions," said Solomon Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed that humans could be sorted into a few...inherited racial types [The obsolescence argument, #6 above]....As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if they believe in the existence of separate biological races....As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race....[T]he revised concept of race...reflects recent scientific work with DNA...."We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level," said a Yale geneticist, Kenneth Kidd....[which]"support the concept that you can't draw boundaries around races." [The continuum argument, #5 above]
Most of the arguments for race denial are present in this report. The two statements that race is not genetically inherited from parents, and is not the product of genes, are central to the contention that race is socially or politically constructed, not biologically constructed, and thus not biologically, genetically or scientifically real. No scientist is actually quoted in this report making these statements, but they are placed amid quotes from scientists, creating the impression that this is what scientists say. If the claim is true that race is not inherited from parents and ancestors, transmitted consistently from generation to generation, then it is not genetic or biological, and the contention that it is socially or politically constructed will stand. But if race is inherited from parents and ancestors then it must be genetic, and if genetic it is biological, genetically and biologically determined and constructed, and cannot be socially or politically constructed. If race is seen at the level of individual phenotypes it is obvious that it is consistently inherited from the parents and ancestors. The inheritance of race is so consistent that obvious exceptions to it might not even exist.
So what is the source of the contention that race is a social and political construct, created by the social and political environment and not by inherited genes? This contention is very similar to the theory of Lysenkoism, and this similarity reveals its common source. Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976) was a Soviet biologist who theorized that environmentally acquired characteristics could be inherited. This theory, by denying genetic determinism, supported the possibility of achieving an egalitarian utopia by environmental engineering. This coincided with Marxist ideology, so Lysenko's theory became biological dogma promoted and enforced by the Soviet government. The result was that Soviet biology was hampered in the study of genetics, the real means of inheritance, and fell behind the rest of the world. The current contention that race is not genetically determined, not biologically real, but is socially or politically constructed, derives in large part from the same ethno-racial source, and the same political motive and purpose, as Marxist ideology. In fact, race denial is even more radical in its rejection of reality than Lysenkoism. In pursuit of its egalitarian vision it does not merely claim that race can be altered by the inheritance of environmentally acquired traits, but that race is not inherited in any biological sense at all, that biology and genes have no role in its construction or creation. It contends instead that race is totally constructed (created) by environmental factors (i.e., political and social factors). The Marxist ideological tradition is the logical source of this contention.
This Marxist connection is given further support by the ethnic dynamics of race denial. The victim of race denial is the European races, and especially the Northern European race. It is they, and only they, who are actually threatened with dispossession and destruction by multiracialism, a process assisted by race denial. The beneficiaries of race denial, those who want to "abolish the white race" -- in the terms of Noel Ignatiev, a long-time Marxist-Jewish activist for both Marxism and the destruction of the European races under cover of the Marxist theory that races are social classes rather than biological populations -- are non-Europeans. Their classic Marxist revolutionary goal is to overthrow, dispossess, destroy and replace the European race, and in Marxist fashion they define it as a social class, socially constructed, rather than a race. Their class enemy, the oppressive and privileged "social class" that they want to abolish, is the "white" race. In the context in which they use the term, "white" refers only to the European peoples, and especially the Northern European peoples. There always was an ethno-racial agenda behind Marxism, and the Marxist-Jewish promoters of that agenda have caused great harm to the European peoples over the last century. [Note #11] Noel Ignatiev proves that this anti-Northern European Marxist racial agenda is still operating against the interests of the Northern European race.
Since the 1960s the racial agenda of Marxism, and the Marxist political "Left," has become more obvious. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century the "Left" identified the aristocracy and "bourgeois capitalists" as the "class enemies," "exploiters" or "oppressors" to be overthrown by revolution and destroyed. In the late twentieth century it increasingly targeted the "white" race as the enemy, as an oppressive and evil racial elite that must be overthrown by any means necessary. Consistent with this view, the "Left" has revealed a distinctly anti-Northern European bias, causing it to single-out the Northern European race for marginalization, devaluation, dispossession and extinction. By the end of the 1960s this bias had become explicit, as illustrated by the following account concerning the militant Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society:
I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention, and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, "Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies." At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, "Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies." I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down. [Note #12]
By the end of the 1960s Racial Marxism, focused on race rather than class, was explicit. Perhaps it was too explicit. So it sought cover by disguising itself in the classic Marxist jargon of class struggle, only now the class enemy was the "white" or Northern European race, redefined as a class. In defining the Northern European race, or "white" race, as a social class, Racial Marxists theorized that the "white" race was politically and socially constructed by its position as a privileged and oppressive social class exploiting other classes that were socially defined as non-white. According to this theory the "white" race did not exist genetically or biologically, but only as a ruling social class. Those who were members of the ruling class were "white" while those who were not members were non-white. By this theory the "white" race only exists when there is another class defined as non-white that is politically and socially below it that it rules and oppresses. Also according to this theory the "white" race only came into existence when Europeans made contact with non-European peoples during their conquest and colonization of the Americas, and established themselves as a ruling political and social class over the native and other non-European peoples. The Europeans then became "white" and the non-Europeans became non-whites. The concept of race was then socially and politically constructed in the Americas to legitimize and secure the ruling position of the "white" social class.
This theory is blatantly simplistic in its reduction of race into two groups: "white" and non-white. The peoples of East Asia and Central Africa certainly regard themselves as different races, as do the native peoples of the Americas. But the Racial Marxists cannot admit any differentiation other than "white" and non-white. To do so would refute their definition of race as socially constructed classes. Also, the European races did not change biologically, genetically or racially in the 16th or 17th century Americas when and where they began to exist in close contact with other races for the first time. European-Americans of the 17th and 18th centuries were not biologically, genetically or racially different from their pre-16th century European ancestors, or from their European contemporaries. Irish-Americans of the 20th century were not biologically, genetically or racially changed from their pre-16th century Irish ancestors, or from their contemporaries in Ireland. The dialectic of Racial Marxism claims the "white" race only came into existence with the colonization of the Americas by Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries. But what historical race inhabited Europe in the Middle Ages and before if not the "white" race, the biological ancestors of the people now classified as "white?" If this were simply a matter of semantics, with Racial Marxists using the term "white" for class rather than race, and using other terms for racial classification, their argument would have some credibility. But what they say is that race is socially and politically constructed, that this began in the Americas in the 16th and 17th century, and then spread to Europe and the world.
It can be argued that the awareness of human racial differences began in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries as the different races first came into contact. But the different races existed, were real, long before they came into contact with each other. The contact did not create the races. It created awareness and knowledge of the different races, and that led to the study and classification of race. Contrary to the theories of Racial Marxism, America did not create race, nor did it give race to Europe. America created multiracialism, different races living together in close contact in the same territory, and in the second half of the 20th century multiracialism spread to Europe, largely through the efforts of the Racial Marxists. In the America of previous centuries the existence of different social classes based on race restricted and slowed the process of racial intermixture that is the logical consequence of multiracialism. But in the second half of the 20th century, largely through the efforts of the Racial Marxists, the social class barriers between the races that restricted intermixture were attacked and largely removed, making it possible for the full consequences of multiracialism -- Northern European racial destruction through intermixture -- to be realized. Race denial is part of this process of Northern European racial destruction, conceptually destroying the Northern European race to promote its physical destruction.
The social and political construct argument is not about social class but about race. It is not about science, but about politics, racial politics. It did not originate from any scientific discovery, but from the rise of multiracialism and the racial transformation it is causing. It is not motivated or driven by scientific interests, but by the ethno-racial interests of the rising non-European groups. Those who make this argument are not destroying or abolishing a social class. They are trying to abolish or destroy the Northern European race.
Race is biological, a creation of genetics, biology, nature and life. It is biologically constructed through evolution by the same process of divergence that has created all the diversity of life. The legal status of being a citizen of a multiracial country is politically and socially constructed, a creation of men and their laws rather than biology and nature. This is nowhere more evident than in a mass multiracial naturalization ceremony in which a racially mixed group of applicants become naturalized citizens. The applicants of different races can change their citizenship and national status by a simple legal procedure. But their race is determined by their genetic inheritance from their ancestors, and cannot be changed.
(8) The argument that the individual variation within populations is greater than the variation between the averages of the different populations or, put another way, that most human variation occurs between individuals rather than races. This is another attempt to minimize the significance and value of racial differences. But it compares extremes with averages, and the traits it compares are not the traits that are racially definitive, not traits that characterize any real geographic population, not the traits by which we identify races and distinguish them from each other.
(9) Argument by intimidation. This is often the first method of argument, hoping that the opponent will cower and retreat before a verbal onslaught of insults, threats and accusations, and that a substantive argument would not need to be made. If it fails, and the more substantive argument also fails, it is also often the argument of last resort as the race denier reverts to it.
(10) Argument by distortion. Race deniers frequently distort, falsify or misrepresent the arguments for the reality of race, including racial definitions and systems of classification, in part to create a strawman that can be easily refuted, and in part simply to cause confusion.
(11) One-sided argument. This is the milieu in which race denial thrives and in which it has been promoted, an Orwellian intellectual milieu of de facto censorship in which the arguments of racial denial are stated as simple fact and no counter-argument, challenge or rebuttal is permitted. Given that many, if not all, of the race denial arguments are fallacies that could be easily refuted, this is probably also the milieu required for race denial to succeed. The above newspaper article is an example of this technique, making many questionable statements that are not questioned because the report is completely one-sided.
(12) Begging the argument. The theater advertisement mentioned at the beginning of this essay is an example of this, the claim that the reality of race has to be denied in order to end racism. According to this argument, those who believe in the reality of race are perpetuating and abetting racism and giving aid and comfort to its practitioners. If one is opposed to racism and wants to end it, this argument begs, one must deny the reality of race. As forensic scientist George Gill observes:
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. [Note #13]
(13) Pre-emptive or anticipatory argument. As in the quote of C. Loring Brace in the above newspaper article, this technique anticipates the normal reaction to the argument and pre-empts it by stating it first. This advance statement is simply presumed to refute the anticipated reaction although it does not actually address or answer it.
(14) Argument from authority. When attempting to convince people that what they see with their own eyes is not real, does not exist, and is not to be believed, it helps to be supported by supposed experts and authorities who are presumed to have superior knowledge of the subject. Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" is the classic description of this technique, and the growing denial of the reality of race, supported by statements from scientists who are the supposed experts and authorities, proves that he did not exaggerate. The above newspaper article is an excellent example of this technique. Yet much of the racial denial by the scientific community is intellectually dishonest. Scientists still study race at the genetic level, only they do not use the word "race," using the word "population" instead. The geographic populations they study, which they prefer in native and unmixed (i.e., racially pure or distinct) form, are of course races, and have been referred to as races for centuries. But modern scientists do not study racial phenotypes, the traits that identify and define race, that are race, and therefore should not be regarded as experts or authorities on racial typology or identification. Their ability and knowledge in this area may be no greater than the average person. Yet one does not need to be an expert to recognize race by phenotype. Everyone does it, including the scientists who say that race is too ambiguous to recognize. All of us racially identify every person we look at, automatically, unintentionally and involuntarily. This is natural, a fact of nature. We all have the important ability to recognize our own kind and distinguish it from other kind. Given the focus of this ability, it is very accurate at distinguishing our own kind or race from other races, and less accurate at distinguishing other races from each other. We know our own kind, our own race, best. This is where the so-called ambiguity of racial identification by phenotype is found. But the people of other races are able to distinguish their own race from other races with great accuracy. Their racial identification is not ambiguous to them, but as distinct and real as our race is to us.
The scientists who deny the accuracy of racial typology use it to racially identify people in their everyday lives, outside of their specialty, as much as the rest of us. So why the denial of something they have done all their lives? Why the claim that what they do all the time cannot be done? Most of the same scientists who now deny the reality of race made no such denial, and found no difficulty or ambiguity in racial identification, twenty or thirty years ago. So what has changed? What has happened to cause the scientifically recognized races of thirty years ago to now be denied? What discovery or addition to knowledge has proven that race does not exist? What proof was and is required for the reality of race, and why? What is the standard for race to be real, by what definition of race, and who set that standard and definition? It seems that the supposed experts about race are trying very hard to be ignorant of race, to know nothing about race, to deny race, to make themselves believe that race does not exist. So why the concerted effort to not see what is plain to all, to be racially blind? Why the exercise in scientific obscurantism? Is it because racial identification by phenotype is not a product of scientific study, and remains outside of science because scientists have not developed a scientific version of it that accounts for all the complexities of racial reality? Is it because decades of exhortations to practice racial blindness, and to be literally racially blind, are having their intended effect? Is it because the multiracialization of school and college classrooms and faculties, as well as the news media and most of the workplace, has made recognition of the reality of race, and the racial tension and division it causes, socially and politically intolerable? Is it a logical consequence of the racial revolution and transformation of the West that began in the 1960s, and of the growing power, influence, and de facto control and domination of the rising non-Northern European ethno-racial groups? Or is it a matter of ethno-racial self-interest for some, as it is for Noel Ignatiev and was for Franz Boas before him, and political self-interest for others, as it was for the Emperor's experts in the Andersen story? It is probably all of these, some more than others. But regardless of the denials of certain scientists of questionable motive, competence and integrity, the existence and reality of race is a creation and fact of nature, not science. Race existed long before science. Its existence is not dependent on science, but will continue with or without science, whether science defines it accurately or not. Those who see reality for themselves know that the scientists who deny the reality of race are wearing no clothes, despite all their scientific and expert claims to the contrary.

Response to the 10 points in the PBS series "RACE - The Power of an Illusion"



Race: Reality and Denial




By
Richard McCulloch




 

(A shorter version of this article was published in the Winter, 2002 issue of The Occidental Quarterly at http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html)
In July of 2001 I went to see the movie Cats and Dogs. I arrived early enough to see the advertisements that are shown before the previews, and was surprised by one that boldly stated, "Wake up. Race is a myth. Racism is real. www.endracism.org." The effect was surreal. How could this Orwellian falsehood be on the screen? I had encountered examples of racial denial for almost a decade, but mostly on the fringes, in places not noticed by the masses, in obscure publications and websites. But seeing it on the silver screen made it seem so mainstream, so acceptable, so normal.
As an American of Northern European (Nordish) ancestry who loves my race and wants it to be preserved, I have long been concerned by its declining prospects. But sitting in that theater the continued existence of my race seemed more uncertain than ever, for nothing is more certain than that the political purpose of race denial is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the end, if not of every race, most certainly of my race. How can it be that the existence of that which I love and wish to preserve is being denied in this mainstream setting? How can it be possible that this mid-American audience is being given a powerful message that the object of my love and devotion does not exist, is not real, and that it is not acceptable to believe that it does exist?
If this message is now appearing on the screen of a movie theater, what is the message in the education system? The current "politically correct" teaching on the subject of racial reality is represented by the highly acclaimed 2003 PBS documentary series Race: The Power of an Illusion, and its matching website at http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm, produced by Larry Adelman and widely distributed and used throughout the education system. The essential message of this series is found in its ten points, or "quick facts," which are discussed in order below. The title of the series reveals its conclusion and message, that race is an illusion, not real, and a harmful illusion at that. In its December, 2003 issue Scientific American had an article on the subject which essentially supported the now "politically correct" position. The deceptive nature of this semi-orchestrated campaign is symbolized by the cover illustration. Of the six female faces supposedly representing individuals from different races only one face is real, a real person, the one of the Nordish blue-eyed blonde in the upper right corner. The other five faces are computer-generated modifications of the real face and not real examples of any race, although they are represented as such. The deceptive effect is to minimize the real differences of race by "nordicizing" all the races, making them appear to be much more similar to the Nordish race than they actually are.



How did all this come to pass? The denial of racial realities is nothing new. It has been around at least since the time of Franz Boas. It is the degree of denial that is new. Denying racial reality has taken many forms over the last century, escalating in degree as the cultural dominance and control of its promoters has grown. There has been denial of many racial differences, especially the mental differences that cannot be seen. There has been denial of the scope and magnitude of racial differences in an attempt to minimize them. There has been denial of the consequences of multiracial conditions, particularly racial intermixture and its racially destructive effects. Now it is the very reality and existence of the different races, of tangible things that can be seen, that is denied.
Given the history of escalating race denial over the preceding century, we should have expected this development. We should have seen it coming. Perhaps when we each first came across a claim that races were not real we dismissed it as incredulous nonsense not worthy of concern or response, as something no one would take seriously. But we should have taken it seriously. Now it is approaching a position of politically correct dominance in the media and academia, with all that this means. The very belief in the existence of different races is now in some quarters being equated with racism, and from there reductionist logic and causation link it ultimately with genocide. In such quarters they beg their argument by explicitly stating that the reality of race must be denied in order to end racism and prevent genocide. [Note #1]
It is a sad commentary on our worsening situation that the reality of race is even doubted, much less increasingly denied by the dominant culture. The denial of race is actually just the latest escalation in the efforts by the currently dominant multiracialist power structure to preempt, block and prevent consideration of Nordish racial interests and the real issues that confront the Nordish race, including the ultimate issue of racial preservation or survival. We have long been familiar with other tactics used for the same purpose which include, but are not limited to:
1. The minimization or trivialization of racial differences to portray them, and race itself, as having no meaning, importance or value, and thus as not worth preserving. The claim that race does not exist, or is not real, is the ultimate form of this tactic.
2. The claim that the Nordish race is already mixed. This is asserted both for the Nordish race as a whole and for specific individuals who do not appear to be mixed, although these claims are usually not specific or substantiated by evidence. These claims are presented as proof that racial mixture does not harm the Nordish race or its existence in any way, so it is not a threat and opposition to it is unjustified.

These tactics are really a cover or smokescreen to evade the real issues of Nordish racial interests, especially racial preservation. I have found that, when pressed, those who claim the Nordish race is mixed are those who want it to be mixed, and those who deny race are those who do not want race to exist, or at least do not want the Nordish race to exist. For it is the Nordish race, the race and racial type and traits of the peoples of Northern Europe, that they are specifically concerned with, and that is the central focus of their promotion of racial denial and mixture. The Nordish race is the race that the race deniers really do not want to exist, whose existence they want to destroy, and whose existence they therefore deny, even to the extent of denying the existence of race in general.
But these assertions are more than just wishful thinking by those who wish the Nordish race did not exist. They are also a means of wish fulfillment, a self-fulfilling prophecy, by preventing consideration of ultimate Nordish racial interests, for the traits that are minimized, trivialized, demeaned and denied, and by these tactics threatened with destruction, are the traits of the Nordish race. It is really the existence of the Nordish race that is being minimized, trivialized, demeaned, and denied, and the purpose of all these tactics is to prevent, evade and avoid consideration of the fact that the Nordish race is threatened with destruction. Denying the reality or existence of a race, or a people, greatly facilitates their destruction and reduction to non-existence.
I have been involved in many discussions, debates or arguments concerning the reality of race since my website (www.racialcompact.com) went on the internet in early 1998. Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European extinction. [Note #2] More recently my involvement in these arguments has tended to be indirect, as visitors to my site who have used the material they found there in their own exchanges with race deniers have sought my advice and assistance.
These arguments usually follow a similar pattern. The race denier begins with attempts to discredit the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of all one's physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of classification. The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from their argument, either because they do not know how to define it, or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity has been created, they deny the reality of race. But if you press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of races -- the apparent focus of their argument -- but the issue of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue for them is the same as it is for me, the preservation of the Northern European peoples and their racial types. The difference is that they are against Northern European preservation and I am for it.
A common tactic of the race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of race, without setting a standard of what would constitute sufficient proof. This is related to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race. Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an effective refutation of the race denial argument.
So, what is this thing called race? To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical appearance or phenotype. Race thus refers both to populations and to the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply, those populations and phenotypes to which it refers. This is, admittedly, circular logic, like Gertrude Stein's "a rose is a rose is a rose." But the existence and reality of things that are tangible, material, physical, and visible, that are clearly obvious to operable senses, is normally accepted as self-evident and not requiring external proof, as the proof is self-contained, in themselves. Reasonable people do not question their existence, or require proof of their reality based on some arbitrary standard. If the existence of something is denied, and the object is presented, its existence must be admitted. To deny the existence of something that is visibly present is unreasonable. The object that is denied by race deniers, race, is visibly present in abundance, both as individuals and as populations, far beyond any reasonable requirement.

The Evidence for Racial Reality
But if more proof is asked for, what kind of proof is required for the reality of race? What standard of proof is reasonable? If concrete proof is not enough, and the proof of abstract logic is required, the best proof is a convergence of proofs -- proof from different and independent lines of evidence that converge in mutual and consistent support for the same conclusion. Among the convergent lines of evidence that are consistent in mutually supporting the reality of race are geography, history, phenotype, evolutionary theory, forensic science and, most recently, genetic studies.
Races are geographically real. They are geographical populations, with a geographic distribution. They are, or were until recent times, geographically separated from other races. Their origin and existence is connected to a specific geographic region they have historically inhabited. The connection of geography and race is seen in the strong correlation between the degree of racial difference and the geographic distance separating the original habitats of the different races. The geographic connection occurs because races are breeding populations forming a common gene pool and stable racial environment over many generations, and before modern transportation advances this required that the native homeland of the race be geographically limited and compact. The continuation or preservation of the race also required geographic separation from other racial elements to prevent intermixture or replacement that would alter or destroy the race. This meant that other races had to be excluded from its geographic range, that its possession of its native homeland had to be racially exclusive. This exclusivity did not have to be total or absolute, but sufficient to create and preserve the race. Although migrations of racial elements outside of their original homelands have occurred, especially in the last five centuries, often intermixing with other races to create intermediate forms, the populations that remain in the original homelands act as control groups or standards of reference for racial classification and study. Emigrant populations that expanded the geographic range of their race into new habitats, and restricted their reproduction within their own race, continued to be of the same race as those in the native homelands, and in their racial heritage and origins they remained identified with those homelands. These geographic populations are facts on the ground, existing in the real world, in their own part of the world exactly where one would expect to find them, there for all to see. They are facts that can be observed and measured as part of objective reality, marked by their distinguishing physical characteristics or racial phenotype. National Geographic magazine, in its long history of publication, has published countless articles that irrefutably document the geographic connection, distribution, and reality, of race.
Races are historically real. The major races of Europe, Asia and Africa that we know today, as well as many of their subraces, are documented in the written historical record from its beginning over three thousand years ago, and in the artistic record over a thousand years earlier. The races of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific enter the historical record from the moment when the first Western explorers found them. From the dawn of history to our own time the existence, geographic location, distinguishing physical features and movements of these races have been a recognizable part of the historical record. Races are also prehistorically real. Modern pre-historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have pushed our knowledge of the modern races back thousands of years before the beginnings of written history. It is clear that the races we know today have existed, in a continuum of generations, for many thousands of years.
Races are phenotypically real. Phenotype, the physical part of race that we can see, and so must admit that race is at least that if nothing more, is tangibly and visibly real. It is also the visible proof that race is inherited, that it is genetically transmitted from generation to generation with scientific consistency and predictability. This means that race is genetically real, determined by the genes, that it is in the genes and from the genes, which means that race is a biological phenomenon, and biologically real. Phenotype -- the genetically inherited and determined traits of physical appearance -- is also the definitive racial identifier used to classify race. Every race has a certain range of different phenotypes or racial elements within its population. But there is no phenotypic overlap between the major racial divisions of humanity. If you took three groups of one hundred individuals each from Nigeria, England and China -- with each group being representative of their native populations ­ the average person would have no difficulty identifying which group was which. Even if they were all mixed together, the average person would have no difficulty separating them by phenotype into their correct racial category with complete accuracy. However, phenotypic overlap is often found between the racial subdivisions within the major racial divisions. If you took three groups of one hundred individuals each from three different subdivisions of the Caucasian racial division, represented by England, Italy and Syria -- with each group being representative of their native populations -- the average person would again have no difficulty identifying which group was which. Although there would be some phenotypic overlap between the English and Italian groups, and between the Italian and Syrian groups, each group would contain a large majority of phenotypes that would be rare or absent from the other groups. If the groups were mixed together the average person would probably be less than completely accurate in separating the English from the Italians, or the Italians from the Syrians, but it is likely that he would be completely accurate in separating the English from the Syrians. Phenotype proves that race is real. But it also shows that part of that reality is that race is a continuum, marked by many subdivisions with subtle gradations of racial change that correlate with spatial and temporal distance.
On page 211 of their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004), authors Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele explain the role of phenotype in racial classification. Unlike those biologists who make politically correct denials of the scientific reality of race without providing any standard of what is required for race to be considered real, Sarich and Miele do provide us with standards for race for non-human species that are accepted by biologists. There is no accepted genetic standard as genetic knowledge is still too incomplete (as the authors point out, until very recently dogs could not be genetically distinguished from wolves), but there is a long-accepted phenotypic standard based on "sorting accuracy." Basically, by this standard, if the biologists who specialize in the study of a species can sort two different populations of the species based on phenotype or physical traits with 75% or more accuracy they are considered to be separate races. The authors point out that although races, unlike species, are not discrete, so some phenotypic overlap is to be expected of them, the fact is that there are at least twenty human populations that can be phenotypically distinguished from each other with a sorting accuracy of 100%. By the actual standards applied by biologists to non-human species, that of 75% or more sorting accuracy, there are literally hundreds of separate human races. The authors state that most people could even achieve close to 100% sorting accuracy in distinguishing the populations of Athens and Copenhagen. I would add that most people could also probably achieve a greater than 75% sorting accuracy in distinguishing the indigenous populations of London and Paris. So it is only by hypocritical double standards, applying different standards to the human species than non-human species, that biologists can deny the reality of human races. This standard allows the authors to state: "if we employ a straightforward definition of race -- for example, a population within a species that can be readily distinguished from other such populations on genetic grounds alone (that is, using only heritable features) -- then there can be no doubt of the existence of a substantial number of human races."
In my discussions with race deniers I find that they almost never provide an accurate definition of race, and usually no definition at all, so my first step is to both demand and provide an accurate definition. Sarich and Miele note this problem when they begin "this trip out of political correctness and into reality" by providing an accurate working definition of race, as follows: "Races are populations, or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features" (page 207).
Evolutionary theory supports the reality of human races. It assumes that the extent of biological variation within a species correlates with the extent of its geographic range. The greater the geographic range the greater the degree of biological variation. Race is biological variation. The human species has had a hemispheric geographic range for perhaps 100,000 years and a global geographic range for at least 10,000 years, and displays the high degree of biological variation that evolutionary theory expects and predicts from such a widely distributed population. Biological variation is the driving force behind evolution and the creation of new species. It is caused by the separation of populations by geographic distance or barriers. It would be inconsistent with evolutionary theory if the human species, with its unsurpassed level of geographical population separation, did not display a highly developed degree of biological variation, developing or evolving into different races. There is a logical progression to evolution. It is continuous, from phylum to class to order to family to genus to species to race. It does not stop with species. It creates races, which develop in turn into new species. Race is the evolutionary stage of a population before it becomes a different species. To deny it is to claim that evolution has stopped.
Forensic science supports the reality of the human races, and can racially identify race from skeletal remains with great accuracy, as described by forensic scientist George Gill: [Note #3]
The "reality of race" depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established -- major races: black, white, etc. -- then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
Race is genetically real. Genetics is the newest branch of evidence to support the reality of race. Ironically, genetics is the line of evidence that race deniers favor, in fact it is often the only one that they will accept, in the belief that it supports their contention that race is not real. In reality, and in spite of the obligatory protestations to the popular press by geneticists to the contrary, race does exist in the genes and is genetically determined. There are also many genetic differences between the races in genes that are not determinative of race. There are countless genetic studies that show racial differences in the frequencies of different gene sequences and genetic traits, although the term population is commonly used as a euphemism for race.
The primary reason that race deniers claim that genetics proves that race is not real is the percentage of genetic differences between the races. They claim that the percentages are too small to constitute different races. They do not say what standard is applied to determine what percentage of genetic difference is required to constitute a race, only that the difference between human populations is too small. But no percentage of genetic difference has ever been asserted as a basis for racial classification. Indeed, until the last two decades scientists and laymen alike had little idea what the percentage of genetic differences was between races, or between species. When they make this argument, race deniers do not mention that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is also much smaller than the layman would tend to expect. Most genetic studies show a genetic difference of 1.24% to 1.7% between humans and chimpanzees, with the most commonly cited figure being 1.6% [Note #4]. But this represents far more than the genetic difference between races. It is more than the genetic difference between species, and even more than the genetic difference between genera. It represents the genetic difference between taxonomic Families, because humans and chimpanzees are in different biological Families. Humans are in the Family Hominidae (of which they are the only surviving species) and chimpanzees, our species' closest living relatives, are in the Family Pongidae.
What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races? Perhaps the best study to date on this subject is that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury (1993) [Note #5]. Nei and Roychoudhury use a different methodology than that of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1988) which in their opinion "introduced unreasonable branching patterns into phylogenetic trees," a reference to Cavalli-Sforza's grouping of Northeast Asians in the same cluster with Caucasians rather than with Southern Chinese and Southeast Asians. The following percentages of genetic differences between human populations and the phylogenetic tree below are from their study. The chimpanzee percentage is added for context and a standard of comparison.

If one were to spatially visualize the first column of the above scale, with a German standing at a distance of 20 feet from an Englishman, a Finn would stand at a distance of 50 feet, an Italian at 70 feet, a northern Indian at 200 feet, a Japanese at 610 feet, a North American Amerindian at 760 feet, a Nigerian at 1,330 feet, and a Chimpanzee at 16,000 feet. The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. [Note #6] The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. The .061% genetic difference between the English and Japanese or Korean populations is 3.8% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. Seen in this context, these are very significant genetic differences. It is also worth noting that for both the English and the Japanese, representing Europeans and Northeast Asians, the greatest percentage of genetic difference is with the Nigerians, and that the degree of this difference, .133% for the English and .149% for the Japanese, is very similar. By comparison, the English and Japanese degree of difference from the Australian Aborigine population, .122% for the English and .062% for the Japanese, is very different, with the English-Australoid difference twice as great as the Japanese-Australoid difference. The phylogenetic tree below graphically illustrates the genetic relationships of the different populations.

Phylogenetic tree (above) for 26 representative human populations from Nei and Roychoudhury (1993). The major divisions of human populations are Africans (A), Caucasians (B), Greater Asians (C), Amerindians (D) and Australopapuans (E).

This phylogenetic tree shows that genetic studies group the populations of humanity into superclusters and clusters that are consistent with the traditional racial divisions and subdivisions, providing genetic proof that race is real and that the traditional racial classifications are accurate. The political statements made by geneticists to the popular press to the effect that their studies show that "race is not a valid scientific concept," or that "race has no genetic or scientific basis," should be seen in this context and perspective. Such politically motivated statements cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific process as practiced by these geneticists, tending to discredit their studies.
A secondary genetic argument of the race deniers is attributed to Harvard professor Richard Lewontin, who first proposed it in 1972. This is the claim, based on a standard measure of variation known as "Wright's fixation index" or FST, that only 15% of human genetic variability is racial, or between different populations and unique to each race, while 85% is non-racial or race neutral, between individuals and common to every race, presumably from the beginning of the modern human species. Lewontin and others have used this measurement to argue that the variation between different human populations is too small to justify classifying them as different subspeces or races, with the implication that the Nordish part of the 15% of genetic variability that is racial is expendable for the achievement of a world in which race, or at least the Northern European or Nordish race, does not exist. This claim is really a value judgment, and one which has been increasingly adopted as politically correct by the academic community, consistent with its ongoing Boasian agenda to minimize, trivialize and deny the importance or reality of race and racial differences, and thereby delegitimize and discredit racial preservationist concerns. It is repeated as point 5 of the 10 points in the PBS series Race: The Power of an Illusion, discussed below. But those who make this value judgment, beginning with Lewontin, fail to provide a standard for the FST measurement for context and comparison. This is for good reason, as Lewontin's value judgment is not supported by, or consistent with, the FST measurement system itself, but contradicts it. Addressing this issue, the degree of variation between different human populations, the inventor of the FST measure, the late Sewell Wright, stated emphatically that "if racial differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies." (Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn, 2006, pp. 191-193.) And in fact this is the case, as the populations of many other species with levels of variation similar to that found between different human populations are classified as subspecies. (see http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html)
Finally, there is also the question of whether the FST measurement system is really the most accurate method of measuring the variation between populations. Sarich and Miele (Race: The Reality of Human Differences, p. 169) detail Harry Harpending's 2002 calculation showing that the true proportion of human genetic variability that is racial is 32.5%, not 15% as measured by the FST system, upon which standard the "Lewontin fallacy" is wrongly claimed to be based:
First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons. The increase in variability in between-population comparisons is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent [not 85 percent] that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 = 32.5 percent [as opposed to 15/100 = 15 percent]
The cumulative effect of theses converging lines of evidence should make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that race is real. But before we come to the conclusion that the claims of the race deniers are beyond reason, some of their more common arguments should be examined.

Arguments for Racial Denial
(1) The genetic ignorance argument. We do not yet know what genes are actually involved in determining racial differences, or how they do it. Race deniers use this to claim that race is not genetically real. Yet no one can reasonably dispute that race consists of inherited traits, transmitted by parents to their children, and inherited traits must be genetic traits, as the only means known by science to transmit inherited traits is through the genes. Also, we do not yet know what genes are involved in causing many diseases that are known to be inherited, yet because we know they are inherited we know they are caused by genes, and the search for these genes is the purpose of most genetic studies.
(2) Argument by trivialization. This argument admits the reality of population differences, both physical and genetic, but claims they are of no importance and are not great enough to qualify as racial differences. This argument attempts to make the issue of racial reality a subjective value judgment, and belittles the biological variation that exists between the diverse human populations as being of no value or importance, and not a legitimate matter for concern, love or devotion. Basically, this argument asserts that the only human traits that are valuable or important are those traits shared by all humans in common, while racial differences, those traits that are unique to particular populations and not shared by all, are of no significance.
(3) Argument by false definition. Race deniers frequently confuse race and species in their argument, setting a standard for race that is the same as the standard for species, implicitly applying the definition of species to race. Since humanity is one species, with no different human species, it is then argued by false definition that there are no different human races, defining race out of existence. The distinguishing difference between species and race, of course, is that species cannot interbreed, or at least do not interbreed under natural conditions, while races can and do interbreed when there is extensive contact between them. Race deniers wrongly use the existence of hybrid or racially-mixed individuals and populations, which prove that the different human populations interbreed and are therefore races rather than species, as proof that all humans are of one race, not different races, confusing race with species and defining race out of existence. As one recent study states:
If biological is defined as genetic then a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races.[I]t is difficult to conceive of a definition of 'biological' that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation. [Note #7]
An example of the effort to define race out of existence can be found on the website of Palomar College. [Note #8] It sets up a strawman, a false definition and very narrow and strict standard of what constitutes race, allowing it to deny the reality of race on the grounds that human variation does not meet that standard or definition:
"Most physical anthropologists would agree that this human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was in our prehistoric past."
But if races did exist, were real, in our prehistoric past, when did they cease to exist and stop being real? What happened to them, that caused them to no longer be races? How did it happen? When did it happen? What is the standard that determines what degree of human variation is sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, for race to be considered to be real? When was this standard created, and who created it? What standard, if any, did it replace? Did the reality of race ever depend on a standard set by physical anthropologists? Was not the term "race" common usage to refer to identifiable populations and individuals, and defined as those identifiable populations and individuals, long before physical anthropology existed? And if the use of the term race to refer to identifiable populations and individuals predated the existence of physical anthropology, how and why should physical anthropologists presume to redefine it out of existence? Or is it not that races have changed, but that the racial composition of academia has changed, that classrooms, student bodies, campuses and faculties have been multiracialized, and that this multiracial environment discourages any expression of racial consciousness and identity, even the belief that race is real, as racially divisive?
So, how should race be defined? As with other things that exist, an accurate definition of race is one that describes it as it is, as it really is, as it really exists. The definitions of race in the encyclopedias and dictionaries that I grew up with described something real, race as it really is, and by those definitions race exists and is real. Race and the reality of race have not changed. It is the definitions of race that have changed, as the race deniers attempt to change the definition of race to redefine it out of existence. If race does exist as described in earlier standard definitions, but does not exist as described in the new definition of the race deniers, that means that the new definition is wrong and does not accurately describe the reality of race, not that race is not real. An accurate definition describes something as it is, not by some abstract concept of what it should be, and then declare that it does not exist when it does not match that concept. Race is not an abstract concept but something that is tangibly and visibly real. The race deniers who say they do not believe in the "concept" of race know this. They know what the common usage of the term race refers to, what the accurate definition of race is, and what we mean when we refer to race. They know what we are talking about, and they know it is real. But the race deniers are too clever by half. They know the only way they can deny race is to create a false definition under which race does not exist, and by which they can pretend to refute the reality of race. The reasons for their success in this argument, like their motives, are political, not scientific.
(4) Argument by false methods of racial identification and classification. Similar to #3 above, this argument claims that the traditional typological methods of racial identification and classification based on morphological traits or phenotype is arbitrary. It contends that other methods would yield very different results, classifying different types ­ as measured by these different methods ­ into groupings that differ from the traditional racial groupings, making them meaningless and arbitrary. Blood groups, for example, are not distributed in a manner that coincides with the traditional racial groupings. But the traditional methods of racial classification by racial typology or physical appearance are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on, reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively observable and verifiable reality. They are the traits that differ between these real populations, the differences in physical appearance by which these populations can be accurately distinguished and identified, and by which they are and have been accurately distinguished and identified for millennia. Those traits that are not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations are not valid methods of racial identification in the real world.
(5) The continuum and differentiation arguments. This is an argument based on the real complexity of race, that refutes the many simplistic concepts and systems of racial classification and then pretends that it has refuted the reality of race. The reality is that race is a complex of multiple continuums with gradations of intermediate, hybrid or mixed types (called clines) between the distinct types at the ends of the continuums. These clines are geographically distributed in clinal zones located between the regions inhabited by the distinct types. Race deniers argue that these intermediate, mixed or clinal types make scientifically accurate differentiation between the races impossible. Dividing lines between races in the intermediate ranges of the racial continuums are often difficult to determine and appear arbitrary, especially in simplistic classification systems that attempt to fit all human populations into a few major races. The race deniers exploit this complexity to discredit the accuracy of the simplistic classification systems and then deny the reality of the complexity. But the existence of continuums or clines, rather than disproving the reality of race, is actually a characteristic of race and thus serves as proof of its reality. If there were no racial continuums or clines there would be no intermediate forms, no interbreeding between the races, and humanity would be divided into species rather than races. Without different races there could be no continuums or clines between them, so the existence of continuums is proof of the existence of races. As stated in the study cited above, "The existence of such intermediate groups should not overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level." [Note #9]
(6) The scientific obsolescence argument. This argument claims that the idea of race is based on a false, outdated and obsolete concept of science from a previous era, e.g., the "colonial era," the 17th century, etc. In other words, it says that belief in race is backward, outdated and "old-fashioned," an adjective that has great weight with those who like to see themselves as advanced thinkers. It cites false beliefs or myths about race from those earlier eras that are easily refuted as proof of this claim, and by refuting these false beliefs pretends that it has refuted the reality of race. Every branch of science has suffered from many false beliefs and theories during its history. Physics, biology and medicine began in the 6th-4th centuries B.C. and each has had a long history of false beliefs and theories, yet these sciences are still recognized as valid. They are not regarded as obsolete because of discarded false beliefs.
(7) The social or political construct argument. Race deniers and deconstructionists often claim that race is a social or political construct that has no biological or genetic reality. This argument includes the claim that the idea of race was created in America, with the first contact of Europeans with other major races and the subsequent centuries of their political and social inequality, and that America exported its concept of race to Europe and the rest of the world. This argument (which shares some ideas with #6 above) often gains credence from biologists and geneticists who try to avoid the political controversies surrounding race by claiming it is not relevant to their studies. But it collapses when confronted with an accurate definition of race and the most basic evidence of racial reality. The irony is that the idea that race is not real has itself been socially and politically constructed during the last several decades. The following newspaper article from 1996 shows this process of construction and many of the race denial arguments and techniques, with my comments in brackets: [Note #10]
WASHINGTON -- Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups. [What 'spectacular" advances? Genetic studies show the validity of race, and other sources claim that "most scientists" accept that validity.] Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents [Argument #1 above. Not inherited from parents? No scientist is quoted as saying this.]...."Race has no basic biological reality," said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist.Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. "In the social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is not," said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley. [Argument #7]
The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to contradict common sense. [Races not the product of genes? As in the similar statement above, no scientist is quoted as saying this.] "The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no such thing as race," said C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. "The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves intellectuals." [The pre-emptive argument, #13 below]
The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. "Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology...have completely revamped the traditional notions," said Solomon Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed that humans could be sorted into a few...inherited racial types [The obsolescence argument, #6 above]....As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if they believe in the existence of separate biological races....As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race....[T]he revised concept of race...reflects recent scientific work with DNA...."We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level," said a Yale geneticist, Kenneth Kidd....[which]"support the concept that you can't draw boundaries around races." [The continuum argument, #5 above]
Most of the arguments for race denial are present in this report. The two statements that race is not genetically inherited from parents, and is not the product of genes, are central to the contention that race is socially or politically constructed, not biologically constructed, and thus not biologically, genetically or scientifically real. No scientist is actually quoted in this report making these statements, but they are placed amid quotes from scientists, creating the impression that this is what scientists say. If the claim is true that race is not inherited from parents and ancestors, transmitted consistently from generation to generation, then it is not genetic or biological, and the contention that it is socially or politically constructed will stand. But if race is inherited from parents and ancestors then it must be genetic, and if genetic it is biological, genetically and biologically determined and constructed, and cannot be socially or politically constructed. If race is seen at the level of individual phenotypes it is obvious that it is consistently inherited from the parents and ancestors. The inheritance of race is so consistent that obvious exceptions to it might not even exist.
So what is the source of the contention that race is a social and political construct, created by the social and political environment and not by inherited genes? This contention is very similar to the theory of Lysenkoism, and this similarity reveals its common source. Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976) was a Soviet biologist who theorized that environmentally acquired characteristics could be inherited. This theory, by denying genetic determinism, supported the possibility of achieving an egalitarian utopia by environmental engineering. This coincided with Marxist ideology, so Lysenko's theory became biological dogma promoted and enforced by the Soviet government. The result was that Soviet biology was hampered in the study of genetics, the real means of inheritance, and fell behind the rest of the world. The current contention that race is not genetically determined, not biologically real, but is socially or politically constructed, derives in large part from the same ethno-racial source, and the same political motive and purpose, as Marxist ideology. In fact, race denial is even more radical in its rejection of reality than Lysenkoism. In pursuit of its egalitarian vision it does not merely claim that race can be altered by the inheritance of environmentally acquired traits, but that race is not inherited in any biological sense at all, that biology and genes have no role in its construction or creation. It contends instead that race is totally constructed (created) by environmental factors (i.e., political and social factors). The Marxist ideological tradition is the logical source of this contention.
This Marxist connection is given further support by the ethnic dynamics of race denial. The victim of race denial is the European races, and especially the Northern European race. It is they, and only they, who are actually threatened with dispossession and destruction by multiracialism, a process assisted by race denial. The beneficiaries of race denial, those who want to "abolish the white race" -- in the terms of Noel Ignatiev, a long-time Marxist-Jewish activist for both Marxism and the destruction of the European races under cover of the Marxist theory that races are social classes rather than biological populations -- are non-Europeans. Their classic Marxist revolutionary goal is to overthrow, dispossess, destroy and replace the European race, and in Marxist fashion they define it as a social class, socially constructed, rather than a race. Their class enemy, the oppressive and privileged "social class" that they want to abolish, is the "white" race. In the context in which they use the term, "white" refers only to the European peoples, and especially the Northern European peoples. There always was an ethno-racial agenda behind Marxism, and the Marxist-Jewish promoters of that agenda have caused great harm to the European peoples over the last century. [Note #11] Noel Ignatiev proves that this anti-Northern European Marxist racial agenda is still operating against the interests of the Northern European race.
Since the 1960s the racial agenda of Marxism, and the Marxist political "Left," has become more obvious. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century the "Left" identified the aristocracy and "bourgeois capitalists" as the "class enemies," "exploiters" or "oppressors" to be overthrown by revolution and destroyed. In the late twentieth century it increasingly targeted the "white" race as the enemy, as an oppressive and evil racial elite that must be overthrown by any means necessary. Consistent with this view, the "Left" has revealed a distinctly anti-Northern European bias, causing it to single-out the Northern European race for marginalization, devaluation, dispossession and extinction. By the end of the 1960s this bias had become explicit, as illustrated by the following account concerning the militant Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society:
I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention, and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, "Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies." At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, "Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies." I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down. [Note #12]
By the end of the 1960s Racial Marxism, focused on race rather than class, was explicit. Perhaps it was too explicit. So it sought cover by disguising itself in the classic Marxist jargon of class struggle, only now the class enemy was the "white" or Northern European race, redefined as a class. In defining the Northern European race, or "white" race, as a social class, Racial Marxists theorized that the "white" race was politically and socially constructed by its position as a privileged and oppressive social class exploiting other classes that were socially defined as non-white. According to this theory the "white" race did not exist genetically or biologically, but only as a ruling social class. Those who were members of the ruling class were "white" while those who were not members were non-white. By this theory the "white" race only exists when there is another class defined as non-white that is politically and socially below it that it rules and oppresses. Also according to this theory the "white" race only came into existence when Europeans made contact with non-European peoples during their conquest and colonization of the Americas, and established themselves as a ruling political and social class over the native and other non-European peoples. The Europeans then became "white" and the non-Europeans became non-whites. The concept of race was then socially and politically constructed in the Americas to legitimize and secure the ruling position of the "white" social class.
This theory is blatantly simplistic in its reduction of race into two groups: "white" and non-white. The peoples of East Asia and Central Africa certainly regard themselves as different races, as do the native peoples of the Americas. But the Racial Marxists cannot admit any differentiation other than "white" and non-white. To do so would refute their definition of race as socially constructed classes. Also, the European races did not change biologically, genetically or racially in the 16th or 17th century Americas when and where they began to exist in close contact with other races for the first time. European-Americans of the 17th and 18th centuries were not biologically, genetically or racially different from their pre-16th century European ancestors, or from their European contemporaries. Irish-Americans of the 20th century were not biologically, genetically or racially changed from their pre-16th century Irish ancestors, or from their contemporaries in Ireland. The dialectic of Racial Marxism claims the "white" race only came into existence with the colonization of the Americas by Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries. But what historical race inhabited Europe in the Middle Ages and before if not the "white" race, the biological ancestors of the people now classified as "white?" If this were simply a matter of semantics, with Racial Marxists using the term "white" for class rather than race, and using other terms for racial classification, their argument would have some credibility. But what they say is that race is socially and politically constructed, that this began in the Americas in the 16th and 17th century, and then spread to Europe and the world.
It can be argued that the awareness of human racial differences began in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries as the different races first came into contact. But the different races existed, were real, long before they came into contact with each other. The contact did not create the races. It created awareness and knowledge of the different races, and that led to the study and classification of race. Contrary to the theories of Racial Marxism, America did not create race, nor did it give race to Europe. America created multiracialism, different races living together in close contact in the same territory, and in the second half of the 20th century multiracialism spread to Europe, largely through the efforts of the Racial Marxists. In the America of previous centuries the existence of different social classes based on race restricted and slowed the process of racial intermixture that is the logical consequence of multiracialism. But in the second half of the 20th century, largely through the efforts of the Racial Marxists, the social class barriers between the races that restricted intermixture were attacked and largely removed, making it possible for the full consequences of multiracialism -- Northern European racial destruction through intermixture -- to be realized. Race denial is part of this process of Northern European racial destruction, conceptually destroying the Northern European race to promote its physical destruction.
The social and political construct argument is not about social class but about race. It is not about science, but about politics, racial politics. It did not originate from any scientific discovery, but from the rise of multiracialism and the racial transformation it is causing. It is not motivated or driven by scientific interests, but by the ethno-racial interests of the rising non-European groups. Those who make this argument are not destroying or abolishing a social class. They are trying to abolish or destroy the Northern European race.
Race is biological, a creation of genetics, biology, nature and life. It is biologically constructed through evolution by the same process of divergence that has created all the diversity of life. The legal status of being a citizen of a multiracial country is politically and socially constructed, a creation of men and their laws rather than biology and nature. This is nowhere more evident than in a mass multiracial naturalization ceremony in which a racially mixed group of applicants become naturalized citizens. The applicants of different races can change their citizenship and national status by a simple legal procedure. But their race is determined by their genetic inheritance from their ancestors, and cannot be changed.
(8) The argument that the individual variation within populations is greater than the variation between the averages of the different populations or, put another way, that most human variation occurs between individuals rather than races. This is another attempt to minimize the significance and value of racial differences. But it compares extremes with averages, and the traits it compares are not the traits that are racially definitive, not traits that characterize any real geographic population, not the traits by which we identify races and distinguish them from each other.
(9) Argument by intimidation. This is often the first method of argument, hoping that the opponent will cower and retreat before a verbal onslaught of insults, threats and accusations, and that a substantive argument would not need to be made. If it fails, and the more substantive argument also fails, it is also often the argument of last resort as the race denier reverts to it.
(10) Argument by distortion. Race deniers frequently distort, falsify or misrepresent the arguments for the reality of race, including racial definitions and systems of classification, in part to create a strawman that can be easily refuted, and in part simply to cause confusion.
(11) One-sided argument. This is the milieu in which race denial thrives and in which it has been promoted, an Orwellian intellectual milieu of de facto censorship in which the arguments of racial denial are stated as simple fact and no counter-argument, challenge or rebuttal is permitted. Given that many, if not all, of the race denial arguments are fallacies that could be easily refuted, this is probably also the milieu required for race denial to succeed. The above newspaper article is an example of this technique, making many questionable statements that are not questioned because the report is completely one-sided.
(12) Begging the argument. The theater advertisement mentioned at the beginning of this essay is an example of this, the claim that the reality of race has to be denied in order to end racism. According to this argument, those who believe in the reality of race are perpetuating and abetting racism and giving aid and comfort to its practitioners. If one is opposed to racism and wants to end it, this argument begs, one must deny the reality of race. As forensic scientist George Gill observes:
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. [Note #13]
(13) Pre-emptive or anticipatory argument. As in the quote of C. Loring Brace in the above newspaper article, this technique anticipates the normal reaction to the argument and pre-empts it by stating it first. This advance statement is simply presumed to refute the anticipated reaction although it does not actually address or answer it.
(14) Argument from authority. When attempting to convince people that what they see with their own eyes is not real, does not exist, and is not to be believed, it helps to be supported by supposed experts and authorities who are presumed to have superior knowledge of the subject. Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" is the classic description of this technique, and the growing denial of the reality of race, supported by statements from scientists who are the supposed experts and authorities, proves that he did not exaggerate. The above newspaper article is an excellent example of this technique. Yet much of the racial denial by the scientific community is intellectually dishonest. Scientists still study race at the genetic level, only they do not use the word "race," using the word "population" instead. The geographic populations they study, which they prefer in native and unmixed (i.e., racially pure or distinct) form, are of course races, and have been referred to as races for centuries. But modern scientists do not study racial phenotypes, the traits that identify and define race, that are race, and therefore should not be regarded as experts or authorities on racial typology or identification. Their ability and knowledge in this area may be no greater than the average person. Yet one does not need to be an expert to recognize race by phenotype. Everyone does it, including the scientists who say that race is too ambiguous to recognize. All of us racially identify every person we look at, automatically, unintentionally and involuntarily. This is natural, a fact of nature. We all have the important ability to recognize our own kind and distinguish it from other kind. Given the focus of this ability, it is very accurate at distinguishing our own kind or race from other races, and less accurate at distinguishing other races from each other. We know our own kind, our own race, best. This is where the so-called ambiguity of racial identification by phenotype is found. But the people of other races are able to distinguish their own race from other races with great accuracy. Their racial identification is not ambiguous to them, but as distinct and real as our race is to us.
The scientists who deny the accuracy of racial typology use it to racially identify people in their everyday lives, outside of their specialty, as much as the rest of us. So why the denial of something they have done all their lives? Why the claim that what they do all the time cannot be done? Most of the same scientists who now deny the reality of race made no such denial, and found no difficulty or ambiguity in racial identification, twenty or thirty years ago. So what has changed? What has happened to cause the scientifically recognized races of thirty years ago to now be denied? What discovery or addition to knowledge has proven that race does not exist? What proof was and is required for the reality of race, and why? What is the standard for race to be real, by what definition of race, and who set that standard and definition? It seems that the supposed experts about race are trying very hard to be ignorant of race, to know nothing about race, to deny race, to make themselves believe that race does not exist. So why the concerted effort to not see what is plain to all, to be racially blind? Why the exercise in scientific obscurantism? Is it because racial identification by phenotype is not a product of scientific study, and remains outside of science because scientists have not developed a scientific version of it that accounts for all the complexities of racial reality? Is it because decades of exhortations to practice racial blindness, and to be literally racially blind, are having their intended effect? Is it because the multiracialization of school and college classrooms and faculties, as well as the news media and most of the workplace, has made recognition of the reality of race, and the racial tension and division it causes, socially and politically intolerable? Is it a logical consequence of the racial revolution and transformation of the West that began in the 1960s, and of the growing power, influence, and de facto control and domination of the rising non-Northern European ethno-racial groups? Or is it a matter of ethno-racial self-interest for some, as it is for Noel Ignatiev and was for Franz Boas before him, and political self-interest for others, as it was for the Emperor's experts in the Andersen story? It is probably all of these, some more than others. But regardless of the denials of certain scientists of questionable motive, competence and integrity, the existence and reality of race is a creation and fact of nature, not science. Race existed long before science. Its existence is not dependent on science, but will continue with or without science, whether science defines it accurately or not. Those who see reality for themselves know that the scientists who deny the reality of race are wearing no clothes, despite all their scientific and expert claims to the contrary.

Response to the 10 points in the PBS series "RACE - The Power of an Illusion"

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/10things.htm
Copyright (c) California Newsreel, 2003
RACE - The Power of an Illusion
A three-part documentary series from California Newsreel
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm


TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE
Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese, but what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today? There's less - and more ­ to race than meets the eye:

Point 1.
Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word `race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

Response to point 1:
The different biological divisions of humanity may not have been called races until about 500 years ago, but they had already existed for tens of thousands of years. They were created by divergent biological evolution, the same branching process that creates species, and represent an intermediate stage of raciation in a not yet complete process of speciation. Race is a biological reality that existed before people were aware of its existence, before they had an idea or concept of its existence, and independent of such an awareness, idea or concept. Race is not a political or social construct, although ideas and concepts of race are subject to political and social influences.

Until relatively recently, the great majority of people did not have direct contact with other races, but lived their lives in racially homogeneous populations where race was simply not an issue. For the great majority of humanity outside of the Western world this is still true. Until the last 550 years there was not even much knowledge about the existence of other races. It has been the activities of the Western world over the last 550 years in exploration, colonization and the building of new countries outside of Europe that has brought different races in direct contact with each other on a large scale. Along with that direct contact has come knowledge, and the study, of race and racial differences.
Among ancient societies, the Egyptians had contact with Black Africans in Nubia to their south, and they certainly made a racial distinction between themselves and Nubians, as is obvious in their art. They also took measures to prevent the movement of Nubians into Egypt. The Greek exposure to different races was essentially limited to the different Caucasian peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Romans also had very little direct contact with non-Caucasian races, but they did have contact with Caucasians beyond the Mediterranean region and were very aware of racial differences between themselves and the Semitic peoples of the Levant and the Keltic and Germanic peoples of Northern Europe. Black Africans were brought into the Greco-Roman world in small numbers as isolated individuals but never constituted a population or community in any sense. As individuals, they usually did not have access to a mate of their own race and either died without issue or were assimilated in small numbers, never forming a continuing racial presence.
Before the word race, an Old French term for "line," was applied to the different geographic populations of the human species it was traditionally used to refer to nations as well as almost any line of ancestral (biological or genetic) descent, even as narrowly as a specific family line. With the discovery of the different geographic populations of humanity the usage of the term race gradually changed to refer to these populations as the identifiable biological divisions, branches or lines of humanity.

Point 2.
Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

Response to point 2:
Race does not consist of one characteristic, trait or gene. It consists of many characteristics, traits and genes, of a unique combination or ensemble of characteristics, traits or genes that distinguishes one race from another. At the level of the major or primary racial divisions, such as Europeans, Black Africans and East Asians, all the members of each of these racial divisions are easily distinguished from the others by their ensemble or combination of racial characteristics, traits and genes. At the level of secondary racial divisions, such as Northern and Southern Europeans, some individual members of the subdivisions are not easily distinguished from each other by their ensemble of racial traits, but the populations or subdivisions as a whole are.

Parents of the same race have children of the same race as themselves. Thus race is inherited from parents and ancestors from generation to generation. This is beyond question. There is no evidence, from science or ordinary observation, that race is not inherited, but overwhelming evidence that it is. Thus race and racial traits are inherited, and as genes are the only known or recognized means of transmission of inherited traits it must be assumed racial traits are genetic. Race is inherited from genes, and is thus in the genes and has a genetic basis. In fact, its only basis is genetic. It is created by genes and only by genes. It is completely and totally genetic. There is no environmental determination of racial inheritance. Even after many generations in America, the descendants of Northern Europeans and Black Africans are still racially unchanged from the native populations of their racial homelands.
Races are phenotypically real. They can be distinguished by their phenotype -- their genetically inherited and determined physical characteristics, traits and appearance -- from other races. There is no phenotypic overlap between the populations of major races. All East Asians, Europeans and Black Africans are easily distinguished from each other based on inherited genetic racial traits. Even subraces, or racial subdivisions, are easily distinguished from each other as populations based on visible inherited genetic racial traits, although there may be overlap in phenotypic traits at the individual level. Thus the populations of Sweden and Italy are phenotypically distinct from each other although there is some overlap at the individual level.
There are racially mixed individuals and populations. Their phenotypes correlate strongly with the ancestral racial proportions in their mixture, providing further proof of the genetic reality of race.

Point 3.
Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

Response to point 3:
This is a denial or belittlement of the extent and value of human racial diversity and variation. What is the standard or definition for a race or subspecies? This is not stated. The racial deconstructionists who attempt to define race or subspecies out of existence either do not state a clear and objective definition or they arbitrarily change the definition so that it is essentially the same as species. There is an objective standard for the definition of species -- populations that are unable or unwilling to intermix under natural conditions. A human subspecies or race is simply any of the biological divisions of the human species consisting of a population connected by common ancestry and distinguishable from other populations by a unique combination or ensemble of genetically transmitted physical traits. This is the definition of race, the meaning and measure of race, in common usage for the last four centuries, and it is something that certainly does exist, that is visibly and objectively real.


Point 4.
Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

Response to point 4:
This may all be true, but so what? Why the attack on skin color? Does it not have any value in itself? Must its value depend on its connection with something else? In many cultures of many races around the world skin color does have a value in itself, with lighter skin color generally being valued more highly. But what is the meaning or purpose of this seemingly nonsensical argument? It sounds like an attempt to trivialize race, reducing it to skin color. Whether or not the genes influencing skin color have anything to do with the genes influencing hair form and eye shape they are certainly strongly correlated with them, and are usually part of the same unique combination or ensemble of genetic traits that physically distinguish the different races from each other.


Point 5.
Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

Response to point 5:
This is the "Lewontin fallacy" discussed above. As Sarich and Miele (cited above, p. 169) explain, the actual amount of total human genetic variation that exists within any local population is 67.5%, not the FST measure of 85%, yet even by the standards of the FST measure of 85% the amount of variation between human subspecies or races is comparable to the variation between the subspecies of other species. But the races of humanity do share 99.9% of their genes in common. What does this mean? The proportion of genes we share is consistent with the fact that all the races of humanity share hundreds of millions of years of common evolution and ancestry going back to the first mammals and before. Their divergent evolution and ancestry began only with their geographic dispersal and separation into isolated populations spread around the world. The proportion of genes the human races share in common roughly corresponds with the temporal length of their common evolution and ancestry. The genes and genetic traits that the human races share in common are those that evolved during their common evolution up to their separation and geographic dispersal. The genes and genetic traits that vary between the races, that are unique to the different races, are the newer genes and genetic traits that evolved after the ancestral racial populations separated from each other. Their proportion of the total of genetic traits roughly corresponds with the temporal length of that separation compared to the entire length of human and mammalian evolution.

The proportion (67.5%) of human genetic variation that is possessed in common by all human races already existed in the common ancestral population from which all human lines or races are descended, and continues to exist in all the descendant human populations. The proportion (32.5%) of human genetic variation that is unique to the different races is the newer part that has developed since the different lines that evolved into the different races separated and began their genetic division.
Is point #5 claiming, or implying, that the newer genes and genetic traits that evolved since the geographic separation and isolation of the different branches of humanity, that are unique to the different branches and not shared by all, are of no value or importance? That only the older genes and genetic traits that evolved before the separation of humanity into different isolated branches, that all humanity shares in common, have value or importance? That nothing of value or importance has evolved or developed since that time? If so, what is the standard that determines which genes and genetic traits have value and importance? Is commonality, sameness or equality the standard, that only those older genes and genetic traits which evolved before the separation of humanity into different branches, and which all branches share equally and in common, have value or importance? This would be the egalitarian ideal, and hence presumably the Marxist ideal, but it is arbitrary. People do and always have attributed great value and importance to the newer genes and genetic traits that have evolved since the separation of humanity into different branches and that are unique to those different branches, lines or races.

Point 6.
Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

Response to point 6:
The different races of humanity are almost as old as the dispersal of humanity into geographically separated and isolated populations that evolved into different races. This means that the human races are as old as the earliest hunter-gatherer stage of existence similar to that of the Aboriginal population of Australia. Is slavery as old as that, or even older, predating it? Or is it not more likely that slavery began after the development of agriculture, with settled communities and the development of social and economic heirarchies and inequalities in the distribution of property, power and wealth? Whatever the answer, it is certainly true that historically slavery has usually had little or nothing to do with race as such. But this is necessarily true, because as pointed out in the response to statement #1 the different races had little or no direct contact with each other until the last 550 years. So it is only in the last 550 years that there has been a clear racial connection to slavery, with a dominant people first having access to large numbers of slaves of another race.


Point 7.
Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

Response to point 7:
There is no evolutionary connection between race and freedom. They are two very different things. Race is a biological division of a species and a stage in the evolution of a species that is created by the biological process of divergent evolution or speciation. Freedom is a social or political condition that is created -- socially and politically constructed -- by people. Ancient Athens, the celebrated birthplace of democracy and the ideals of freedom and equality, had an economy based much more on slavery than antebellum America. Indeed, some Southern apologists for slavery, such as John C. Calhoun, justified it by comparing it to the example of ancient Athens and the high civilization it produced. Even without racial differences between slaves and freemen the Athenians justified slavery on the grounds that the slaves were inferior. That is the common historical justification or rationalization for slavery, which until the last 550 years was usually based on national, cultural, religious or class differences rather than racial differences.


Point 8.
Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

Response to point 8:
The belief in the superiority of one's own people and the inferiority of other peoples is very common among many cultures and races, and has often been used to justify and rationalize the conquest, domination, enslavement and even extermination of other races. This belief and practice has been documented among American Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Asian Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Spaniards and others. It has no doubt also been common among peoples of whom we have no record. It is in no sense unique to the Southern Europeans who founded and built Latin America or the Northern Europeans who founded and built North America. What may have been unique to the Northern Europeans was that, as a population, they were the first to rise above these beliefs and practices and renounce them. The exclusion of other races, necessary to maintain the racial separation and isolation required for racial preservation, should not be equated with the enslavement or extermination of other races, as implied in point 8.


Point 9.
Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

Response to point 9:
As explained in the previous response to point #2 race is certainly inherited, and is therefore necessarily genetic, and is therefore biological. Racism, like any "ism," is an ideology, a system of beliefs and values. But unlike most other ideologies, it probably consists of more than this, being grounded by its biological connections to something much deeper, more fundamental, instinctive and intuitive, to something that is pysically real and physically exists, to emotions and behavior that were shaped by, and helped to shape, the evolution of humanity in general and each race in particular. Racism is ethnocentric, centered on, loyal to, and promoting the interests of a person's race. In the homogeneous racial societies that are our natural state of existence, and in which we existed until the modern creation of multiracial societies, race was not an issue, did not give advantages to one group in the society over other groups, and did not affect anyone. There were no racial differences to be aware of. Only in multiracial societies, in which the interests, including the vital life-essential interests, of the different races conflict with each other, does race become an issue and a source of conflict and problems, including the ultimate problem of racial preservation. Unfortunately, in the context of a multiracial society, the measures required to preserve a race and protect its vital interests necessarily include a competition for dominance and control of the society.


Point 10.
Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.

Response to point 10:
This is a call for action to advance the interests and position of "non-white" groups at the expense of the "white" group, whose existence is supposedly only an illusion anyway. And it is being heeded, not only in the United States, but also in Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In all these countries the "white" populations are being dispossessed, displaced, replaced and ultimately destroyed by actions and policies that promote and benefit the interests and position of "non-white" groups at the expense of the most vital interests of the "white" groups, including their very survival.

Points 6-10 above are not relevant to the issue of whether race is real or an illusion. All five of these points serve only one purpose: to beg the argument that race is not real, but is only an illusion, by the claim that the belief in race leads to bad things -- including slavery, social and economic inequality, racial exclusion and racial extermination (genocide) -- so the belief in race is itself bad and the reality of race must be denied for moral reasons. By this logic, those who deny the reality of race, who believe that race is merely an illusion, are considered morally superior to those who believe race is real. This is the logic of political correctness, that objective reality must be denied to serve the worldview, agenda, ideology and moral values of the dominant globalist and multiracialist power structure. But the belief that race is not real can also lead to bad things, very bad things, for the interests of the European peoples in America, Australia and Europe. In fact, its effects on the European peoples include their dispossession, displacement and replacement by the non-European races, and ultimately their destruction, extermination, annihilation or genocide as their very existence is lost. Racial denial, the denial of the reality of their existence, paves the way for the destruction of their existence by the claim that nothing real is being destroyed, that it is all an illusion, so it is not a legitimate matter for concern. European racial preservationists, who believe in the reality of race, do not seek, advocate or promote the domination, enslavement or destruction of other races, but the race deniers and deconstructionists, who claim that race is an illusion, do promote an agenda that leads to the destruction of the European races. And they pose as morally superior while doing so.
Conclusion
Before racial denial became the lead argument of the opponents of Northern European racial preservation their main argument was the claim that the Northern European race was mixed rather than "pure," and that because of this racial mixture and impurity was not worthy of preservation. Of course, these were the same people who were advocating more, in fact total, racial intermixture and impurity for the Northern European race, not the opponents of intermixture who wanted to prevent it in order to preserve the race. Also, of course, they did not describe the nature or extent of the intermixture they were referring to, nor provide any definition or standard of what constitutes racial "purity" and what level of it is required to justify racial preservation. Their arguments for racial impurity were, and are, as ambiguous as the arguments for racial denial. My answer to them was, and is, the same as my answer to the race deniers who claim that the race I love and want to preserve is not real and does not exist, and that there is thus nothing there to preserve. I tell them that I love and want to preserve my race as it is, to preserve what is as it is, whatever that might be, and whatever they might call it. Whether they call it a race or not, or pure or not, it is the population and associated phenotypes that I love and want to preserve. And they know what I am talking about. On an operative level, they know what my race is as well as I do, and it is as real for them as it is for me. The difference is that I want to preserve it and they want to destroy it.
Race denial should not be regarded as an isolated phenomenon. It is very much a product of its times. It can only be properly understood in the context of the racial revolution and shift in ethno-racial power of the last half century. It is part of the ethno-racial offensive against the Northern European race that is destroying the Northern European peoples racially, genetically and biologically by multiracialism and racial intermixture. The existence that it denies is the existence that it is helping to destroy. As a recent paper on genetic studies that affirms the reality of race informs us:
Geographic isolation [i.e., racial separation] and in-breeding (endogamy) due to social and/or cultural forces over extended time periods create and enhance genetic differentiation [i.e., create and preserve races], while migration and inter-mating reduce it [i.e., multiracialism and racial intermixture destroy races]. [Note #14]
Race denial is more than a fallacy. It is more than the sum of the many fallacies, the false arguments, used to support it. It is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It serves a purpose. Race deniers beg their argument with the claim that belief in race leads to racial oppression and genocide, so the purpose of race denial is to end racial oppression and prevent genocide. Actually the reverse is true. The real purpose of race denial is not to prevent genocide, but to prevent racial preservation, specifically the preservation of the European races, and most specifically the Northern European race. In short, the real purpose of race denial is not to prevent genocide but to help cause it. The true motive and intent behind race denial is to promote and assist the racial dispossession, replacement and destruction of the Northern European race. Race denial, and every race denier, is against racial preservation, and specifically against the preservation and continued existence of the Northern European race.
Ironically, race denial is racially motivated. It's source and base of support is among the non-European ethno-racial groups. It is they who seek the dispossession, replacement and destruction of the Northern European race, even in its ancient homelands. It is they who benefit from it, they who are the dispossessors and replacements. The existence of the other races is not threatened by race denial, so they can promote it from a position of racial immunity. It is the European races, and only the European races, and above all the Northern European race, who are threatened with extinction, and whose destruction is assisted by racial denial. Race denial is anti-Northern European in the most extreme sense of the term, as against the very existence of the Northern European race. Thus race denial is itself a part of the racial competition, and a product of the racial dynamics, the racial dialectic, of multiracialism and the process of racial destruction that it promotes. It might appear to be a political phenomenon, with political motives, but it is actually a racial phenomenon, with racial motives -- motives much stronger and deeper than politics, which is only the means to serve racial ends. It serves as a cover for those racial ends. It hides the process of racial destruction behind the protective cover of a false dogma that says that the race being destroyed does not really exist, thus nothing real is being destroyed, and there is no valid reason to resist or oppose the destruction. But the race that is being destroyed, the population and its traits that the race deniers are trying or helping to destroy, are real, and they are mine. They are the object of my love and devotion, the center of my concern. They are all the people of Northern European ancestry and type, in their many millions, whose existence is being denied, and under the cover of that denial is being destroyed.
How should racial preservationists deal with the growing wave of race denial in academia and the media? How much of our time and energy should we devote to the controversy over the reality, meaning and substance of race? Both sides in the controversy have an agenda determined by their own group interests. The race deniers are predominantly members of non-Nordish minority groups who want to lessen the racial solidarity of the Nordish majority to advance the interests of their own groups at the expense of Nordish majority group interests. The race affirmers are predominantly members of the Nordish majority ethno-racial group who want to increase the racial identification and solidarity of their group to secure its preservation and well-being. Denying race raises the bar or threshold for addressing the issues that really matter: the issues of ultimate racial interest that are never discussed, but are evaded and ignored. The more time and effort we put into overcoming these preliminary arguments the less we can put into addressing the vital issues of our racial interests.
But this is not just an academic exercise that racial preservationists can ignore. There are motives and purposes behind these claims. For minorities in majority Northern European countries who want to secure their position and weaken the position of the majority Nordish population it is in their interest to assert that race does not exist to preempt and weaken majority opposition to their presence. To racial nihilistic "idealists" whose ideal is a world without different races asserting that race is not real is a method of promoting their goal. To those who seek the dispossession and destruction of the Nordish race in particular, by replacement and intermixture, claiming the Nordish race does not exist, or that it is already mixed, serves to discredit and weaken opposition to intermixture and destruction.
In my own debates with race demeaners and deniers I have found that it is important to press them for specifics. With those who make allegations that my race is already thoroughly mixed, or that a particular individual is mixed, with the purpose of using this allegation to support further mixture, I ask for specifics about the alleged mixture, its extent, origin, proportion, etc., and for the evidence that supports the allegations. In short, I tell them to prove or substantiate their allegations or they will not be credible. With those who deny the reality of race I stress the importance of definition, give my definition, which is something that clearly does exist, and ask for their definition, which they usually will not or cannot provide. The point is that the allegations of the race demeaners and deniers are seldom substantiated by specifics or definitions, but are deliberately vague. Specifics make their falsehood obvious.
That said, it does little good to argue with the race deniers and race mixers. Their position will not be altered by refuting their falsehoods as their positions are not really based on them, but on the interests of their racial group. Still, it is worthwhile to remove their cover and expose their true motives. It is also worthwhile to expose the so-called idealism of multiracialists for what it really is: a program for Nordish destruction and extinction.

1. See Glayde Whitney's review of The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium by Joseph L. Graves, Jr. in the Winter, 2001 issue of the Occidental Quarterly (Vol. I, No. 2). Graves' claim that race is not real is explicitly motivated by his opinion that the belief in race is an obstacle to "social justice" and the elimination of racism.
2. The substance of some of these exchanges can be found on my website at http://www.racialcompact.com/reality_of_race.html
3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.
4. The methodology that shows a human-chimp genetic difference of about 1.6% shows a genetic difference of less than .2% between the human races. Feng-Chi Chen of National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan and Wen-Hsiung Li of the University of Chicago (2001) put the human-chimp gene difference at only 1.24%. Prof. Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology, using a very different methodology, puts the figure at 5.4% (2002). This raises the obvious question regarding the difference between the human races using this same methodology. Would it also be more than three times as great?
5. Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury; "Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale," Molecular Biology and Evolution, Sept. 1993 (pp.927-943):
http://www.molbiolevol.org/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%29&gca=10%2F5%2F927
It is unfortunate that no Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish or Norwegian), Slavic or Arabic populations were included in this study, and that the English, German and Italian groups were not divided into regions. It is possible that an east English group would be genetically closer to a Danish or northwest German group than to a west English group.
6. These genetic studies are based on nuclear DNA, the genes that are actually responsible for racial variation. Other studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), such as that of Jody Hey and Eugene Harris (1999) show a difference between the human races that is about 4% of the difference between humans and chimpanzees.
7. http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007/
"Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease," Neil Risch et. al., Genome Biology 2002 3(7): comment 2007.1-2007.12. Published 1 July 2002. This article is an excellent scientific summary of the evidence from genetic studies for the reality of race.
8. http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm
This is a tutorial page on the website of the Behavioral Sciences Department of Palomar College, San Marcos, California, authored by Dennis O'Neil. Palomar College is a public two-year community college with about 30,000 students. The views expressed on this page are probably representative of what most social science students are currently taught about race. This should have probably been a predicted and expected result of multiracial education, with its chilling effect on racial research, where racial truth is the first casualty.
9. Op. cit., footnote 7 above.
10. Robert Boyd, "Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep," The Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996) p. 14A
11. For a detailed examination of this subject see Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998.
12. Doug McAdam, in "Picking Up the Pieces," Part 5 of the PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties , televised January 23, 1991. It can be assumed that in the context of this Racial Marxist debate at the Weatherman convention it was understood that the term "white" did not include Jews.
13. Op. cit., footnote 3 above.
14. Op. cit., footnote 7 above.

 


The Tragedy of the Nordish Peoples




By Richard McCulloch


Apocalyptic fiction is a popular genre of modern literature and cinema. Whether the subject is stealthy alien invasion (The Invasion of the Body Snatchers), open alien invasion (The War of the Worlds, Independence Day) or cosmic collision (Deep Impact) these works touch on fears that far exceed the ordinary events of human existence by threatening the very end of that existence. Unfortunately, while the popular mind is distracted and bemused by these many and varied fictional catastrophes, the Northern European or Nordish peoples -- the peoples of Northern Europe and their racial kindred around the world, those of Nordish ancestry and racial type -- are facing a very real apocalypse. Their impending destruction is not fiction but reality. In the motion picture Deep Impact the cause of the apocalypse is a cosmic collision referred to as the "E.L.E.," or "Extinction Level Event." In the real world the Nordish apocalypse is being caused by the dispossession and replacement of the Nordish peoples by other races in their own countries. In fiction the apocalypse is often averted by the actions of the protagonists. Can the real Nordish apocalypse, the unfolding destruction of the Nordish peoples, be averted before it becomes an extinction level event? That will depend on the actions of the Nordish peoples themselves, the protagonists of their own story.




THE STATUS QUO IS TERMINAL

One thing that is certain is that action is necessary to save the Nordish race from the extinction level event that is now destroying it. The status quo is terminal. Unless the status quo is changed the apocalypse will not be averted and the Nordish peoples will be terminated. As Admiral Tuttle said, "If we don't change course we'll end up where we're headed." Our present course, the status quo, is headed toward Nordish extinction. That is the destination of the dominant power structure and its policies. If we do not change course, do not change the status quo, that will be our final destination, the termination of the Nordish race.
The demographic and statistical facts are the signposts that mark the terminal course of the Nordish race, past, present and future. The non-white proportion of the (legal) United States population grew from 17% in 1970 to 31% in the 2000 census (including 2% of the population listed as racially-mixed part-white), and will probably be a majority before 2040. The non-white population of Britain (including persons of mixed race) grew from almost nothing (.1%, or one per thousand) in 1955 to 5% in 1981, doubled to 10% by 2004, and will probably double again to 20% by 2040 and be a majority before the end of the century. The non-white population of Sweden grew from almost nothing in 1970 to 7% in 2003 (when it accounted for 15% of births) and is projected to pass 10% by 2010 and then follow the same course as Britain. The course of racial transformation, dispossession and replacement is similar in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries of northwest Europe.
There is a law of biology -- Gause's law of exclusion (1934) or competitive exclusion principle (CEP) -- which states that multiple animal species with the same resource requirements cannot coexist indefinitely, i.e., in the long term, in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. A modification of this law can be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. The modification is the term "assimilate," which means the different human races, unlike different species, will intermix. In the words of biologist Jared Diamond, "[E]very human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact." [The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal , (HarperCollins, 1992), p. 34.]
Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat will eventually intermix and blend into one race. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with racially destructive consequences. Racial intermixture in the Western world has increased in the last 30 years even faster than the increase in the proportions of the non-white populations. In the future it can be expected to increase at an accelerating rate due to more extensive interracial contact in an increasingly multiracial environment and its promotion by the dominant political and cultural power structure.




THE TRAGEDY OF THE NORDISH PEOPLES

In classical drama a tragedy is the downfall or destruction of a great person, or a great people, often caused by a fatal flaw in themselves, as they can only really be destroyed by themselves, by self-destruction. So it is with the Northern European or Nordish peoples. A dominant ideology and value system that is profoundly anti-Nordish in the most extreme sense -- being against the very existence of the Nordish race -- has turned the Nordish peoples against their race and its interests, co-opting their support for their own destruction. The fatal flaw in the Nordish peoples that has enlisted them in their self-destruction is their lack of awareness of racial reality and their own racial interests. The consequence is a lack of racial activism in support of their interests and a lack of racial unity, cohesion and solidarity. The destructive anti-Nordish ideology is manifested in multiracialism, the condition of multiple races co-existing in the same territory and society that is the agent and proximate cause of Nordish racial destruction.
I am an American of Northern European ancestry and race. I love my race and I want it to continue to exist. In normal times this would not need to be said. But these are not normal times. After over 5,000 years of existing without any danger to their existence the peoples of Northern Europe, and the populations of Northern European ancestry and race in the United States, Canada and Australia, are being destroyed. This is the unfolding tragedy of the Nordish peoples. I do not want them to be destroyed, so my efforts are directed toward their preservation.
Racial preservation has to be based on racial reality. It has to face the facts, ask the right questions and provide the right answers, however difficult they may be. What is destroying the Northern European peoples? How can they be saved from destruction? How can they be preserved? What is required for their preservation and what needs to be done to achieve it?




THE DESTRUCTION OF THE NORDISH RACIAL ENVIRONMENT

The Northern European peoples are being destroyed by multiracialism, the condition of different races existing together in the same territory and society. Their destruction is an unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. They simply cannot continue to exist in a multiracial society. This is a fact of racial reality, a reality of race, of what a race is.
A race is a population. The traits by which we define and identify race are not just individual traits but the traits of a population. A race is a stabilized population, consisting in each of its generations of different individuals who are the passing components in the continuum of its potentially immortal existence. Each population forms a breeding group in which the proportions of the different types are stabilized in a balance that can continue indefinitely, maintaining the racial continuity of the population, so long as the proportions are not changed by the introduction of elements from outside the stabilized population. So long as each generation passes on its genes proportionately to its next generation the gene pool, and thus the race as a whole, does not change, but is in aggregate genetic sum the same in each generation, although the individuals composing its population will vary. So long as the genes remain the same and other genes are not introduced from outside the population to change it -- either by changing the proportions of the existing elements or, more drastically, by adding entirely different elements -- the race will remain the same and be preserved in its entirety.
The concept of racial environment is central to the understanding of racial reality. The racial environment consists of the types and proportions of racial elements within a society. Historically, the different racial elements in a given society, sharing the same space, eventually intermix into a single breeding population and gene pool. A race is created and preserved in a certain racial environment, a range of certain racial types in certain proportions, and this is the environment required for its preservation or continued existence. If removed from this racial environment, or if the racial environment is changed, the race cannot continue to exist in the same form, but will be transformed or shifted in the direction of the new racial environment.
The Northern European or Nordish racial types evolved and have existed for over 5,000 years in a particular racial environment in which certain proportions of a certain range of racial types have maintained a stable balance or equilibrium. This is the racial environment in which the Nordish racial types evolved, and it is the racial environment that is required for their continued existence or preservation. If the racial environment is changed by the introduction of outside elements the racial proportions within the population will be changed, upsetting and destabilizing the racial balance. The introduction of less distinct Nordish types will cause a decrease in the proportions of the more distinct types. The introduction of totally new and incompatible non-Nordish, or even non-European, racial types upsets the balance in the population more drastically, destroying the racial environment that is required for Nordish racial preservation. This results in the extinction not only of the more distinct Nordish types, but eventually of the entire Nordish population. This is what is now happening to the Nordish peoples of Western Europe, America, Canada and Australia. Their racial environments, which they require for their continued existence, have been destroyed by multiracialism, which has become the new status quo. This multiracial status quo is terminal for the Nordish peoples. Unless it is changed, and the status quo ante of a homogeneous Nordish racial environment is restored, the Nordish race will be destroyed.
The power structure in the Nordish countries, whether singular or plural, has consistently promoted multiracialism and the destruction of the Nordish racial environment ­ and the consequent dispossession, replacement and destruction of the Nordish peoples ­ over the last half century. It has worked to change homogeneous Nordish racial environments into mixed racial environments, to change homogeneous Nordish populations of ancient standing into multiracial populations by non-Nordish immigration, and to promote the mixture of the different racial elements, all acting to dispossess, replace and destroy the Nordish peoples.




MULTIRACIALISM AND THE GROUP POWER STRUGGLE

Multiracialism is an ideology -- indeed, it is the presumptive, and almost necessary, ideology of a multiracial society. But it has an existence beyond the ideological, in the form of the physically real racial groups whose interests it represents, the other racial groups whose presence makes the society multiracial and whose presence is justified and secured by multiracialism. The attachment of those racial groups to multiracialism goes beyond ideology. It is a matter of their group interest pure and simple. The ideology is really just a cover for their racial group interests and agenda, and without these racial groups it would have no reason for being, no purpose and no constituency. They are the physically real body of multiracialism, and are inseparable from it. They support multiracialism as a matter of their group interest. We cannot expect to change or contest that. For us, the contest is for the hearts and minds of our own race. That is what is in play. Our task is to get the members of our racial group to support their own group interest, represented by racial preservationism, and to oppose multiracialism, as being against their group interest.
The struggle between the two ideologies of racial preservationism and multiracialism is also a struggle between two racial groupings and their conflicting group interests. Group interest is really what both racial preservationism and multiracialism are all about, and each ideology is identified with the interests of one of the two competing racial groupings. Racial preservationism can be broadly defined as an ideology that considers race to be important and worth preserving. Racial preservationism is almost exclusively associated with the Nordish racial group and its interests -- and in the terms of the racial group power struggle this association is correct, as preservation is really an issue only for the Nordish race, not the other races. Their existence is not threatened by multiracialism, which actually serves their interests while violating the most life-essential interests of the Nordish race.
In the historical context of the racial power struggle, racial preservationism is the effort by the founding racial group -- which in America is the Nordish racial group -- to preserve its racial existence, and retain possession and control of its own country by the exclusion of, and separation from, competing racial elements. It can also be defined as the ideology that supports this effort. In the same context, multiracialism is the effort by the non-founding racial groups -- which in North America includes all the minority elements outside of the Nordish group -- to advance their own position, agenda and interests in competition with, and contrary to, the interests of the founding group. It can also be defined as the ideology which supports this effort.
As racial preservationism is associated with the interests of the founding racial group, the elevation of an ideology that devalues its existence and delegitimizes its interests to the paradigm of the age clearly signals its decline and dispossession. Although multiracialism became the paradigm of the age as recently as the 1960s, the campaign against racial preservationism, or against the interests of the Nordish racial group, has been going on for over a century. The decline and dispossession of the founding Nordish racial group in America is historically linked with the rise of multiracialism and the competing minority groups that promote it. These groups promoted the ideology of multiracialism to advance their own interests and position. The founding Nordish racial group, in its last successful effort to defend its own interests, enacted immigration reforms in the 1920s to stop the influx of non-Nordish elements. Unfortunately, the reforms were too late and too little to prevent their dispossession. The non-Nordish elements were already here in sufficient numbers to achieve a shift in the racial balance of power, and had begun their rise to dominance in a racial power struggle with the Nordish group. In the 1950s the multiracialist ideology, which had developed in -- and previously been limited to -- the United States, began to spread, first to Western Europe, and eventually to Canada and Australia, causing a drastic change in racial policy that promoted the multiracialization of those countries through non-Nordish immigration. The racial revolution that began in the 1960s, in which racial and immigration policies shifted dramatically against the interests of the Nordish peoples around the world, marked the beginning of the age of multiracialism, and the beginning of the end for the Nordish peoples. By the 1990s the dominant position of the non-Nordish groups and their multiracialist ideology was secure enough, and the solidarity of the Nordish group weak enough, to openly acknowledge and celebrate the approaching reduction of the Nordish peoples to the status of dispossessed minorities in their own countries. What was not yet openly acknowledged was what would follow this ­ the final extinction of the dispossessed Nordish peoples by replacement and intermixture.
As seen in this historical overview, racial preservationism is the ideology of the founding or original Nordish racial group trying to retain possession of its country and preserve its existence by the exclusion of competing non-Nordish groups. It is opposition by the Nordish group to its dispossession and destruction. Multiracialism is the ideology of the dispossessors, promoting the interests and position of their racial groups contrary to -- and in conflict with -- the interests of the founding group. The pervasive "anti-racism" and "anti-hate" campaigns directed against expressions of support for Nordish interests are the latest stage, perhaps the end-game, in this historical group power struggle.
The most damaging successes of multiracialism have been against our racial group's sense of its own identity and awareness of its own interests. Any recognition or assertion of racial identity or interest by the Nordish group is forbidden. The claim that race is a myth, that it is not real, is the ultimate expression of this effort, for if races do not exist then there is no racial identity and no racial group with racial interests to support and defend. This effort has been so successful that many members of the Nordish racial group now have little sense of racial group identity, and most have almost no awareness or knowledge of their racial group interests. This leaves them, and their racial group, virtually defenseless against the dispossession and destruction that now seems to be their fate.




THE DENIAL OF RACIAL REALITY

A Scandinavian acquaintance of mine once commented that he approved of the multiracialization of his country on the grounds that it was boring for everyone to look like him, and the variety of new immigrants made things more interesting. But adding new racial elements to a population does not increase its racial diversity or variety, or range of racial types, in the long run. The different types will eventually blend together into a more uniform type with a much narrower range of variation. The actual long-term effect of adding new racial elements is not an increase in the range of racial types but rather a shift in the range of racial types away from the original racial element and toward the new elements. Adding elements of one racial type causes the elements of the other racial type to be reduced or lost. This is a fact of racial reality, which, like much of reality, is either-or. You can have either this or that, either one or the other, but not both. You can have either Nordish preservation or multiracialism, but not both. You cannot both preserve the Nordish peoples and mix them with other races, the unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions. The Nordish race cannot continue to exist outside of its natural racial environment, the condition it requires for existence. It cannot continue to exist in the racial environment of multiracialism. For this Scandinavian, the real long-term consequence of multiracialism is that eventually no one in his country will look like him, for his country will be racially transformed and his type will be no more.
This simple, basic and fundamental either-or fact of reality, involving the most vital racial interests of the Nordish peoples, has been completely ignored by the multiracialist power structure that now dominates the cultures and governments of the Western world -- never discussed, considered or recognized, but denied by omission and repression. The entire multiracial society and culture is in denial of racial realities, and does not face, address, or acknowledge them. The most critical of these denied realities concern the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism for the Nordish peoples. Ultimate issues are at stake, matters of existential importance, yet like the Scandinavian in the preceding paragraph, there is little awareness of this among the Nordish peoples. At issue is nothing less than their continued existence, survival and preservation, yet this is not recognized, but evaded or denied.
This denial is the product of a profoundly anti-Nordish ideology, system of values and view of life and existence. In the multiracialist system of values the Nordish race and its interests -- its continued existence, well-being and independence -- just don't count. They are of no importance or value and thus not worthy of consideration. They are not legitimate matters for concern. They are not metaphysically significant, not important in the higher scheme of things or the ultimate meaning or purpose of life. Therefore the racial interests and rights of the Nordish peoples, and even the reality of their racial existence, are denied. That which is denied can be violated with impunity, and the interests and rights of the Nordish peoples are being violated in the most extreme sense of the word. They are being dispossessed and replaced in their homelands and their very existence is being violated and destroyed.
The multiracialist power structure does not openly call for the extinction of the Nordish peoples. At least not explicitly, not yet. But it does promote and enforce the conditions of multiracialism that are causing Nordish extinction, and represses and persecutes any opposition to the causes of Nordish extinction, as well as any expression of Nordish preservationism, or any call for the racial separation that is required for Nordish preservation. Support for multiracialism is implicit support for Nordish extinction, its inevitable consequence. The two cannot be separated.
But the multiracialists, due to their dominant position in the power structure, never have to address the issue of Nordish preservation, and are never held accountable for the destructive consequences of their policies for the Nordish race. Instead, they are constantly on the offensive, attacking any opposition to their policies, or support for Nordish interests, in the most extreme terms. Support for vital Nordish interests is defined as "right-wing extremism," from which we could infer that opposition to vital Nordish interests is a "left-wing" position. Thus any expression of support for Nordish interests is commonly labeled as "Nazism" in some form or degree, and discussion of the fundamental issues at stake is prevented. Words can be used to clarify or confuse, to present and describe the issues or to evade and hide them. At the University of Uppsala in Sweden in the summer of 1989 I saw posters saying, "Fight Nazism -- rally in support of immigration." Imagine if the posters had been phrased, "Fight against the preservation of the Swedish people -- rally in support of their replacement by Arab, African and Asian immigrants." That is, after all, what the posters really meant, their true meaning in terms of the ultimate consequences of what they promoted. But such honesty and recognition of the consequences, and perhaps the goal and intent, of multiracialism is very rare. However politically correct such honesty might be, it would still not be politically wise to express it beyond the ranks of the hard-core multiracialists.
Is it "right-wing" to want the Nordish countries and their native populations to continue to exist, to be preserved? Is it "left-wing" to want the Nordish peoples to cease to exist, to be replaced by other peoples? Are Nordish interests "right-wing?" Is this a "right" or "left" issue? Who knows? It is not addressed. Those on the "right" do not explicitly say they are for Nordish racial preservation and those on the "left" do not explicitly say they are against it. But actions speak louder than words, and every faction that has a position within the power structure, or anywhere near it, whether described as "right" or "left," acts in support of multiracialism and the consequent destruction and replacement of the Nordish peoples. One cannot be more anti-Nordish than that.




MUST THE NORDISH RACE BE DESTROYED?

I am a Northern European, a Nordish-American, an American of Northern European ancestry. The Northern Europeans are my people and my race. I love my race. It is valuable and important to me and I care deeply about its interests, its well-being and its future. It's continued existence and preservation in its entirety is, for me, a fundamental concern. The on-going destruction of the Northern European peoples, the Nordish race in its new and old homelands, that is now occurring from the effects of multiracialism, of which I am a witness, is for me a great tragedy.
Hard-core multiracialists often confront Nordish preservationists with the question "Why should the Nordish race be preserved?" This is a question that should never be asked. Nothing that exists as a part of nature, as a part of this world, should have to justify its continued existence. If one's point of reference is humanity, then no existing part of humanity should have to justify its continued existence. More particularly, if one's point of reference is the Nordish race, as mine is, with all things measured in terms of its interests and seen from its perspective, then its continued existence and well-being is of primary importance. For the Nordish peoples, for all who are a part of them, and certainly for all who value or care about them, the continuation of their existence should be their greatest priority after the preservation of the earth itself.
The question that should be asked, but is never asked, and therefore never answered, is "Why must the Nordish race be destroyed?" How can the multiracialists justify the racial destruction and extinction of the Nordish and other European peoples that is the inevitable consequence, and perhaps even the unstated intent, of their policies? My race is being destroyed by multiracialism and I want to know why. What reason could be so compelling, what goal so necessary, what interest so preeminent that the existence of the Nordish peoples should be sacrificed for its attainment? Is the answer found in universalist abstractions like the brotherhood of man? A vision of world peace and harmony when all people are of one race and all racial differences have been abolished? A hyper-altruistic mission to sacrifice one's own race for the benefit of others? A false humanitarianism that violates the vital or life-essential interests -- the very existence -- of the Nordish part of humanity to serve the non-vital, not life-essential interests of other races? A distorted tolerance of the "other," the different, the stranger, that is exaggerated to the point of self-destruction, and condemns self-preservationist reactions as xenophobia? An aberration of religion that finds grace in the destruction of racial differences, beginning with the destruction of the Nordish race? Or is it really all about power, in accord with the Marxist teachings that inform the basis of "leftist" thought, with non-Nordish groups seeking to eliminate what they see as their main competitor for power, or the main obstacle to their ascent to absolute power -- the Nordish race? Whatever answer might be given, if and when the proponents of multiracialism are ever held accountable and required to give an answer, it could not justify the destruction or loss of even the smallest part of the Nordish race.




WHY IS THE NORDISH RACE BEING DESTROYED?

Now for a related but really very different question. "Why is the Nordish race being destroyed?" Part of the answer is that this question also is never asked. The issue is never raised, so it is never addressed or answered. Those who are promoting the processes and policies that are causing the destruction of the Nordish peoples have never answered this question. They have not had to answer because they have never been asked. Just asking them the question in a forum where they would have to answer it would be a major step in raising awareness of what is happening, of the consequences of multiracialism -- the destruction of the Nordish race by racial intermixture and replacement.
This leads to a very important part of the answer, which is lack of awareness. People simply do not know what is happening, are not aware of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism. In their lack of information and knowledge they have a false idea that a diverse multiracial population will continue to maintain its full diversity, that all the diverse racial elements will continue to co-exist as they are, each continuing its own existence. They do not realize that the intermixture that is an unavoidable consequence of multiracialism would inevitably destroy that diversity, or at least the Nordish part of it. This false idea is a fatal fantasy, and the first step toward Nordish racial salvation is to replace it with full knowledge of the true consequences of multiracialism.
Another important part of the answer is that the Nordish race has been turned against itself, against its own interests, by the dominant cultural influences of our age. What is the reason for this phenomenon of the Nordish race being against itself? Some pathologize it as a manifestation of self-hate. This is probably true in particularly extreme cases, but I believe the primary and general cause is that the Nordish people are basically unaware of what their interests are, ignorant of the interests of their racial group, and ignorant of how those interests are being violated. How can they be for their interests, or oppose policies which harm those interests, if they do not know what those interests are or that they even exist? What is to prevent them from being against their own racial interests, from opposing actions in support of their own racial interests, and supporting the conflicting interests of other racial groups, if they are ignorant of the interests of their own racial group, with no knowledge or awareness of them, and thus also ignorant of their conflict with the interests of other groups? People tend to support the interests they can see, the interests they know and are aware of. If the only interests they can see, the only interests they know or are aware of, are the interests of the other racial groups, then those will be the interests they will support, even if they conflict with the unknown interests of their own racial group. People can only operate on the basis of what is known. Unknown interests will always be sacrificed for the sake of known interests. The outcome of mathematical equations is determined by known factors. The addition or subtraction of a factor changes the outcome of an equation. Only when a factor is present can it logically be considered as part of an equation. Our racial group interests have not been present in the moral equation of racial issues and therefore they have not been considered or addressed. Their subtraction from the moral equation has changed its outcome against us. Their addition to the moral equation will change the outcome for us.




CAN THE NORDISH RACE BE SAVED?

Can the Nordish race be saved? The short answer, fortunately, is yes. The reason for this is that the power is still in us if we choose to exercise it. The Nordish race still has the power to decide its own fate, to be the master of its own destiny. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, who was informed that she always had the power to return to Kansas whenever she chose to do so, we also have the power to awake from our collective racial nightmare if we so choose.
We have seen that when our interests are absent from the decision-making process on racial issues those issues are logically decided against our interests. Without representation -- without presence -- our interests have no moral standing and are not recognized or considered, but are violated with impunity to benefit the interests of the other racial groups that are represented and are present. This is moral logic. Only when our interests are present -- when they have representation -- will they have moral standing and be recognized and addressed in the determination of racial issues. This is why the primary effort of our opponents, central to their success, has been to prevent our interests from becoming known. Our primary effort must be the opposite, to make our racial interests as widely known as possible, so they can no longer be ignored or denied but must be recognized and considered in the determination of racial issues.
The power of multiracialism over the Nordish peoples depends on the consent of its victims, who are co-opted into the multiracialist system. Without their willing acceptance, cooperation and support it is powerless. This consent is obtained by moralistic intimidation and aggression, as multiracialism is perceived as holding the moral high ground, the position from which moral authority and control is exercised. This moral dominance is based on the denial of Nordish racial interests. By the standards of multiracialism the only interests that exist, or are worthy of concern, are the interests of the non-Nordish racial groups it represents. Nordish racial interests are not recognized as valid or legitimate -- in effect they simply do not exist -- and are therefore ignored and denied, and never considered or addressed in the formation of racial policies. As the only interests that exist are those of the non-Nordish racial groups those interests are the only standard by which all actions and policies are morally measured and judged. By this standard all pro-Nordish actions, in support of the interests of the Nordish people, are actually defined as being against the interests of the non-Nordish racial groups, as those are the only interests that are recognized or considered. There simply are no Nordish interests to be for.
The denial of the interests of the Nordish racial group has enabled the anti-Nordish power structure to define support for Nordish interests in strictly negative terms. It is defined as something completely negative in motive and goal, as being against or "anti" the interests of the non-Nordish groups, not as being for or "pro" the interests of the Nordish group. Everything is defined, measured and judged in terms of the interests of the non-Nordish groups. The interests of the Nordish group are not recognized and do not exist, so one cannot be for those interests, and since they do not exist they cannot be harmed or violated.
Multiracialism can thus be falsely portrayed as a "win-win" situation, where every group benefits and wins and no group suffers or loses, as the Nordish interests that are being violated and destroyed are not recognized as real. Clearly, it is important that we assert the interests of our racial group, to show that they exist and are real, and that they are harmed by multiracialism, so that they can no longer be ignored or denied but must be recognized and addressed. Then the myth that multiracialism is a "win-win" situation will be shown to be false by its violation of the fundamental interests of the Nordish race, including its most vital interest of all -- its continued existence.
Pro-Nordish actions will never be recognized as moral, and anti-Nordish actions will never be recognized as immoral, until Nordish interests are recognized as real and legitimate, and support for them as morally right. When Nordish interests are recognized and addressed as legitimate and important then efforts in support of those interests will be recognized as moral, and multiracialism, which will finally be seen as being literally against the most vital interests of the Nordish people, will be seen as immoral.
Being for the independence and freedom, continued existence and preservation, of one's race is not against any other race or the legitimate interests of any other race. Being against the independence and freedom, continued existence and preservation of a race is against that race and its legitimate interests, including its ultimate interest in continued life. This is an important distinction that the multiracialist power structure does not accept, but actually reverses, with regard to the Nordish race. By its ideology, being for the ultimate Nordish interests of racial independence and preservation, or the condition of racial separation they require, is defined as being against other races and their interests. Conversely, being against the independence and preservation of the Nordish peoples, and the separation they require, is not defined as being against the Nordish race. For the Nordish race, the ideology of the multiracialist power structure is a "lose-lose" situation.
The Nordish peoples' support for -- or lack of active opposition to -- multiracialism is largely based on ignorance. The consent they have given to multiracialism, whether passive or active, has not been an informed consent. There is too much they do not know and too much they have not been told -- matters the power structure and its mass media have evaded, ignored or denied. The massive immigration of other races into the Nordish countries over the past fifty years has not been an expression of the popular will of the Nordish peoples. They have not favored, desired, sought or approved of this immigration that is causing their dispossession and replacement. It has been imposed from above, by the dominant power structure with its anti-Nordish multiracialist agenda. Their passive acceptance, or lack of active opposition, to this racial change, their co-option into the multiracialist system, has been based on ignorance, repression and intimidation. The things they have not been told but need to be told, the things they do not know but need to know, to be fully informed, to make an informed choice and to give their informed consent, include the following:
1. Full knowledge and awareness of the consequences of multiracialism. Not just the short term demographic, social and economic consequences, but the long term consequences of racial dispossession, replacement and destruction.
2. Full knowledge of their racial group interests, especially their ultimate racial interests of existential importance, the interests that matter the most, their racial independence and preservation, the continued existence of their race, their people, their kind.
3. Knowledge that support for the legitimate interests of their race, and especially its most vital interest in continued existence, is moral and right. That contrary to the moral aggression and intimidation of the multiracialist power structure that defines support for Nordish interests as immoral, and even as the ultimate evil, which it habitually equates with "Nazism," the morality of racial preservationism is recognized by every culture.
4. Knowledge of the alternatives to the multiracialist status quo, of other choices that are morally legitimate. That they are not limited, or reduced, as the multiracialist power structure claims, to a choice between multiracialism and "Nazism." That there are other choices besides these two extremes, choices that would restore the condition of racial separateness in which the Nordish peoples existed for thousands of years, the racial environments required for racial preservation.

The dominance of multiracialism was not built in a day. It has a history. Its success has been built by a gradual and cumulative process that normalized its values while marginalizing Nordish interests, to the point now that almost the whole Nordish population -- its victims, whose interests it violates and destroys -- has been co-opted into its system. Hopefully, it can be destroyed much faster than it was built, before it succeeds in destroying us.
In our efforts to destroy multiracialism before it destroys us, it is important to observe the following points.
Point 1: Our interests front and center -- always. This struggle is all about interests, so we must clearly and strongly state the long-ignored interests of our race and how they are being harmed by multiracialism. Those interests are the reason and justification for our position, without which our position will simply be seen as being against the long-recognized interests of the other races. We cannot assume that our interests are generally known and understood. They are not. The anti-Nordish power structure has done too good a job at eliminating awareness of our interests.
Point 2: Multiracialism has consequences, and the Nordish people must be made aware of what they are so they can make informed decisions. The multiracialist power structure will attempt to keep such knowledge from them, so it is up to us to spread the word, and, in effect, sound the alarm. The consequences are the most severe imaginable -- the dispossession, replacement and destruction of our racial group. Of course, to the anti-Nordish power structure these consequences are positive. They are what they want and what they have been working for, so they will not be dissuaded by them. But they may still try to deny them for tactical reasons, to keep the victims in line in the still continuing and still decisive struggle for the hearts and minds of our racial group. And this is their weakness and our strength, the crack in the door that is our greatest advantage and opportunity -- that the decisive struggle is for the support of our racial group. To those members of our group who retain any vestige of love or concern for their race, however suppressed, the consequences of multiracialism are not a pretty sight. They are something they would be naturally inclined to oppose rather than support if the effects of decades of controlled thought can be overcome and they can be convinced that those consequences are real. The good fortune in our misfortune is that those consequences are becoming ever more visible, to the extent of even becoming normalized, and denial is therefore becoming ever less plausible. Most people have now seen far too many tangible examples of the consequences of multiracialism to be able to consider them rare and tolerable exceptions. So if multiracialism is challenged on its consequences, it is becoming ever more difficult to maintain the charade that it is a "win-win" situation in which no racial group suffers any harm to its interests. Dispossession and destruction are clearly against the most vital interests of the Nordish racial group.
Point 3: Love is the reason, the motive and the answer. It is a central tenet of multiracialism that it is also an anti-hate campaign. Support for the interests of the Nordish racial group, and the consequent opposition to multiracialism, is always equated with hate for the other racial groups. In this campaign hate is portrayed as the exclusive motive and reason for the support of Nordish interests, or for efforts by the Nordish group to preserve its existence and its possession of its country. The possibility that love could be our motive for wanting to preserve our racial group, to continue its existence, is simply not considered. We must turn this around. As multiracialism emphasizes the negative forms of racism and eliminates the positive, we need to emphasize the positive form ­ racial preservationism -- and eliminate, or at least minimize, the negative. Multiracialism has succeeded in defining support for Nordish interests as a form of hatred, motivated solely by feelings of hate by Northern Europeans for other races. We need to refute this by defining our support for legitimate and vital Nordish interests as the expression of the love and loyalty that we have for our race. We must clearly distinguish it from the forms of racism that are motivated primarily by negative feelings for other races. It cannot be stressed how important it is that our motive must be, and be seen to be, love for our race rather than hate for other races. It is much easier to be against hate than to be against love. Multiracialism will garner much less support as an anti-love campaign then as an anti-hate campaign. And, of course, the anti-hate campaign really is an anti-love campaign in disguise, as it is against the love we have for our race and our consequent desire to support its interests, and must be seen as such.
We should not apologize for valuing, caring for and loving our race and wanting to preserve it, for wanting to prevent its destruction. We should not be embarrassed by the feelings of love that we have for our race. Quite the opposite. We should declare our love for our race and the value of all that it is at every opportunity, before it is too late and the opportunity is gone forever. This includes love for its physical being, its physical traits and beauty, the physical body of the race. Our race is not a disembodied thing. It is not an abstraction or a concept. It is a physically concrete, tangible and real part of existence. It has a physical body, a physical identity, with faces that are unique to our race alone, and these should be valued and loved by all who love the Nordish race and desire its preservation.
Point 4: It is about us -- not about them. Racial preservationism, our desire to save our race, is about our own race, and our feelings for our own race, not about other races and our feelings for them. It is motivated by what we think about our own race, by the feelings we have for our own race, specifically our love for our own race. It is centered on us, our own race and its interests, not other races and their interests. This is an important distinction, one that is contrary to the ideology of the anti-Nordish power structure, culture and mass media. The orthodox view is that the Nordish race has no interests and that nothing is based or centered on it. In the anti-Nordish culture everything, including every emotion, is centered around, motivated by, and based on the non-Nordish peoples and their interests. Everything is about them, not about us. The non-Nordish peoples and their interests are the only ones that matter, the only ones that count, the only ones that are important, the only ones that even exist. Everything is defined in terms of the non-Nordish peoples, in terms of their interests, in terms of feelings about them, whether one likes or dislikes them, is for or against them, everything, all thoughts and feelings, centered and focused on them. Nothing is about us, centered or focused on us. It is as if we do not exist, as if the multiracialist goal of our nonexistence has already been achieved. Consequently, actions or statements in support of Nordish interests are not defined in Nordish-centered terms as pro-Nordish, a position that is not recognized, but in non-Nordish-centered terms as being against one or more or all of the non-Nordish peoples.
This non-Nordish-centered view of the universe is consistent with the subjective perspective of the non-Nordish peoples themselves. They see themselves and their interests as the center of the universe, with everything being about them, not about us, with everything based on them, and motivated by feelings for them, not based on us and motivated by our feelings for our own race. Therefore, when Nordish peoples value and want to preserve their race and its traits, the non-Nordish peoples assume this is motivated by negative feelings and thoughts about them, not by positive feelings by the Nordish peoples for their own race. As a result, they are offended by Nordish racial identification, exclusivity, separatism and preservationism, subjectively seeing it as an insult to them, rather than objectively recognizing it as a legitimate expression of love by Northern Europeans for their own race.
Point 5: There is an alternative -- and we must provide it. It is not enough to discredit the multiracialist status quo. That alone will not save the Nordish race. The Nordish race can only be saved by action, and action requires something to be for and work for. We must give the Nordish peoples something to be for and work for -- a credible, meaningful and preferable alternative to multiracialism that will save their race. The Nordish peoples must know they have choices, and be fully informed about the consequences of those choices. We must offer them the choice of racial preservation through the restoration of the racial environment they require for their continued existence. Exposing the racially terminal consequences of multiracialism explains the problem, describes the disease, but does not provide a solution or a cure. The alternative provides the solution, the cure, that will save the Nordish race. With an alternative there is hope. Without an alternative there is only despair. Hope inspires and encourages action. Despair demoralizes and discourages action. As important as it is for the Nordish peoples to know what they should be against, it is even more important for them to know what they should be for, to have something to be for, to have a goal, to have a dream.




FROM TRAGEDY TO HOPE

For those of us who love the Nordish race it is our task to somehow prevent its destruction. This can only be done by gaining the active support of millions of our race. The great majority of our race are not really aware of what is at stake, the magnitude of what is happening, that their race is being destroyed, how and why. This momentous fact is not mentioned by the mass media, never discussed in any major forum. This is both our greatest obstacle and our greatest opportunity, our greatest reason for hope. The key to all our hopes is to replace ignorance with knowledge. We need to make it clear that preservation, and nothing less than preservation, is the issue. We need to make it known that our race is being destroyed, that its continued existence is at stake. This must be explicit. There must be no room for doubt and misunderstanding. We must raise a flag that all can see and rally round.
It is true that our race, with its high level of objectivity, includes many who are other-centered and have little regard for the interests of their own race. But I believe that the great majority do not want their race to be destroyed. I have to believe that, given the choice, they would want their race to be preserved. Ultimately, all our hopes depend upon that. We need to give them a choice, an acceptable alternative that would prevent the destruction of our race and secure its preservation. Then we must hope that they will choose preservation -- the choice that will save the Nordish race.
A shorter version of this essay appeared in the November, 2002 issue (pp. 10-11) of Nationell Idag (National Today), a publication of the Swedish Nationaldemokraterna (National Democratic) political party, titled "De nordiska folkens tragedi" ("The Tragedy of the Nordish Peoples").



Interview


In October, 1998 Richard McCulloch was interviewed over the internet by three European correspondents.

Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Here are our questions. Feel free to digress as far as you like, and to leave any question you
don't like unanswered. If you have any additional information we
haven't specifically asked for, feel free to state it as well.


1. SOME PERSONAL QUESTIONS
==========================

1.1) Can you tell us something about yourself, and where your life-long
interest in the Nordish people comes from? What place has racial
consciousness taken in your life through the years? In other words, how
did you develop your way of thinking and your ability to express this
way of thinking in the great way you do?

1.1 Answer: I wish I knew, but perhaps this degree of self-awareness is denied to us. I can say that it is an irreducible part of what I am, at the very core of my being and identity, as far back as I can remember. I spend a great deal of time thinking about these matters, and with time my thoughts have been refined and my ability to express them improved.
1.2) We are, and other readers might be, curious about your own ethnic
background. Obviously, you are Nordish, but to which branches of the
Nordish race do you trace back your ancestry?

1.2 Answer: Like many Nordish-Americans, my ancestry derives from several of the peoples of northwestern Europe. My two grandfathers' families were old-stock American. My McCulloch ancestors were what we call Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scots, emigrating from the Edinburgh area to Ulster in Northern Ireland in the 1600s, and after 1717 emigrating from there to western Virginia, ending up in 1792 in western Pennsylvania, where they intermarried with many other old-stock American lines of varied Nordish origin (Boyd, Craig, Earhart, etc.). My Dutch, Swedish and Huguenot ancestors (van der Goes, van Nes, van der Vliet, van Arsdalen, Claesen, Anderson, Latourette, etc.) settled in New Netherlands (New York) in the 1630s, moving on in community groups to New Jersey in the 1670s and Illinois in 1836. My two grandmothers' families arrived more recently -- my German grandmother's family emigrated from Berlin to Detroit in the early 1890s shortly before she was born, and my Norwegian grandmother's family emigrated from a small town near Trøndheim in 1911 when she was 8 years old, settling in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

1.3) What study did you do? What is the relation of this study to your
racial philosophy?

1.3 Answer: My college major was history, with anthropology my second area of study. This reflected my interests from an early age. The subject matter in my college classes was often almost a review for me of subjects I had already studied. Both areas of study fostered my racial awareness and a wider perspective. My parents purchased a set of The World Book Encyclopedia in 1959, around the time of my 10th birthday, and I remember reading the section on race soon after this. I watched many television documentaries that were informative about recent history. I remember reading H.G. Wells' An Outline of History in 1961-62 when I was 12 or 13 years old, and being struck by a passage in which the author stated that humanity, after thousands of generations of divergence, was apparently changing course in the direction of recoalescence, and realizing the consequences of this development. From my readings in anthropology I learned that if two distinct peoples were found inhabiting the same territory it was assumed that one or both of the peoples was a relatively recent arrival, and that they had not been living together for long, as populations that had lived together for a long time were invariably blended together by intermixture into one population where the distinctions between the ancestral peoples were gradually eliminated. Obviously, awareness of this anthropological principle made the consequences of multiracialization very clear to me, and I began to express my concerns on this matter to my friends and family members while still in my teens. But I was not very effective. Indeed, through my college years I felt rather isolated, not knowing anyone else who shared my racial views (the only "racist" organizations I knew of were those of the KKK and neo-Nazi variety, whose racial programs were supremacist rather than preservationist), until one day in 1973, while I was a graduate student, that I discovered The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson in a downtown bookstore, and discovered there were others with whom I could connect who were addressing the race issue in a morally and intellectually respectable manner. Robertson's example inspired me to begin writing about race.

1.4) What interests do you have? We know for instance that you are
interested in the exploration of the solar system - and beyond. We got
the impression that you have a love for Science Fiction books and
movies.

1.4 Answer: I think my early interest in history went hand in hand with my early interest in Science Fiction, as good, credible Science Fiction seemed almost like an imaginative continuation or projection of the past and present into the future, an extension of history. Some of my earliest reading in both history and Science Fiction was in the form of comic books (I wish I still had them). In adulthood my reading of Science Fiction has decreased, but this has been partially offset by the greatly increased quantity of television and motion picture Science Fiction. From my perspective as a Nordish racial preservationist, there is one particular criticism I have of this genre. By portraying the Nordish race as still existing (apparently in full undiminished form) after several centuries of multiracialism it helps foster the common misconception (indeed, the fatal fallacy) that the Nordish race can continue to exist, even without diminishment, under multiracial conditions. The various Star Trek series as well as Babylon 5 (which reminds me of Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in its epic story line) are examples of this. One exception is Arthur Clarke's Imperial Earth, which I read circa 1970, which is set several centuries in the future when the various white racial types no longer exist due to intermixture. Of course, Clarke mentions this fact almost casually and does not treat it as being of any significance. It was, however, significant to me. I did not finish the book. Another criticism of the Star Trek series is its use of the name "Ferengi" for the most unattractive, dishonorable and ignoble of its alien races. "Ferengi" is of course the Islamic World's name for the Franks, which they used to refer to all Western Europeans. I assume that the people in charge of Star Trek development knew this, and it can be taken as an anti-Nordish insult that reveals their lack of regard for the Nordish race.
The apocalyptic theme that is common to many SciFi films -- from alien invasions and infiltration to "body snatching" (replacing humans, especially persons in authority, with alien impostors) and meteors -- is strangely analogous to the situation now threatening the Nordish race. Our race is threatened with destruction. Its continued existence is at stake, much as the existence of humanity or the earth is at stake in these films. One particularly apt analogy is to the "Borg Collective" in Star Trek. We too are threatened with assimilation into the collective (the non-Nordish mass of humanity), and told that our assimilation is inevitable and resistance is futile. Of course, when the humans in these films become aware of their danger they do everything in their power to combat it (Capt. Picard answered the Borg with a resounding "No!"), as we hope our race will also when it is aware. To seek and welcome the destruction would move the plot into the "Twilight Zone" genre. At the moment our position is more like the humans in the alien infiltration or "body snatcher" films, with only a few of us aware of what is happening, and desperately trying to inform our disbelieving brethren.
2. SOME CLARIFICATIONS WANTED
=============================

2.1) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you give a four-fold classification of the Race; there are
4 types: dark, middle, light and ultra-Nordic.
In TNQ [The Nordish Quest], and on your web site you give a much more elaborate system,
which describes the Nordish race as a center with concentric circles
around it, and various subtypes within these circles. Can we assume that
the classification in TIAD should be considered as a sliding scale from
the most outer Nordic types to the most inner, or should we consider it to
be outdated/overruled by the new classification?

2.1 Answer: Consider the dark-through-ultra Nordic classification scheme overruled by the new scheme. The racial boundaries between Nordish (Northern European) and non-Nordish are the same in both classifications. The change is strictly internal within the Nordish group, classifying its various component elements in a more accurate manner. I am sorry to say that until 1985, in spite of all my searching through major university libraries, I had never found a book on race that went much beyond Ripley's old classification of Europeans into Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans. Usually the only addition was the East Baltic type. Even John Baker's otherwise excellent book Race, which appeared in 1974, is deficient in this regard. In 1985 I obtained a copy of Carleton Coon's 1939 work The Races of Europe, which was written as a college text on the subject, and although I have points of disagreement with it, it is by far the most definitive work on the subject with which I am familiar, and represents a line of scholarship that has been neglected and almost forgotten over the last half century. The scheme in The Nordish Quest and my web site can be considered as a slightly modified and updated version of his classification system, synthesized with Baker and others.
2.2) Can you give us any sources / further reading advises on the racial
classifications of Human- and Northernkind, and the racial composition
of the European nations?

2.2 Answer: Unfortunately, the study of the races of humanity has been in disfavor over the last half century, and any serious attempt to study it in an objective manner will likely result in the scholar being branded a racist, probably the most feared epithet in the modern Western world (although not outside the West) and certainly the most feared in the "politically correct" groves of academia. I have heard that the best work in this area over the last generation has been done in Hungary, but I do not know of any specifics. Other than my own work the best material I am familiar with is that of Baker and Coon mentioned in the previous answer. I am sorry to say that I find much of the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his group to be misleading in its interpretation of the genetic data, which our present culture effectively prevents from being challenged by alternative interpretations.
2.3) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you write that minimizing the interference of the state with
society would be the best way to preserve and improve the race, and that
interference of the state - i.e. state-capitalism, or socialism - is a
political-economic system that is far more likely to slow down or
reverse the divergent evolution of the human races. However, in DOA [Destiny of Angels] you
mention there sometimes is a discrepancy between "internal natural
wealth" and "external material wealth", which can lead to the union
between the material wealthy and the natural wealthy- and, through a
process of intermixing, to the loss of inheritable beauty.
But, this selling of racial beauty - because this is what you
essentially describe - is in fact a liberal-capitalist process. Should a
moderate form of state interference not be desired to limit these
processes, and make sure that those rich in natural wealth but poor in
material wealth, should prosper, and those poor in natural wealth should
be stimulated not to procreate?

2.3 Answer: The above section in Destiny of Angels refers to interracial matings rather than to matings within the Nordish race, and especially to the mating of men of various non-Nordish Caucasian racial types to Nordish women who are attracted to their material wealth and social standing. In a monoracial society this problem would not exist.
To maintain a generally positive evolutionary trend it is of course necessary for those of higher quality to reproduce at a higher rate than those of lower quality, but I prefer positive eugenics to negative eugenics, measures to encourage those of higher quality to have more children rather than measures aimed at discouraging the reproduction of those of lower quality. At the present, considering the below replacement level reproductive rate of our race for the last quarter century, what we need is a pro-natalist movement to encourage and promote a general increase in reproduction across all classes. Our problem is not so much that the lower quality elements are having too many children, as their rate is also low, but that our race in general is having too few children, especially those of higher quality. Government should play some role in promoting a pro-natalist environment (and in monitoring and reporting demographic trends), as should all other cultural and social institutions, especially education to increase awareness of the importance of reproductive decisions, but I do not really trust its wisdom to manage the reproduction of the race as much as I trust the wisdom of millions of individual couples. The latter may be far from perfect, but I cannot help believing that the former would be so much worse.

3. RACIST PHILOSOPHY VS. RACIAL NIHILISM
========================================

We'll now confront you with some of the questions people ask racists.
They are not our questions; we just would like to know how you would
reply to them as they represent some of the common misunderstandings
about racism and the ignorance that is forced upon people by the
dominant altruist-egalitarian ideology.

3.1) "What does a person's race matter? Isn't it much more important
that some one behaves good and means well? Bad people come in all
colors, and so do good people."


3.1 Answer: This is a common racial nihilist objection to racial preservationism, but this one is easy as I have already answered it. Character and race are two different things, as I wrote in the footnotes of "Many Mansions:"
"When Martin Luther King remarked in his celebrated 'I have a dream' speech that a person should be judged not by the color of their skin (a minimalist expression for the thousands of genetic differences involved in race) but by the content of their character, he provided a platitude often used by racial nihilists to oppose racial (and especially Nordish) rights, independence and preservation. He also implied a conflict between race and character, as if one necessarily excluded or was inconsistent with the other, an implication reminiscent of the supposed conflict between physical reality and a 'higher' or superior spiritual reality which should be given precedence, with race belonging to the physical realm and character to the spiritual. But they are each part of what we are, each judged or determined by its own proper terms and standards. To assert that racial judgments or determinations should not be made is the position of racial nihilism, which denies racial rights, racial values, and the love of race which promotes racial preservation.
"There is no conflict between race and character, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, and immoral to use character as an argument to justify the violation of the racial right to continued life, existence and preservation, as it is to use claims of a supposed (and perhaps imaginary) 'higher' spiritual reality to promote actions that are destructive of the physical and material reality in which we exist. In fact, one of the primary measures of morality and character should be respect for the rights of others, and this includes respect for the rights of other races, and particularly their right to life. Good character and morality should be consistent with the Golden Rule of live and let live, and therefore inconsistent with the denial or violation of the rights of other races to continued life, preservation and independence."
In our campaign to secure the preservation and independence of our race, and indeed these same rights for all races, we are the protagonists and our opponents, including those who make such assertions and objections (disguised as questions) as above, are the antagonists. Many of these assertions and objections are nonsensical, logically inconsistent and even incoherent, defying basic assumptions of logic and reason, and thus frustratingly difficult to answer. If the person making these antagonistic assertions is non-Nordish, then one can assume that he is aggressively promoting what he sees as his own racial interests contrary to the most vital rights and interests of the Nordish race. If the person is Nordish one can assume that he is hostile to the most basic interests of his own race, in accordance with the ethics and values of racial nihilism. They have been taught that this is a morally superior position and that all else is intolerably evil. In addition to the quote above, I would answer such assertions essentially as follows:
"To say something matters is to say that it is important and has value. To say something does not matter is to say it is of no importance or value. To say something is the only thing that matters is to say that all else is without importance or value. I act on the presumption that everything that exits -- every part of Creation -- matters, that it has importance and value, and that it is both improper and nihilistic to presume otherwise. This importance and value can be regarded as objective, based on its position and role in Creation, or subjective, based on the sentiments of those who love it, by which standard anything that matters or is important to anyone, that is loved or valued by anyone, is regarded as valuable and important. The continued existence of the Nordish race may not matter to you [addressing the antagonist opponent of Nordish preservation] but it matters to me. You may not value, care for, or love the Nordish race, but I do. You may not consider its existence to matter, to be important, but I do. I know that the ideology of multiracialism says that it is morally wrong to love or value one's race (especially if one is Nordish), to care for it, regard it as important, or desire its continued existence, well-being and independence, but I consider this ideology -- which you apparently support -- as immoral and destructive, and in the present context particularly destructive of my race. I think there should be a moral presumption in favor of preservation and against destruction, and thus in favor of the conditions that preserve and against the conditions that destroy. By this presumption it is multiracialism that is immoral and my philosophy of racial preservationism that is moral."
I would like to see every person in a prominent or influential position asked if they love, value and care for the Nordish race, if they consider its existence to matter or be important, if they favor its preservation and support its most vital and legitimate rights and interests, its continued existence and independence. These are questions they have never been asked, and have never had to answer. They would prefer not to, so as not to prematurely alert the Nordish population before it is too late for the destructive course they have set to be reversed. Unlike the antagonist questioner above, they are much more discrete, and much less honest. Therefore, the above question is not likely to be publicly asked of a prominent member of the power structure. Not yet. We typically encounter it at a much more basic level, with little or no audience. I think the extent to which you answer it should depend on the audience. The antagonist questioner is probably not worth the effort (you need to assess this on an individual basis) but you may have an audience that includes people who are worth the effort. Your response should then be made for their sake.

3.2) "Why do you care if colored-eyed, blond people would disappear?
That will happen after you are dead anyway. Why bother? Things change;
that's the way things normally go."


3.2 Answer: The reference to colored-eyed, blond people is an evasive way of referring to the Nordish race, minimizing or trivializing its many unique traits and characteristics by arbitrarily restricting reference to only one or two traits (unless they are merely responding to your own use of these traits as a reason or justification for Nordish preservation, which is why if you use such an argument you should make it clear that you are talking about the preservation of a race, not just some of its traits). People who use such language should be obliged to clarify what they are referring to, and thus admit that they are referring to the Nordish race, not just to certain traits associated with it. So they are really saying no one should care if the Nordish race disappears -- i.e., becomes extinct through replacement and intermixture -- that its existence is not worthy of continuation. Where does the nihilistic reasoning behind this question end? Why should one care about preservation or conservation, about the continued existence of something that exists, that is a part of nature and the universe, whether a rain forest, a class of animals, a race of humanity, or the planet earth itself? The answer, ultimately, is that we value it and consider it important to us for some reason, and if it is an important part of our personal lives the probable answer is that we love it. Do not be afraid or ashamed to say that you love your race and that this is the source of your motivation. In fact, this should be the emphasis of your argument. Your love for your race should be affirmed whenever the subject of its preservation is debated. You can tell such people that you are sorry they do not think the Nordish race is worthy of continued existence, sorry that they do not care about its survival, but that you do because you love it and consider it worth saving.
Regarding the issue of racial preservation, the above question is a very non-committal, even cowardly, form of expression of those unwilling to state their own position. They should be confronted with the necessity of stating their position, of what they prefer or want if given the choice between Nordish preservation or destruction. They should be obliged to answer that question. If they say that, if the choice was theirs to make, they would prefer continued Nordish existence, that is one thing; if they say they would choose Nordish nonexistence, that is quite another thing. You could then turn the tables on them and ask them why, pointing out the general moral presumption in favor of preservation over destruction. Why do they favor Nordish extinction? What is their motive? What possible justification could there be for desiring the disappearance or nonexistence of a human race?
When telling someone that the Nordish race is moving toward extinction I have often heard the comment "We won't live to see it" or "We'll be dead by then." This is often a sign of fatalistic resignation, of people who see no way out, no viable alternative, and have been convinced that there is nothing they can do to change our course and therefore accept it as inevitable, adapting to live with this knowledge by accepting it, and telling themselves that what will be lost is of little value and not cause for grief or concern. They do not really want this to happen, but unless they can see a credible alternative they are likely to resent any call to resist it as futile and disturbing. If they say they want the Nordish race to be preserved, then present your alternative -- one that is morally and intellectually acceptable, even preferable, to the present course. If they say they want the Nordish race to be destroyed (usually they are not so honest, and evade the question) there is really very little purpose in continuing the conversation, and certainly almost no hope of converting this person to Nordish preservationism. It might be interesting to ask them if they would care if certain other races were to disappear, if there is any race they wish preserved. If they say no then you have a pure racial nihilist. If they would preserve other races but not the Nordish race then you have unmasked a specifically anti-Nordish strain of racial nihilism, and, if you have an audience, you can probably do no better than to lay it bare, expose it for what it is and describe your alternative. Say that the planet is big enough for all the races of humanity to exist on, as they have for the last 40,000-plus years. No race need disappear. This change they say is normal (and infer is inevitable) -- the disappearance of the Nordish race -- is not necessary, and certainly not normal. There is nothing normal about it. In fact it is completely abnormal. The normality of the last 40,000 years is for the races to each inhabit their own part of the planet, and to be secure in their continued existence in their own homelands. It is the recent abnormal violation of this normality, with other races moving into the Nordish parts of the planet, the Nordish homelands, which is now threatening the Nordish race with destruction. If this violation of normality is corrected, and each race is again secure in its own parts of the planet, all the races of humanity can continue to exist and share the earth together for uncounted millennia to come, and none need disappear.
My first encounter with explicit racial nihilism occurred in my senior year of high school (1967) in my American Institutions social studies class. The teacher, Mr. Schelter, began to preach racial intermixture as the solution to the race problem. I raised my hand and objected that intermixture would cause the extinction of the white race (I used the term "white" in those days). He replied "So? What's so special about the white race?" I was caught by surprise by this nihilistic reply and was not prepared to answer it. Until then I had naively assumed that no responsible or respectable person would knowingly advocate the destruction of my race, or any other race. I assumed that people who supported the conditions and practices that cause racial destruction did so because they were unaware of the consequences, not because they actually desired Nordish destruction. I still think that this is true of the great majority of our race who support multiracialism. Certainly the true consequences are not acknowledged by prominent leaders of the multiracialist establishment, but are evaded or denied. If the power structure behaves in this manner it can be assumed that they are afraid they would lose at least the consensus of public support for their policies if people were generally aware of their racially destructive consequences. Thus establishment leaders do not publicly make the kind of nihilistic remark as the person in this question. At least not yet. And that is itself cause for hope.

3.3) "Why do you praise this so-called Nordish beauty? There are lot's
of ugly white people, and there are beautiful non-whites too, so your
esthetic argument is invalid."

3.3 Answer: The praise of Nordish beauty is, of course, only relevant to those who appreciate it. As a reason or justification for Nordish preservation it is only effective with those who regard Nordish beauty as valuable and important and worth preserving. It is ineffective with those who regard Nordish beauty as being without value or importance. In the end, we will only preserve that which we love, and if the Nordish race is preserved it will be by those who love it, including those who love its beauty. In general, you should not have to justify Nordish preservation on the basis of its beauty (the "esthetic argument") or intelligence, as the right of a race to exist should be an absolute principle of morality and not be dependent on its qualities, yet its beauty -- based on appropriate examples (usually well-known celebrities, although your use of them as examples should not imply that they support the preservation of their race, or any of its other interests, as many, if not most, successful celebrities in the current cultural milieu will probably disappoint you in this regard) -- should certainly be mentioned at every opportunity as a reason why it should be valued and loved, and should make clear to any sensible person why its beauty is not interchangeable with, or replaceable by, the beauty of any other race.
When Mr. Schelter asked me what was so special about the white race that it deserved to exist (see response to previous question) he was playing the justification game, the ancient philosophical challenge to justify one's existence, or the existence of one's people, on the grounds that one is superior or special, and therefore worthy to exist, by some external measure. But the only measure that counts is internal, it comes from within us. It is we who make something valuable, meaningful, important or special by regarding it so. All value and meaning is determined and bestowed by us. (We are now told that the existence of the Nordish race has no meaning, value or importance, and that it is wrong, immoral and "racist" for us to think otherwise.) I often think of the justification game as the "Schelter trap," the false belief that many fall into that the preservation of the Nordish race must be justified by assertions that it is superior to other races, or conversely by claims that other races are inferior, and that without such superiority it does not deserve to exist. This logical trap assumes that superiority is required to be worthy of existence. Ultimately, the right of our race to exist does not depend on it being superior to any other race in any way, whether in beauty, intelligence, morality or creativity, but on the very fact of its existence and the moral presumption in favor of preserving that which exists, and on the fact that there are many millions of people who love and value it and want its continued existence, whose values and wishes should be treated with full consideration and respect. It is they who give its existence value and meaning and it is by their will that it has the right to exist.
If the person denying the basic rights of the Nordish race to preservation and independence is a member of a non-Nordish race, who is offended that you regard traits which he does not share as valuable and important, angered that you love and hold dear things that are outside of him and of which he is not a part, and insulted that you do not want your race to join with his, become one with it and become what it is, but want it to remain separate and distinct from his, you should tell him that you respect the right of his race to existence and independence in its own homelands, that you would not be offended by his love for his race and its existence, and that you reasonably expect the same consideration from him. Also, you should inform him that the mutual recognition of the right of each race to exist is the essential basis for trust and good will in relations between races, that without such recognition it is better to have no relations at all, and that if he does not respect the most vital and legitimate rights and interests of your race it is you who has the just cause for anger, not him.

3.4) "Isn't it a fact that in the Middle Ages the Arab world was more
powerful, more advanced and more scientific than the Western world?
Doesn't this make your assumption of the Nordish Race as the "Race of
Creators" invalid?"

3.4 Answer: This question is not really relevant to the issue of racial preservation, and if it is asked it is probably because the questioner assumes, rightly or wrongly, that you are justifying your call for Nordish preservation on the assertion that it is the "Race of Creators." You should not let your expressions of praise for your race, lauding its virtues, beauty and achievements, however legitimate and well-deserved, be mistaken as your justification for its preservation, which would imply that you believe the right of a race to exist is dependent on such considerations.
That said, and addressing the question on its merits, and as not relevant to the issue of racial preservation, Lawrence Brown, in his 1963 book The Might of the West, answers it very well. Empirical science was a unique creation of the Western World, beginning in the Middle Ages with those thinkers, such as Roger Bacon, who laid its metaphysical foundations. Arab physics was what Brown calls "the physics of magic," of the alchemist looking for the philosopher's stone or other magical powers, and its influence on the West in this area was harmful. As for power, certainly by the beginnings of the Crusades it was the West that was on the strategic offensive, exercising the dominant role, and the Arab world that was on the defensive, in which they were ultimately successful as the West refocused its energies on its internal struggles. When one looks at the science and engineering and technology that characterizes the modern world it is all essentially a creation of the West, adopted by the other peoples of humanity. Even with the diffusion of Western knowledge among the very capable peoples of northeast Asia, most notably Japan, the primary creation of new technology still occurs in the West, with the other peoples engaging in secondary creation, the further development or refinement of technology the West started. While the proportionate role of the Nordish race in the Classical world is more difficult to determine, certainly since the Middle Ages the Nordish race has clearly been the dominant racial element in the development of the West.
3.5) "Even if there would be differences in development, in intelligence
etc., what would they matter? Isn't this race mixing, this global coming
together part of our destiny? It would make a better world"

3.5 Answer: Destiny? Destiny is not preordained or determined by some external force. It is determined by us, by our choice, for which we are responsible. This question is another example of the attempt to portray the destruction of the Nordish race as inevitable, as something beyond our control caused by some external power, and thus evading the responsibility of our own actions and choices, which are the true determining force of the future. A better world? Why is one mixed race better for the world than the many distinct races that now exist and have existed on this world for tens of thousands of years? Specifically, why would the world be better without the existence of the Nordish race? Is not the planet big enough for all of its children, a house of many mansions? It has been for tens of thousands of years. Why should we change this? And make no mistake, if it does change it is humans and their actions that change it. It is a matter of human action, of human choice and decision, not of destiny or anything else outside of us. We can choose between the continued existence of the different races or their blending into one mixed race. In actual practice rather than theory, for the foreseeable future this is really a choice between the continued existence of the Nordish race in its homelands or its replacement by a hybridized African-Asian-European population in which the European element will be genetically submerged (and therefore effectively extinct or destroyed), while the non-European races will continue to exist in their own homelands.
3.6) "You and your believers have lost so many battles during the last
50 years that the war must be practically lost. Your enemy, the
proponents of multiculturalism, enjoys an almost total dominance. The
race mixing and the assimilation process has gone so far that a reversal
of this development would cause far more pain and discomfort than what
the northern peoples, who have grown very comfortable lately, could
endure. So why do you bother? What makes you think you can change the
world and in such a drastic manner too?"

3.6 Answer: Drastic? The extinction of the Nordish race would be a far more drastic change of the world than the restoration of the normal condition of racial separation. What makes the proponents of Nordish extinction think they can do this, or should do this? This seems to be another version of the claim of inevitability, that resistance is futile. Of course, if people can be made to believe this is true then it is likely to become the truth, as they will lose the will to resist.
As far as the war being practically lost, the fact is that we have not yet begun to fight. There has thus far been no significant Nordish opposition to multiracialism and the forces of racial destruction it has set in motion. This is because, so far, most Nordish people are still ignorant of what is at stake, still do not realize or understand what is happening, are still unaware of the consequences of multiracialist policies. Sometimes when you mention these consequences you hear the racial nihilist responses and questions listed here, but much more often you see and hear expressions of disbelief and incomprehension. Even many intelligent and thoughtful people, even supposed experts on the race problem, cannot understand or comprehend the fact that racial preservation requires reproductive isolation from other races, which requires racial separation. They do not understand what any competent anthropologist should know (and our antagonist questioners know) -- that races sharing the same territory will eventually mix together into one race. No prominent scholar, political leader, journalist or media figure will admit to such knowledge or acknowledge this fact in public. Not yet. Nor have they in the past. When the governments of the Nordish countries began their policies of multiracialization they did not publicly declare that the ultimate consequence would be the destruction and replacement of the Nordish peoples in their homelands. If the political, economic and cultural establishment leaders who promoted this policy were aware of its consequences, which any competent anthropologist could have told them if they lacked the wit to see for themselves, they certainly did not publicly acknowledge it. Instead, there has been a long record of dissimulation, disinformation, evasion and obfuscation on this matter, a practice that has been so effective that they have never been publicly challenged or questioned on it, so they have not even had to bother to deny it.
The battle for the preservation of the Nordish race has not yet begun, and it will not truly begin until the Nordish people are fully enlightened and informed about what has happened, is happening, and what will happen on the present course, until they are completely aware of their situation, including the fact that it is not inevitable, and that there are alternatives they can choose other than those given them by the multiracialist establishment. Without awareness of all the alternatives and their consequences, without all the relevant information and knowledge, they cannot make an informed choice or decision, and thus far they have not been informed, but have been controlled in a state of ignorance. If the questioner thinks the battle for Nordish preservation is already lost, then challenge him to share this belief publicly, to declare it in a public forum (if the editor will let him) or put it in writing and sign his name to it. If he does it will only help us to overcome the disbelief and incomprehension we most typically encounter in our efforts to make our people more aware. Of course, if he is a person of no prominence (as is typical of those who publicly acknowledge and support the consequences of multiracialism) his words will have little influence. The fact that the prominent and important people who promote multiracialism do not publicly say or admit what this questioner does is our best assurance that we have not yet lost, that our race can still be saved from the destruction they have planned for it if the Nordish people become aware of the situation and the possible alternatives, and that they know this, and fear it, and this is the reason for their silence, evasion and denials.
What kind of pain and discomfort does the questioner mean? Physical pain and discomfort from movements of population to restore the normal and natural condition of racial separation and reproductive isolation required for racial preservation? Tens of millions of people move great distances around this planet every year without physical pain or discomfort. In fact, many millions do it for pleasure. We call them tourists. Modern transportation technology has reduced the discomfort of travel or movement to the point where it is almost solely a matter of attitude. Emotional pain and discomfort? We should of course do everything within reason to minimize this. But this sounds like a claim that it is already too late to save the Nordish race, that the process of multiracialization has already gone too far, so we should give up and accept its destruction and replacement. This is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the multiracialists, and more than a little hypocritical, that after minimizing the effects of multiracialism for so many years as a harmless exercise in humanitarianism they should now exaggerate its effects as the reason to claim that the destruction of the Nordish race must now be accepted as irreversible. Of course, the process has not yet gone too far to be reversed. The Nordish race still exists in essentially full and undiminished form. But time is not on our side. Every year the situation worsens and the extent of racial harm and loss increases. So the questioner's remarks should be taken as reason why we must not delay or fail in our efforts, or before too long his words will be true.

4. REALIZING RACIST [i.e., Racial Preservationist] PHILOSOPHY - TOWARDS PANNORDICA
===================================================

These questions are about how your philosophy can be realized.
4.1) Do you think Ethnostates are a realistic option? In what time? What
are the requirements to set the process of constructing these states in
motion?

4.1 Answer: If by ethnostates you mean the separation of the races into their own independent countries or nation-states, you are referring to the condition required for racial preservation and independence. If they are not a realistic option then racial preservation and independence is not a realistic option. Abraham Lincoln said that no matter how difficult the task, where there is a will there is a way. Certainly it is realistic. As far as the physical capability is concerned, it is very realistic. The races can be separated at least as easily as they were brought together. The question is solely one of human will. If we want and desire ethnostates, if this is our will, then we will have them. The requirement to set the process of constructing them in motion is to let people know they are possible, that they are an alternative, and that they are necessary for racial preservation, thus creating a general will, a consensus of purpose, within our race to realize them.

4.2) Do you think the non-Nordic immigrants in the ancient Nordic
Racelands (i.e. Europe) can be persuaded to leave in peace? What are the
requirements to set this process in motion? What help should we, of
course from a pragmatic point of view, offer them? How large is the
chance it would result in violent conflicts (like Bosnia)?

4.2 Answer: I think the response of the non-Nordish peoples in the Nordish countries to Nordish preservationism will depend in part on their recognition of its moral correctness, and in part on the extent of support the preservationist movement enjoys within the Nordish race itself. The stronger the support within the Nordish race for preservationism the greater the degree of recognition and acceptance it is likely to be given by the non-Nordish peoples. If it achieves majority support within the Nordish race its legitimacy as the expression of the Nordish will would be undeniable and the moral credibility of multiracialism, and the supposed consensus that supports it, would be destroyed. Our hopes for a peaceful resolution of this problem will depend on respecting the legitimate rights and interests of the other races, treating them fairly, providing them with a situation in which their vital rights and interests are not threatened, and by making it clear that preservationist separation is supported by the resolute will of the Nordish race, from which it will not deviate. As we educate members of our own race regarding the reasons for separation, that it is imperative for racial preservation, we will also hopefully educate many members of the other races. If they can be made to understand our motive or reason for seeking separation from them is not to cause them harm, but to secure our continued existence, our most vital and legitimate right and interest, and that this is morally right and proper, and that we have good will toward them, mean them no harm but wish them well, and respect their legitimate rights and interests, certainly some, and hopefully many, among them will do what is right and give us their support. We should do everything within reason to maximize support and minimize opposition, by reducing the reasons or justifications for resistance, not only within our own race, but among the other races also. Certainly the more support we have from the other races in this undertaking the easier it will be, and the better will be the relations between the races afterwards.

4.3) At the beginning of DOA [Destiny of Angels] you state that deterrence without a real
capability to withstand hostile aggression from outside is not enough to
secure the interests of the Race. What if the Racial Golden Rule is not
accepted by all other races, or if it is accepted only by Northerners?
If one or more races are not content with having the wealth supply from
the North cut off and begin to rearm and express hostility towards the
North and thereby acquire a capability to strike through the defensive
measures of the North, how would the North respond to such a threat, or
potential threat?

4.3 Answer: It would of course be better if the principles of racial relations expressed by the Racial Compact and the Racial Golden Rule were implemented multilaterally rather than unilaterally, but we should be prepared to implement them unilaterally for the protection of our own interests if necessary. Recognition of the right of each race to exist is the necessary basis for trust and good will in the relations between races. Any race which refused to recognize, and act in accordance with, this right should not be permitted to prevent or interfere with the achievement of our goal of racial preservation and independence. If the Nordish race can achieve its independence united and with its strength intact, it should be capable of defending itself against external threats.

4.4) Are there any organizations today that come close to your
philosophy? Which organizations are closest? Have you been able to exert
any influence to change and broaden the mindset of any organizations or
other political forces?

4.5 Answer: I do not know of any existing organization that approaches my philosophy. I presume such an organization remains to be created. Most existing racialist organizations, and those who belong to them, have an existing mindset which is difficult to change. The problem is that this mindset is often a part of our problem, as it is a mindset that does not appeal to the great majority of our race, but rather alienates and repels most of the high quality people, as well as the masses of more ordinary people, we must attract if we are to gain the broad popular support we need to save our race. Often their goals and methods are such that they do not openly acknowledge them as they would instantly alienate all but the most fanatical supporters. This shapes their strategic outlook, causing them to accept as conventional wisdom the assumption that conditions for our race will have to get much worse before they are likely to attract a wide degree of support, as people would have to be terribly desperate or enraged to accept their program. This makes them dependent on external events, on something outside themselves and beyond their control, on something that will make large numbers of our race terribly desperate, on something that will probably never happen or happen only when it is too late, when the situation of the Nordish race has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer capable of saving itself. This tends to engender a passive rather than active stance, as they assume there is little they can do until hoped for external events change the situation. They do not consider changing their program, the alternative they offer, to make it an alternative people can accept now, under present conditions, as preferable to the present multiracialist course. To use a metaphor, the patient will have to be very sick indeed before he will accept the medicine they offer as a cure. If they offered a medicine that was palatable they would not meet such resistance from the patient, and might be able to save him before he dies.

4.5) The organization which, according to some, is the most progressive
and forceful today, is the National Alliance. How do you regard them?
How do you regard Dr. William Pierce and his strategic outlook? The
chapter Right and Wrong Racism from TRC [The Racial Compact] can certainly not be used to
describe the Alliance's outlook on racial relations.

4.5 Answer: I cannot claim to speak for Dr. Pierce, so I would not presume to attribute ideas to him that I have not seen explicitly expressed in his writing. Regarding his strategic outlook, he is one of those who have expressed the conventional racialist wisdom (as noted in my response to the previous question) that conditions will have to get much worse before he expects his movement to gather wide support. If his cure is similar to the course he describes in his novel The Turner Diaries conditions would have to get very bad indeed, perhaps even as bad as he imagines in his novel, before many would be willing to support it. I for one certainly hope that the situation of our race never comes to such desperate straits, where such extreme and desperate measures are taken by such desperate men and women.

4.6) What are the major weaknesses of those organizations and forces
opposed to the currently dominant multiculturalist power structure?

4.6 Answer: I think my responses to the previous two questions provide part of the answer for this question as well, but I will elaborate. One common weakness or flaw I find in many organizations is that they do not adequately recognize the primary problem -- that the issue is nothing less than racial survival, that the continued existence of our race is at stake -- and this causes them to greatly understate the severity of our problem and the measures necessary to correct it. These organizations either evade or deny the reality of this problem -- in which they essentially echo the multiracialist power structure itself -- or they belittle it as not likely to be of serious concern for the foreseeable future. They therefore concentrate their attentions on the lesser or secondary problems of multiracialism, which can theoretically be solved by means other than separation. Obviously, as they do not recognize the primary problem confronting the Nordish race from multiracialism, but effectively ignore it, they do not propose an alternative that would provide a solution to it. As far as racial preservationism is concerned, they do not address the issue and have no message to offer. They are still in the dark, still unaware, still clueless, about what is happening to their race. They cannot see that the issue is nothing less than the continued existence of their race. In this they are similar to the majority of their race as a whole, and it might help wake them to the real situation if they were introduced to some of the people who ask the kind of nihilist questions I answered above in section 3.
A subset of this type of organization is one that claims to support racial preservation, and even says its advocates separation, but proposes as a solution an alternative that is inadequate, where the races are either not separated geographically into their own countries and governments, but only by voluntary social arrangements, or where only a survivalist fraction of the race is separated into a small homeland while the great majority of the race is left to perish from the consequences of multiracialism. Such proposals are perhaps hampered by an effort to conform to individualist libertarian sensibilities, but they are inadequate to achieve racial preservation and independence, and represent another attempt to evade the true extent of the problem.
Another type of organization, which the multiracialist power structure typically claims represents the only form of racial thought, which all racialist thinkers supposedly adhere to regardless of what they might say to the contrary, is that of the supremacist or even genocidal variety. This type does not recognize or respect the rights or interests of other races. It may recognize the seriousness of the situation, but does not recognize the fact that racial preservation does not require measures that cause harm to other races, and that it therefore certainly cannot be used to justify such harm. The measures they advocate are typically violent and harsh, and not necessary for preservationist purposes, and thus apparently motivated by and serving some other purpose. They often identify themselves with "Nazism" (National Socialism), a nationalist political movement that violated the rights of other nations and races, and whose actions were in no way related to the legitimate goals of racial preservation. Such organizations are now commonly called "hate groups," and this term often has some validity when applied to them. The multiracialists claim that all racialist thought, even advocacy of racial preservation and racial rights, really belongs to this category, as they refuse to recognize the possible existence of alternative forms of racialism that are morally and intellectually credible and capable of attracting broad popular support. Unfortunately, they have been very successful at this, and are actually assisted by the activities of these racialist organizations and their members, who are widely perceived as the only representatives of racialist thought and action, but who in fact only do their race a great disservice, and the multiracialists a great service, by alienating the great majority of their race from pro-racial values. Most people know of nothing else, so the multiracialists are able to claim that these groups represent the only alternative to their policies, and equate any resistance or opposition to, or disagreement with, their policies with support for the policies of these groups. Thus the slightest expression of opposition to the multiracialist program can cause the speaker to be associated with Nazism and its crimes. Under such a blackout of racial information, where people know of no alternative to multiracialism and its consequences other than the quasi-Nazi groups, it is common for those who are most determined to oppose multiracialism to join these groups. We need to provide another alternative, another choice, a constructive course of action for those who want to save the Nordish race.
I would summarize by saying that the racial activist organizations I know of either have not adopted a comprehensive preservationist philosophy that outlines an adequate preservationist alternative, or they have not adopted one that is in accord with the moral sensibilities and values of the majority of our race, which is required to attract the broad popular support needed if we are to have any realistic chance of saving our race from the destructive effects of multiracialism.

4.7) Are there any non-Nordish / non-White countries or organizations
you know off that could be expected to welcome the philosophy of The
Racial Compact? For instance, Japan, or the Nation of Islam?

4.7 Answer: Most of the non-European peoples of the world already follow policies that are in their racial interest, although they might not express these policies in a formal racialist philosophy. I suspect many Japanese would broadly agree with the principles of the Racial Compact. The Nation of Islam talks about racial separation and independence but I do not know how firm their support for this would be if really given a choice. That choice would separate the true Black Nationalists from those who are only jiving.

5. THE PROMOTION OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY
===================================

5.1) In your books you express your philosophical outlook, but can you
say something about your strategical outlook? How shall we win the
hearts and minds of the Nordish people, how should the message be conveyed and
how can we find and reach out to the right people?

5.1 Answer: We need to reach people with our message by whatever means we can think of and whatever means are available. I started with books and magazine articles, both of very limited distribution. Now the internet is available so I am on-line, and I hope it will prove a great medium of communication for our cause. With sufficient people to do the work, pamphlets and leaflets are also a useful tool. We should use every means that we can. But first we must have the right message, or all our efforts will be futile and ineffective.
Our efforts should be ultimately geared toward political action. Election campaigns are great educational tools. Our mission is to convince our people to vote for the salvation, the continued existence, the preservation and independence, of their race. Thus simply stated, this seems like it should be a "no-brainer," absurdly simple, yet in our current near "Twilight Zone" type of situation it is perilously difficult, so much so that many say it is already too late. To achieve this mission we must first establish our moral and intellectual credibility and integrity in the minds of the electorate. We must make them aware both of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism, the present course, and the preservationist alternative that we offer, which we should describe in as much detail as is reasonably possible. This will define our position, which we must do for ourselves or we can be sure our opponents -- masters of disinformation -- will be happy to do it for us, much to our disfavor. Our position might displease many people, especially at first when they have not yet thought through the alternatives, but it will be much more favorable to us than the position the opposition will try to ascribe to us. We should promote the Charter of Racial Rights, making it clear that our movement respects and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all the other races and means them no harm, that we are against the legitimate rights of no race, that we want the same consideration from other races for our legitimate rights, that we do not want those who think otherwise to be part of our movement, and that any who behave otherwise will be excluded. We must make it clear that we condemn acts of illegal violence and terrorism, and that such acts do not promote the preservationist cause.
We should gain control of the issues by making our issue the defining issue that must be addressed and answered by every politician and public figure, compelling them to state their position on the question of Nordish racial preservation and independence, permitting no evasion or denial, no place for them to hide from the issue any longer. Those anti-Nordish racial nihilists of lesser prominence who have antagonized us with their explicit calls for the extinction of our race will then prove to be a source of embarrassment for their more prominent co-nihilists, as their careless language will come back to haunt them and undermine their efforts to deny the consequences of the course they have set us on. Eventually, when a sufficient level of situational awareness is achieved by the public, the position of the multiracialist power structure will be morally and intellectually discredited, and its consensus of general support will dissolve. That, at least, is what I would like to see happen. There is a saying that if you build a church the people will come to fill it. We must build a movement on a good foundation, on the right message, a comprehensive philosophy of racial relations, and then hope that the right people, good people, will come to fill it.

5.2) How many copies of your books have been printed and sold?
5.2 Answer: Not nearly enough! Books are very expensive, especially for someone like myself who has limited resources. They are also difficult to distribute, especially if you cannot afford to advertise. Although I am a dedicated bibliophile, and nothing can replace the tangible physical experience of a book, the internet is much cheaper, and if we use it well, it will hopefully enable us to break through the distribution barriers faced by books.

5.3) What kind of, and how many, responses to your books do you get?
5.3 Answer: One difference between the internet and books -- the responses I get from book readers is nearly always very positive, while the responses to my website are divided fairly evenly between pro and con. Some of the con responses are very interesting and informative in revealing the opposition thought processes, others are from "flamers" who are often so hostile they cannot express their argument in a rational or civil manner. Some responses are "off the wall" and quite eccentric, but this applies to some of the book readers as well.

5.4) Thus far, none of us know of your work being especially featured by
racial preservationist organizations -- it could be and should be much
wider known! How is the dissemination of your writings and philosophy
going and what strata seem most susceptible?

5.4 Answer: The seeds are being sown, and some are bearing fruit, but it is a painfully slow process with very limited resources. Generally, the most susceptible strata consists of highly intelligent and aware people who share one essential trait in common -- the continued existence and well-being of their race is important to them. They are those who love their race and care about its future, which is what one would expect. But thus far only a tiny fraction of even that strata has any awareness of my philosophy.

5.5) What kind of assistance would you most warmly welcome? What do you
think could cause a major breakthrough of this philosophy in important
segments?

5.5 Answer: All kinds of assistance would be welcome, all contributions gladly accepted. We need all the resources we can get, without forgetting that what we are really after is people, and that all other resources are merely a means to reach and hopefully get more people. It all boils down to a matter of people, of people supporting with their contributions, time, effort and votes the continued existence of their race. Every person we get to support our cause is a breakthrough. A major breakthrough would involve getting the support of a major person, a person of important standing who would attract publicity and create legitimacy. For me personally the ultimate assistance would be acquiring the means to devote all my time to the preservationist cause rather than spending most of my time having to work for a living. We will not really have a movement until it can afford to support a group of dedicated full-time activists and spokespeople.

5.6) The Charter of Racial Rights that you designed seems like it could
be promoted very well in our contemporary society (as the way it is
shaped -- a declaration of human rights -- is something the altruist
egalitarian, anti-Nordish forces within western civilization, are not
trained to deal with immediately, although we can be sure that at one
point they'll come up with some counteroffensive). But what strategy do you
think would be best to promote it? Could it be sent to certain
institutions, and/or organizations, and/or individuals (and of course
which institutions / organizations / individuals) ?

5.6 Answer: It was designed to stand alone and be easily understood by most people, appealing to their most basic sense of what is fair and good. It can be nailed to a door like Luther's theses, stuck on a wall, passed out to passersby, read aloud at a meeting, mailed to just about anyone, or posted on a website. It would be interesting to see how the multiracialists might attempt to counter it, but that does not worry me. I am much more concerned that they will ignore it, that the culture will ignore it, and not enough people will learn of it to create a critical mass sufficient to have an effect. That is their most likely means of countering it.

6. THE NEAR FUTURE
==================

6.1) Are you, apart from the additional articles on your web site,
working on anything specific now? A new book maybe? Is there one
planned?

6.1 Answer: A book is a major project in terms of both time and other resources, and most critically of all, of ideas. I do not have a book in the works at this time, but I am developing some ideas for new articles, which I will put on my website.
Richard McCulloch
October 30, 1998




The Reality of Race




Discussion and commentary regarding the claims by racial deconstructionists that the races of humanity are not real


Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:49:34 -0400
From: "D.B." in U.S.A.

In a correspondence dated June 27, 1990, professor Philip M. Peek (chairman,
anthropology department Drew University) responded to questions I had
concerning phenotypic similarities/differences concerning Nordics and
Mediterraneans. He replied "Since the advent of molecular biology (and its
offshoot, "molecular anthropology"), however, few human biologists base
racial classifications on any criteria that cannot be shown to be genotypic.
Many, such as Ashley Montagu and Frank Livingston, have abandoned all
biotaxic classifications of hominids below the species level. They therefore
deny the validity of the very concept of race as biological (rather than a
cultural) reality." So... are we in the minority here?

__________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:08:50 -0400
From: "A. P." in South Africa

Undoubtedly we are in the minority, but it depends more on political than
scientific reasons. Today it is "politically correct" to deny the importance
or the existence of human races, and, as prof. Philippe Rushton states,
every effort is made to deconstruct its very concept. Of course it's not the
first time in history that ideology influences and hinders science. As for
the genetic studies, they are by far too incomplete and limited to
substitute for traditional physical anthropology, despite the claims of the
current cultural elites.
A.P.

______________________________________________________
Richard McCulloch's reply and commentary,
To the above remarks by Professor Peep I would add the following excerpts from a newspaper article entitled "Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep," by Robert Boyd in the Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996; p. 14A):
WASHINGTON -- Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups. Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents...."Race has no basic biological reality," said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist....Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. "In the social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is not," said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to contradict common sense. "The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no such thing as race," said C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. "The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves intellectuals."
The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. "Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology...have completely revamped the traditional notions," said Solomon Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed that humans could be sorted into a few...inherited racial types....As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if they believe in the existence of separate biological races....As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race....[T]he revised concept of race...reflects recent scientific work with DNA...."We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level," said a Yale geneticist, Kenneth Kidd....[which]"support the concept that you can't draw boundaries around races."
This is really a matter of semantics, a word game of political correctness. The motive can be easily understood. The ideology of racial nihilism, which always minimized the importance or value of race and racial differences, is now dominant enough to attempt to deny the very reality of race, as it seeks the destruction of race. The dominant elements in academia and the culture do not want race to exist so they deny its existence as scientifically invalid, engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief regarding the claims that "there is no such thing as race," as if they can wish race into nonexistence by pretending it does not exist. They claim that race is only a cultural or political "construct," an arbitrary creation of society that people believe exists only because they are taught to believe it exists, and that if people were not taught about race they would be unaware of it and it would be deconstructed, ceasing to exist. But since race actually is objectively real, a fact that people can see for themselves without any need to be taught, then its deconstruction actually requires that they be taught that it is not real, and does not really exist, in spite of what they see to the contrary. The role of supposed "experts," possessors of superior and secret knowledge to whom ordinary people must defer, is central to this process, as described in Hans Christian Andersen's classic tale of The Emperor's New Clothes.
It is noteworthy that a valid definition of race is given in the above article, i.e., "races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents." This is not typical of racial deconstructionists. More commonly they neglect to give a valid definition of race even as they attempt to define race out of existence. Without a definition there is no point or standard of reference from which to judge the merits of their claims. Often race is confused with species, and wrongly defined as essentially the same as a species (i.e., as including all populations fully capable of interbreeding), and as there is only one human species and therefore different human species do not exist, if race is defined similarly then there is only one human race and different races cannot exist. But a race is not a species, and should not be defined the same as a species. It is a subdivision of a species, or subspecies, created by the divergent evolution of isolated populations of a species in the same process that eventually produces new species. I offer three dictionary definitions that represent the mainstream of pre-1990s opinion so the reader can judge whether the populations they define are real or not.
1.) "Any of the ...biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by [features of physical appearance]. " Webster's New World Dictionary (1966)
2.) "[A] group of persons connected by common descent, blood, or heredity....characterized by a more or less unique combination of physical traits which are transmitted in descent." The American College Dictionary (1969)
3.) "A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics." Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary (1987)
Next in order is a review of the definition of race offered in the above article, by which definition the reality of race is denied, i.e., "races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents." What part of this is not real?
Are the races not "distinct," e.g., can one not distinguish one race from another? Can one not easily distinguish indigenous Northern European, Central African or Northeast Asian individuals and populations from each other? I think the answer to this is obvious. Of course, these are probably the three most distinct racial types, representing the specialized extremes of a tripolar human racial typology. The main problem with racial typology is that there are so many different types, so much diversity, to be classified and typed, depending on how specific (and accurate) you want to be. The other races tend to be more generalized and not so physically distinct as these three, yet even a slight degree of familiarity with almost any race normally enables one to readily distinguish it from any other, and certainly the members of any race usually have no difficulty distinguishing themselves from any other race. Exceptions may exist, but they are rare and not the rule, and if anything only tend to prove the rule. A population that cannot be distinguished from other populations by its physical or racial traits should not be classified as a separate race. There are also many hybrid individuals and populations, the result of racial intermixture, that cannot be properly classified as belonging to any one race. But because they cannot be classified as belonging to any one particular race does not mean that races do not exist, only that these individuals or populations should be classified as being a hybrid or mixed blend of two or more races.
Are the races not "created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents," i.e., are not racial traits genetically determined and genetically transmitted from parents to their offspring? Again, I think the answer is obvious, and is as true for races as it is for any taxonomic or biological category. The most ordinary observation confirms that racial traits are clearly transmitted from generation to generation, from parents to their offspring, and are solely determined by this transmission, and not by any external or environmental influence. (Marxist dislike of this fact caused the Soviet Union to promote the contrary theory of "Lysenkoism," which held that traits acquired from the environment could be inherited by subsequent generations, and which may be enjoying an implicit revival among Neo-Marxist racial nihilists in the West.) This was known long before there was any knowledge of genes, and therefore any accurate knowledge of the actual means of transmission. We now know that genes are the means of transmission of all physical traits, including racial traits, from the structure of the brain to the features of the face and the pigmentation and texture of the epidermis. If these traits are not genetically transmitted then how are they transmitted? I don't know of any other credible explanation for the observed transmission of racial traits from parents to their offspring other than the genetic one, and I doubt that any anthropologist or biologist is explicitly offering one.
Are the races not "biological categories," i.e., are they not biological entities, and is their existence not a biological phenomenon? One more time, the answer is obvious. Genes are a biological phenomenon, a part of biology, and probably the most fundamental part. If different races are "created by differences in the genes" then they are biological categories. Specifically, they are a category below the category of species. Also, races are a product of the biological process of evolution. They were created by the same process of divergent evolution -- the branching of life into different forms that occurs when populations are isolated from each other, usually due to geographic separation -- that created all the biological diversity, or biodiversity, of life on earth. Races are part of that biological diversity. Races are a necessary part of biological evolution. They are the first step in the differentiation or divergence of life into distinctly different forms, the means by which different species are created. They are the stage of evolution a diverging or differentiating population must go through as it develops into separate species. If there were no races there would be no divergent evolution and differentiation of life into separate species.
What did Kenneth Kidd mean when he said, "you can't draw boundaries around races," with the inference that this means races are not real? This sounds like a reference to the fact that the different races of humanity can and do interbreed, that there are no biological or genetic boundaries separating them from intermixture with other races, and hybrid populations or "clines" of intermediate, racially mixed type do exist. But that is why they are defined as races and not as different species, which are separated by biological or genetic boundaries which make them unable to interbreed and produce hybrid populations. Races do not have to be incapable of interbreeding with other races to be considered genetically and biologically real or distinct. If they were they would be classified as species, not races. The fact that hybrid populations or clines exist means that the different populations of humanity are different races, not different species. The matter of clines has been too much abused by those who seek to use them to deny the existence of different races. The existence of clines proves that all humans are part of the same species, not part of the same race. Indeed, one would expect clines to exist within a species consisting of different races. Also, the existence of clines actually implies the existence of races, as how could there be clines of intermediate types between races if there were no races?
Or, alternatively, perhaps Kidd's remark is a reference to the fact that because of hybridization or intermixture there are no clear dividing lines or boundaries between the races, but instead a continuum of individuals and populations forming a gradient or cline of gradually changing racial type between the races, so choosing a single point on this continuum of intermediate racial types as a boundary or dividing line between the distinct races at the two ends of the continuum must be somewhat arbitrary, as the types that are located on each side of the dividing line will be more similar, and more closely related, to the type next to them on the other side of the dividing line than they are to the distinct type at the far end of their side of the line. But the existence of a cline or continuous range of intermediate or hybridized racial types between two distinct races does not mean that there is no distinct difference between the two races at the polar ends of the racial continuum. As with any continuum of type, or space or time, the two ends of the continuum are the most distinct from each other, while any two intermediate points on the continuum are less distinct from each other. To suggest that the absence of clear boundary points along a continuum (which is a defining characteristic of a continuum) is evidence that the distinct ends of the continuum do not really exist, and cannot be clearly distinguished from each other, is the product of either simplistic thinking or semantic obfuscation. The solution to this apparent dilemma is to "step out of the box" constructed by false logic and recognize that it is arbitrary to insist on dividing a continuum of gradually changing types into just two parts, when three or more parts -- the two distinct parts and one or more intermediate parts -- would be a more accurate description of reality. The logical error; or intellectual dishonesty, is only compounded when this arbitrarily imposed inaccuracy is then used as an argument to deny the reality -- the existence -- of the distinct races at the ends of the continuum.
The different races, like species, are biological and genetic entities. Their distinguishing traits are genetic traits, meaning that they are genetically determined and genetically transmitted or passed through the generations, by inherited genes, from the parents to the children, from one generation to another, and thus, despite the denials in the Miami Herald article, obviously "created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents." Thus racial traits are genetic traits, and genetic traits are biological traits. Thus race is genetically and biologically based or determined, and thus genetically and biologically real. This is obvious for everyone to see, so obvious that no so-called scientist or expert can credibly or believably deny it, and why denials elicit disbelief by those still in possession of common sense, and are accepted only by those who engage in a "willing suspension of disbelief" in order to conform to the dictates of "political correctness." Leonard Lieberman's survey of belief, mentioned in the Miami Herald article, is an obvious tool for inculcating and enforcing political correctness or ideological conformity of belief.
Those who claim race is not real cannot see the forest for the trees. They concentrate on the building blocks and cannot see the building. Thus they make statements such as "all blood is red" or the same color, or all people have the same organs inside, or we are all the same under the skin, etc. (although racial appearance is determined by bone, cartilage and muscle as well as skin, hair and eyes) to make the point that racial differences are not important, as only the building blocks or components are important, not their arrangement or what they form. A physicist I knew in college liked to say that at the sub-atomic level of neutrons, electrons and protons all matter is essentially indistinguishable, and at that level a non-specialist could not determine the difference between a human or a piece of rock, and he was right. Thus anthropologists now adhere to the politically correct racial nihilist dogma of racial denial by stating that at the molecular level of DNA or genes the different races are essentially indistinguishable, and only a specialist could hope to do so. But our senses do not operate at the molecular level, or at the level of our various internal organs, but at the level of the complete being they form, not at the micro level of the component parts (or building blocks) but at the macro level of their completed arrangement or construction. It is this complete construction that those who seek to deconstruct race deny is real, on the grounds that the differences seen in the complete or macro form in which our senses operate cannot be seen by a non-specialist at the micro level of its component parts. The Nordish race is as real as all the individual members who comprise it, who form its existence. They are the Nordish race, and the undeniable reality of their existence is also the undeniable reality of its existence.
This brings us to the important subject of the criteria for racial classification. In order of importance, they are:
1.) Phenotype: the subject's physical appearance, especially facial features and other obvious physical racial markers. This is the means used by people from time immemorial to identify and define race. Different people, based on their study, awareness, experience and aptitude, have different degrees of ability in this area, yet nearly all people of normal ability can easily distinguish between the primary racial types, and most can also distinguish between the subtypes with which they are most familiar (e.g., Englishmen can usually distinguish between a number of the more common English subtypes). The ability to make these distinctions is to some extent unconscious, seeming somewhat unscientific, subjective and almost intuitive, yet it is an inherent human ability constantly used to identify many common things which are familiar to us, and was used for racial identification long before anyone attempted to construct scientific criteria for this purpose.
2.) Anthropometrics: the subject's measurements and the indices derived therefrom. This requires some simple measuring tools and expertise in their use, but the results can be cross-checked and verified to a significant degree by the unaided but experienced eye. Carleton Coon, like many classical physical anthropologists of the first half of the 20th century, belonged to what could be called the anthropometric school. Unfortunately, when anthropometrics are given priority over phenotype in classification the result can be a subject classified as something which they don't really look like. Thus Coon's reference to exotic Nordic types, from places far removed from the Nordic centers, who conform to the Nordic anthropometric indices but really don't "look" Nordic in appearance. When there is an inconsistency between phenotypic and anthropometric classification the phenotypic appearance should generally be given priority. The fact is that a person's physical appearance or phenotype involves much more than is measured by all the different anthropometric indices. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of subtle, genetically determined things we notice almost unconsciously about a person's face that are not measured by any of the anthropometric indices of facial features, and this is also true of other areas of the body. This makes phenotype a much more accurate and comprehensive method of racial classification than all the anthropometric measurements yet devised. Anthropometrics originally began more as the measurement and study of the differences between the known European subraces than as a method for classifying or reclassifying them, and I believe it was improper to elevate it to the primary means of racial classification with precedence over phenotype. Anthropometrics should be seen as an aid to assist in phenotypic classification in difficult cases, perhaps casting the deciding vote in case of a phenotypic impasse, rather than as something that replaces or takes precedence over it.
3. Genetics: This measurement of molecular phenomena is based on something that is effectively invisible and unknown to the human senses. It is subject to the most abuse as the layman has no means of independently evaluating, verifying or checking the claims made by the supposed expert geneticist, as to do so would require extensive laboratory facilities and equipment, samples, and specialized scientific expertise. As a result, the claims are essentially taken on faith or trust in the competence and honesty of the experts, and can be easily misinterpreted, selectively reported or even falsified. Therefore genetic measurements should be regarded with suspicion when they are inconsistent with more visible means of classification. Also, geneticists do not yet really know what specific genes are involved in the determination of those traits which constitute the racial phenotype, so their measurements do not really involve those genes which are actually racially determinative but arbitrarily selected genes that determine genetic traits that are often really racially neutral (e.g., blood factors, etc.) and are present in all races, basing their measurements on the different frequencies of these genes in different populations.
Since the particular genetic traits that the geneticists measure are present in all human populations and races, varying only in frequency, and they have not yet identified the specific genes responsible for the inherited traits that distinguish the different races and are thus unique to a particular race, genetics is thus far only of very limited and questionable value as a means of racial classification. (Although forensic scientists can now fairly accurately identify a subject's racial ancestry from DNA samples.) To base a system of racial classification on it, as is perhaps most famously done by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators, can lead to some gross inaccuracies. For example, Cavalli-Sforza's widely reproduced chart of genetic distances between populations ("The History and Geography of Human Genes," page 78, Figure 2.3.2.B) groups the Japanese, Koreans and Mongols in a common category with Europeans while grouping the south Chinese in a different category with Polynesians, etc., indicating greater genetic distance between Japanese and southern Chinese than between Japanese and Europeans. Simply put, the particular genetic traits he uses for racial classification are more similar in Northeast Asians and Europeans than they are in Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians. This result should have set off alarm bells, clearly discrediting these genetic traits as irrelevant for the purpose of racial classification, but the genetic anthropologists persist in their use. Given this logical, or illogical, paradigm, is it any wonder that the genetic anthropologists come to the conclusion that the different races don't really exist, because they don't really exist in the particular genes they use for their studies?
We have not yet found the specific genes that determine race and racial differences, yet we know the traits that differentiate the races are real and are genetically determined, inherited from the parents and earlier ancestors, and from this readily observable and consistent fact we logically (and scientifically) deduce the existence of those genes. It is scientific arrogance, and very arbitrary, illogical and unscientific, to claim -- as the genetic anthropologists referred to by Prof. Peek do about race -- that something does not exist, is not scientifically valid, and is not real until science can fully understand and explain it, or in his words, that racial classifications cannot be based "on any criteria that cannot be shown to be genotypic." What is the standard for "shown?" It is obvious to the most normal observation that the physical traits or criteria that are popularly used for racial classification or identification, with virtually error-free accuracy, are consistently and predictably inherited from the parents and passed through the generations. The only possible logical deduction is that these inherited traits are genetically transmitted, and that they are genotypic, even if they cannot yet be "shown to be genotypic" in the sense of being identified, observed in action and fully understood and explained at the genetic level. Such an extreme standard or requirement for scientific acceptance is arbitrary and illogical. Scientific explanations for most common and easily observable phenomena are very recent, yet those phenomena -- those facts of nature and reality -- existed and were no less real before they had a scientific explanation, and were accepted as real by science, regardless of whether their underlying existence was proved or their nature understood. Things exist and are real independent of our scientific understanding of them, otherwise nothing would have existed until quite recently. Science is the study of reality, not the creator of reality.
Attempts to minimize or trivialize race and racial differences as meaningless and unimportant -- or even nonexistent -- on the grounds that the races share 99.9% of their genetic code or genome in common sound impressive until put in perspective with regard to the degree of human genetic similarity with other life forms. For example, we share 20-30% of our genetic code in common with yeast and bacteria, 80% in common with birds, 90% in common with non-primate mammals (e.g., cows, horses, pigs, cats, dogs, raccoons, etc.), and 98.6% in common with chimpanzees. Seen in this perspective a .1% genetic difference actually looms large as a degree of difference that is very meaningful and important.
The active or functional part of the human genome or genetic code consists of about 22,000 genes (2007 estimates) containing about 87 million "genetic letters," or nucleotide base pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid), of the total of about 2.9 billion base pairs in the complete human genome, or an average of about 4,000 genetic base pairs or "letters" per gene. The races of the human species share 99.9% of their 2.9 billion genetic base pairs in common, with genetic differences in .1% of the base pairs, a proportion which represents about 2.9 million genetic differences in the genome, or 87,000 genetic differences in the genes, or an average of four differences in genetic base pairs per gene. A single difference in the genetic base pairs or coding of a gene can significantly alter its effect, so a .1% difference in the genetic code could theoretically change the effect of virtually every gene in the genome. Seen in this perspective, as in the perspective in the preceding paragraph, a .1% genetic difference actually looms large as a degree of difference that is very meaningful and important.
The common argument that there is a greater degree of genetic variation within a race than between races is so misleading as to be suspect of deliberate deception. First, those who use this argument (frequently citing Luigi Cavalli-Sforza et. al. as their authority) often fail to state that the genetic difference between races they are referring to is in the racial average of the given traits. Thus what they should be saying is that the difference between the average in the given genetic traits between two races is less than the degree of variation in those traits within each race. Of course, to a thoughtful person this should be obvious, as it is logically impossible for there to be less variation in a given trait in two races than in one race. But leaving out the fact that they are comparing the full extremes of variation in a genetic trait within one race with the difference between the averages of that trait in two races is like leaving out the fact that one is comparing apples and oranges, and that such a comparision is not really very meaningful. Second, and most important, the genetic traits they use for these comparisons are not among those that are racially definitive and determinative, the traits on which racial identity is based and that are unique to each race, but among those that are not racially definitive or determining, that are racially neutral, and thus not really racially meaningful. The same argument could be used in a comparison of humans with chimpanzees, as the degree of difference between the average of humans and chimpanzees in the genetic traits they share in common is less than the degree of difference or variation in those traits within the human or chimpanzee species. It is the genetic traits that the human races do not share in common that determine the differences between them, just as it is the genetic traits that humans and chimpanzees do not share in common that determine the differences between them, and these are the only traits that are meaningful or important when discussing the differences between races and species.
At the risk of being repetitive, I'd like to add something I wrote on this subject to another correspondent. A political analysis is necessary because the ultimate motive for denying the reality of race is itself purely political in origin, not scientific.
The claim that races don't really exist, ludicrous and absurd as it is, is being encountered with increasing frequency, and is central to the cause of racial preservation, so we have to take it seriously and expose it for what it is: an exercise in thought control to impose an incredible falsehood as politically correct orthodox dogma to which all must conform or suffer condemnation and reprisal [cf. Lieberman's survey of belief cited in the Miami Herald article above]. The purpose can only be to eradicate every vestigial trace of European racial consciousness and awareness. Thus a person of European racial type can't love or care for their race, or have any loyalty or positive feelings or emotions towards it, as these feelings are based on racial consciousness which the dominant culture condemns as politically incorrect, and even pathologizes as mental illness. This tactic is ineffective on persons with a high degree of intellectual and moral autonomy, but people of less independent thought -- who depend upon the opinions of experts for their own opinions, yet characteristically and perversely regard themselves as superior to the independent thinkers -- are easy to control.
Personally, I trust what I can see with my own eyes over any claim to the contrary. I was well aware of primary racial differences before the age of eight, even though they weren't discussed in my home and I had no special training or education in this matter. The reality of race was simply self-evident: I could effortlessly see it with my eyes. I could also easily associate racial types with the appropriate areas of the world from which they derive. At age eight, when I saw the movie "The Bridge Over the River Kwai," I understood and could identify the racial distinction between the Japanese and British soldiers, even without their uniforms, and if a Briton had been cast as a Japanese, or vice versa, I would have instantly recognized that as improper. My racial identification process had nothing to do with the subject's blood type, cephalic index, IQ, height, or numerous genetic variables, although some of these can be seen with the eye while others cannot. You could provide me with all this information about a person and I wouldn't be able to identify their race, but show me a good picture of them and I can identify them most readily (and could when I was eight years old, although I wasn't as aware of the finer points of racial identification as I am today). Even if they are of mixed type, I can identify the dominant type in the mixture and possibly the other types as well. (For example, golfer Tiger Woods' dominant type is Congoid, although his ancestry is 50% Thai [Southeast Asian] and less than 50% Congoid, as he has some Amerindian and Caucasian ancestry as well. Yet my knowledge that he is part Amerindian and Caucasian is different than my knowledge that he is predominantly Congoid. I can see his Congoid ancestry with my own eyes, so it is first hand knowledge. I can't see his Amerindian or Caucasian ancestry, it is not evident to me, so my knowledge of it is second hand, based on what I've read or been told.)
Interestingly, all the claims that races are not real and simply don't exist are based on differences (or lack of differences) in things which are not racially definitive, which have never been used by ordinary people for racial identification, whether things we can't see (genes, blood types, IQ, etc.) or things we can (height, cephalic index, etc.). Some scientists may have attempted to identify different races through these things, but they are of marginal utility as racial identifiers, and at best secondary to the primary identifiers of physical appearance. They are actually completely unnecessary for racial identification and are only a matter of interest to those scientists who study such things. Their use as racial identifiers probably began in good faith, in the search for measurable and quantifiable means of racial identification, but now they are used by the racial nihilists, racial gnostics and other race deniers to claim that races don't exist, are not real, because the differences between the different races in these things are either minor or essentially nonexistent, often based on the assertion that the variation in these things between different individuals within a race are greater than the average variation in these things between races. So what! These things are not primary racial identifiers. They are at most secondary racial identifiers. As I said, you could tell me all these things about a person and I wouldn't be able to identify their race. But I can identify their race by their physical appearance, as I can identify different types of animals or plants by their appearance but not by such things as genes, blood types, etc. Yet the race deniers press on with their insistence that races don't exist, based on their measurements of these improper racial identifiers, and present this logical fallacy to the public as the scientific view. I'm sorry to say that Luigi Cavalli-Sforza is also guilty of this intellectual dishonesty or incompetence. We don't need scientists to identify races for us. I was able to do it with great accuracy by age eight without reading any scientific work on the subject, and everyone in my family, and everyone I knew or know, was and is able to do it without help from any scientist. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and other scientists who proclaim race doesn't exist are willfully racially blind, and only fools allow the blind to lead them. Unfortunately, racial blindness, whether real or feigned, is a precondition for success, or even survival, in the present culture. It is the price which all must pay to qualify for advancement to positions of influence and power. (Reminiscent of "Gulliver's Travels," where blindness was the price required for immortality. Who was Swift satirizing? All the willingly blind conformists who prefer social success to objective truth.)
This is the reason why I often compare our situation to Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." In the story, the population is told by the expert authorities that the Emperor's clothes are real, told to believe something contrary to what they can see with their own eyes, to distrust their own judgment and deny the evidence of their own senses. But a child, uncorrupted by political correctness, naturally trusting what he sees with his own eyes, exposes their fraud. Like the child, we must trust what we see with our own eyes, and virtually every person of anywhere near average intelligence who has eyes to see can readily identify a person's dominant primary racial type by their physical appearance. Even the race deniers can do this, but claim that physical appearance is not the proper racial identifier, insisting against all logic that the proper racial identifiers are those things with which they, and we, are actually unable to identify a person's race. Thus the race deniers attempt to define race out of existence with word games. But it is a physical reality that people see with their own eyes, however much they have been told to be racially blind and not see it, and to deny they see it.
The ultimate purpose of race denial is to promote racial intermixture, for if race is not real there are no legitimate grounds for racial preservationism -- or opposition to intermixture -- as there is no race to preserve. Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute and a regent of the University of California, is an advocate of interracial marriage. In this he practices what he preaches, or vice versa, as he is Congoid and his wife is Caucasian. Connerly is widely admired by racial nihilist American "conservatives" for his crusade to end "Affirmative Action" racial quota programs, consistent with his belief that all racial values and considerations should be eliminated. The following is from an article by Connerly that appeared in David Horowitz' FrontPage Magazine in September, 2000, entitled "Loving America:"
When the history books are written about "race" relations in the last half of the 20th century, I expect 1967 to be a big year....1967 marks a turning point in America's race relations.... In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that laws forbidding "interracial" marriage were unconstitutional. The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. Throughout the 20th century, scientists told us that "race" is a human invention, and that it does not represent a natural biological division between humans. Nevertheless, Americans continued to divide people along "racial" lines. Until 1950, we only allowed "whites" to become naturalized American citizens....By mid-century, however, cracks began to appear in our racial lines....Rev. King moved Kennedy, and then Johnson, to pass the Civil Rights laws that we currently observe. But, these merely broke down the artificial barriers between the "races." A number of states still maintained the fundamental barrier -- they forbade "black" and "white" people from marrying.
That is why Loving is so important. After Loving, people began to ignore the government's racial lines. Individuals whose skin color didn't match began to date, marry and have children in ever-increasing numbers. The effect was difficult to see at first. There were many who gasped when the University of Georgia's star running back, Herschel Walker, had a white girlfriend. Today, though, the cable network E! may ask Tiger Woods and Joanne Jagoda, Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt and Maury Povich and Connie Chung about their love lives, but not because they are "interracial" couples. Sober observers of race relations today recognize the fundamental sea changes at work. Later this month the Jerome Levy Institute is sponsoring a conference devoted to "multiraciality."
It is easy to lose sight of the powerful effect the "interracial" community is having on America....In California today, there are more children born to "interracial" couples than are born to two black parents. As the Hispanic and Asian diasporas continue, the "California trend" will become the American trend. By 2070, perhaps sooner, "black," "brown," and "white" will be historical concepts. Café-au-lait will be reality....We are on the cusp of the age that forgot "race." Today's young children will never understand "race" like their parents. Their playgrounds are "interracial." The skin of their friends and classmates represent every hue imaginable. We are finally nearing the summit, when the government will stop stuffing the richness of our common humanity into their stifling "race" boxes. The transition from a "race" paradigm to one in which there is no such thing as "race" will not be easy. There is no road map to get us there. Political obstacles will emerge at every step of the way, because of those who hold that "race" is one of those "self-evident truths." Because certain Americans look roughly alike, they must be members of the same "race," so the argument will go. We must induce the scientists to step forward and refute the myths of "race."
Our language must be modified to reflect more appropriate ways of identifying people other than "African-American," "Asian," and "Hispanic." We must argue for the abandonment of terms such as "minority" to reflect the reality that Americans are not part of any socially defined "racial" groups. Thus, there is no "majority" or "minority." More Americans must be encouraged to acknowledge the "diversity" of their backgrounds. When more "African-Americans" readily and proudly acknowledge the diversity" of their backgrounds -- the fact that they are the product of America's melting pot -- then the concept of "race" will disintegrate...
Once social outcasts because of their defiance of social conventions, interracial people can and must now be leaders in preparing our nation for the future. We are truly one people, a merging of those who believe in a colorblind society, who are willing to act on those beliefs in the things that matter most. Now is the time to step forward, to be counted, and to show what a Loving America really is.
The purpose of this race denial, again, is obvious. It seeks to delegitimize racial existence by denying that existence. Something which doesn't exist has no legal or moral standing to claim a right to exist or any other rights: no right to life, to control of its life, or to the conditions it requires for life; no right to preservation, no right to independence, freedom or self-determination, no right to its own territory and homeland, no right to be. Since it doesn't really exist there is nothing to preserve or protect, its continued existence is not a matter of legitimate concern, and nothing will be lost by its nonexistence, destruction or extinction. The basis for a Nordish racial preservationist challenge to the multiracialist goal of Nordish racial extinction is cut off at its source, delegitimized as unreal and pathologized as mentally ill (paranoid delusion?), and it will likely be eventually criminalized as a threat to the multiracialist civil order.
Richard McCulloch






 

Good folks who follow this blog