The Racial Compact

[Libris]

[---][center][large]The Racial Compact[/large]

A call for Racial Preservation, Racial Independence, Racial Rights and Racial Good Will[/center][---]



[justify]Essays by Richard McCulloch on a new concept of racial relations that promotes the preservation, independence and legitimate rights and interests of all races, providing a preservationist alternative to the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism.

1. Racial Diversity ? Defines racial diversity, the conditions that created it and the conditions that are required for its continuation.

2. Racial Rights ? Discusses the distinction between factual beliefs and ethical beliefs, and introduces The Racial Compact , an agreement 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 all the different races of humanity.

3. The Charter of Racial Rights ? An enumeration and description of racial rights and discussion of related principles and ethical beliefs.

4. Racial Nihilism ? Describes the currently dominant concept of racial relations that opposes racial preservation and promotes the destruction and annihilation, or reduction to nothing, of racial differences and different races.

5. Right and Wrong Racism ? Discusses the varieties of racism, the different forms, motives and definitions, and draws a distinction between the moral and immoral forms.

6. The Races of Humanity ? A discussion of human evolution, taxonomic categories, and outline of human racial classification.

7. The Nordish Race ? Defines the Northern European racial group, with a taxonomic outline of the different Nordish racial types, and describes the racial composition of the indigenous populations of the countries of Europe.

8. The Nordish Crisis ? A discussion of the racial problem that has become a racial crisis for the Northern European racial group, subjecting it to a process of racial dispossession and destruction.

9. Racial Population Projections ? A demographic table of the racial population of the United States from 1880 to 1992, and a table projecting the racial population to 2050, with explanatory text that describes the dynamics of racial population change.

10. The Path of Destruction ? A discussion of the racially destructive effects of multiracialism on the Nordish race by dispossession, replacement and intermixture, and of the central role of racial nihilism in the promotion of this harmful process.

11. The Right to Racial Life ? Describes the ideology of racial preservationism and its conflict with racial nihilism.

12. The Racial Golden Rule ? Applies the principle of ?live and let live? to advance racial relations to a higher moral level in which the races of humanity can coexist and share the earth together in a spirit of mutual good will.

13. Racial Average is Racial Destiny ? Presents and discusses a scale which quantifies the effects of intermixture between the Nordish race and other races, and thus the relative assimilability of other races by the Nordish race.

14. Whom the Gods Would Destroy ? Describes racial nihilism and its destructive consequences in the classic and allegorical terms of madness.

15. Racial Tender Loving Care ? A discussion of racial stewardship, the ethics of reproduction, and the role of love in the nurturing of a race.

16. Separation : The Preservationist Imperative ? A discussion of the conditions of racial separation and reproductive isolation that are required for Nordish racial preservation.

17. Many Mansions ? A vision of the future of humanity as ?a house with many mansions,? in which racial preservation and independence would be protected and promoted, making the world safe for human racial diversity.

18. The Preservationist Alternative ? The racial preservationist solution to the race problem, the choice of racial life over racial death.

19. Racial Partition for Racial Preservation ? Outlines a proposal for a racial partition of the United States for the purpose of racial preservation and independence, illustrated with a color map.[/justify]

[center]__________________________________________________________________[/center]


[justify]An Interview with Richard McCulloch ? In a wide-ranging interview conducted with European correspondents over the internet in October, 1998 the author answers many frequently asked questions about racial preservationism and discusses the world-wide Nordish racial crisis.

Racial Preservation: Issues and Answers ? Correspondence, commentary and discussion by Richard McCulloch on the issues, questions, problems and challenges frequently encountered by proponents of racial preservation and independence.[/justify]

[center]__________________________________________________________________[/center]


McCulloch Richard - Balder ex libris
http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php ... ch-Richard

[Libris]

[center]Racial Diversity

by
Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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 100,000 genes (of which perhaps 60,000 are functional), each consisting of many thousands of ?genetic letters,? or nucleotide base pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid), numbering 3.1 billion base pairs in total. (The interaction of these genes in producing genetic traits is often complex. 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 3.1 billion genetic base pairs in common, with genetic differences in .1% of the base pairs, a proportion which represents about 3.1 million genetic differences, or an average of 31 differences in genetic base pairs per gene. (Humans share 99% of their DNA in common with Chimpanzees, our closest living non-human relative.)

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, Iran and India, 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 present 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.

6. Quoted in Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life , (Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 320.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]Racial Rights

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]Charter of Racial Rights

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]Racial Nihilism

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]Right and Wrong Racism

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]The Races of Humanity

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]




[justify]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 genetic 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 great diversity existing in the human species today is the product of over 100,000 years of divergent evolution. Many of the specific details of that evolution are still not perfectly known or understood, but the fossil record indicates that the genus Homo developed in Africa, and by 1.8 million years ago (the age of fossil remains found on the island of Java in Indonesia) had spread across much of Eurasia where it developed into a variety of regional archaic populations. The genetic evidence from mitochondrial DNA indicates that the modern human species also originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where it began diverging into different populations by 180,000 years ago. By 100,000 years ago some of these populations had migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa and dispersed across Eurasia and North Africa, replacing the regional archaic populations. (The manner of that replacement, and whether or not ? and to what extent ? the modern humans may have interbred with the archaic populations, are subjects of debate.) By 40,000 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 and Capoid of sub-Saharan Africa, the Australoid of India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia, the Mongoloid of Northeast Asia (expanding after 20,000 B.C. into the Americas and replacing the Australoids in Southeast Asia and Indonesia after 4,000 B.C.) and the Caucasoid of Europe, North Africa and West Asia (partly replacing the Australoids in India after 8,000 B.C., 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.

The different races are often popularly defined and named (often very inaccurately) by skin color, but as this system is based on only one genetic difference, when thousands 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 that are, or presumably were, at or near the center of their area of evolutionary development and origin.

Outline of Human Racial Classification:
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 African race

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)

III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies

A. Mediterranid race

1. 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)
2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
3. 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 during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt)
5. 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)

B. 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)
C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)
D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
E. Nordish or Northern European race (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; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)
F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey)
H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)

IV. 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)

V. Mongoloid Subspecies

A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids)
C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids)
D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)

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

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 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 ? perhaps 10,000 years old ? 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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]The Nordish Race

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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 1957). 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 northern Europe after the retreat of the glaciers, at the end of the last ice age, during the Upper Paleolithic period circa 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 descended from the proto-Nordic Danubian neolithic farmers of the Danube valley whose expansion into northwest Europe circa 3,500 B.C. is probably associated with the spread of neolithic agriculture and the Indo-European language.)

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 were of this type)

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 Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean immigrants)

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 combines dark hair with usually 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 proto-Nordic with Ladogan, with the Danubian 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 = 30% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman Iron Age invaders), 20% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 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% Brünn, 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 = 30% 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), 5% 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 = 85% West Mediterranean, 9% South Mediterranean, 5% Dinaric, 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Visigoth aristocracy) = 1% Central Nordish
Italy = 50% Dinaricized Mediterranean (most common in the south and Sicily), 20% Dinaric (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in the northwest), 10% West Mediterranean (most common in Sardinia), 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 are 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 = 40% East Mediterranean, 25% Dinaricized Mediterranean, 20% Alpine (most common in Epirus), 10% Dinaric, 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. 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-1957) 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 northern Europe since Neolithic times or before (i.e., before 3,000 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-1957) 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-1957 period this situation of ancient standing has been changing drastically and rapidly due to the massive immigration of other races into northern Europe, initially into the former colonial powers, later into all the noncommunist countries of the Nordish homeland.

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 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.

The Nordish race (1998) numbers 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 moved them.

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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]The Nordish Crisis

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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 over the last 100,000 years 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 diversion of about five percent of the total commerce in Congoid slaves into the southern English colonies.

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. 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 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 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 1945 book, Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal called the race problem ?The 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 made the decisions; to what extent the course or consequences of multiracialization were intended or planned, considered or foreseen; 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.

Large-scale non-Nordish immigration into Britain began in 1957, ironically as the British themselves withdrew from their former non-Nordish colonies [ First_Immigrants.JPG]. In the early 1960s large numbers of non-Nordish immigrants and ?guest workers? began to enter the Nordish countries on the European continent. In the U.S. the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 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 the 1970s non-Nordish immigrants began to enter Scandinavia, and 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 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 most 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.
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:

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.

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 worldWe 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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[justify]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 [ 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 [ 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. It can be assumed that the term ?white? as used in the above debate 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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]U.S. Racial Population Projections[/center]

Table key:
m = million
% of pop. = percentage of total population;
Pop. 15-44 = population age 15-44
Pop. 0-14 = population age 0-14
% of 15-44 = percent of total population age 15-44
% of 0-14 = percent of total population age 0-14
Table I: U.S. Population by Race 1880-2050





[justify]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? 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.

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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]The Path of Destruction

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]Every living creature, every species or race, has certain conditions that are required for its continued existence. Its environment or habitat must fulfill these conditions or it will not be able to live. It may die quickly, like a fish out of water or a mammal without air to breathe. It may die slowly, from lack of food or drink. It may die very slowly, over a period of generations, not as individuals but as a race, due to environmental conditions that make it difficult, or impossible, for it to successfully reproduce. Every life form differs in its particular environmental requirements for existence. Some are more specialized and fragile, others are more generalized and adaptable. But whatever its environmental range there are certain conditions it requires to live, without which it will die and become extinct.

The Nordish (Northern European) race, like every other form of life, has certain environmental conditions that it requires for racial health and well-being, for successful reproduction, for survival and continued existence. If the conditions conducive to Nordish life are absent or removed from the habitat, and replaced by conditions that are destructive of Nordish life, it will not be able to live within that habitat. If it remains there it will die. The process may be rapid or slow, sudden extinction or gradual diminishment, but it will eventually cease to exist.

There are many things that can cause the extinction of the Nordish race, from the simple to the complex, from the lack of air, food or water to devastation by war or disease, but such a cause would have to be of catastrophic dimensions previously unparalleled in magnitude. The most likely cause of Nordish racial death, the process presently underway, is not so sudden or obvious, but its ultimate effect, Nordish extinction, is no less cataclysmic.

The primary threat to continued Nordish life is related to the process and conditions of evolution that created the Nordish race and made its existence possible. Those conditions included separation or isolation from the other diverging branches of the human species, preventing intermixture and permitting divergent evolution. Racial separation or isolation was required for the divergent evolution and creation of the Nordish race and is required no less for its continued existence. Without it, what was done, or created, by divergent evolution can be undone, or decreated, by intermixture or devolution. Racial diversity, made possible by conditions of reproductive isolation, can only be maintained or preserved by reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation requires geographical separation. The race must have its own exclusive territory, homeland or homeland, free from the presence of other races and the danger of intermixture.

The primary danger to continued Nordish life is not nuclear war or pollution, but the intermixture of the Nordish race with other races into one hybridized race in which its distinct and unique racial traits and characteristics would be submerged and negated, and its existence lost. Intermixture would make the Nordish race extinct. For Northern Europeans, racial intermixture is racial extinction.

Only like can create like. Only a Northern European can create a Northern European. Only Nordish parents can create a Nordish child. The intermixture of a Northern European with a non-Northern European (unless the non-Northern European is of a closely related race with little genetic or racial distance separating it from the Northern European) will not produce a Nordish child. Exceptions to this rule can only occur when the non-Nordish parent is already of partially Nordish ancestry, and the Nordish part of the mixture is sufficient to predominate in combination with a fully Nordish partner. The greater the genetic distance of the non-Nordish element from the Nordish, the greater part of the mixture the Nordish element must be to predominate.

Until relatively recently the Nordish race enjoyed the conditions of racial separation and isolation required for its divergent evolution and continued existence or preservation. As Table I shows, as late as 1880 the United States was, with one major exception, a Nordish country, a territorial possession of the Nordish race, and was so regarded by the other nations of the world.

The major exception was the Congoids, recently freed from slavery, who constituted 12% of the population. This legacy of the racially short-sighted and unwise admission of the unfortunate victims of the African slave trade into the forming Nordish homeland was, and still remains, a great source of strife and danger. Early American leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, tried to solve the problem by proposing total racial separation, either by returning the Congoid population to Africa or by giving them a fully independent and separate country of their own carved out of the territory of the United States. After the terrible carnage and suffering of the Nordish-American Civil War (1861-1865), fought primarily over the Congoid issue, they were given citizenship and their permanent position in the country was no longer questioned, but promoted, by the leadership establishment.

When France presented the United States with the Statue of Liberty in 1886 it was in recognition of the achievements of the 110 year-old nation, of the existing population and their ancestors. That year was also a witness to the early wavelets of the great flood of Armenid and Mediterranid immigration that was to bring millions of non-Northern Europeans to America over the next several decades. It was the beginning of a process of racial transformation that was to decisively change both the racial composition and nature of the country and the symbolic meaning of the Statue of Liberty, from a salute to the pre-1886 Nordish creators of the country to a beacon of welcome for the post-1886 non-Nordish immigrants, and a denial of the right of the Nordish inhabitants of the country to the conditions of racial separation and independence they require for continued existence.

The pro-Nordish immigration reforms of the 1920s slowed this process of racial change, but the anti-Nordish (?pro? or ?anti? Nordish as measured by the standard of vital Nordish interests, e.g., the conditions required for Nordish life) immigration reforms of the 1960s accelerated the process once again to a tempo so fast as to be literally beyond government control and determined by the immigrants themselves. Table I displays the effects of this fast-paced process, which is both taking the United States away from the Nordish race and depriving the Nordish race in America of the conditions it needs to live.

As the table also shows, the process of racial transformation has been assisted by the wide difference in birthrates between the Nordish and most of the non-Nordish elements. At the height of the ?baby boom? in 1957 the Nordish birthrate was almost at the national average, but then went into a decline that brought it below both the national average and the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Since the mid-1970s the Nordish birthrate has been only about 1.8 per woman. Assuming that 10% of these births are non-Nordish offspring of racially mixed couples, the true Nordish birthrate is only about 1.6 per woman, more than 25% below the replacement level.

Worldwide, in the period since 1957, most of the other Nordish countries (the primary exceptions being the former communist countries of eastern Europe) have begun to follow the same course of admitting non-Nordish immigrants, and experiencing the same process of racial transformation, as the United States. The process is especially advanced in Great Britain and the Netherlands. Their racially unwise colonial involvement in non-Nordish countries has been followed by their racially unwise admission of non-Northern Europeans into their home populations. In both countries the non-Nordish element now amounts to almost 12% of the population. The ancient Nordish homelands, especially those of the central Nordish types, are all endangered by this process, which is everywhere promoted by the values and philosophy of racial nihilism.

The racial future of North America is of much greater importance to the interests of the Nordish race than to the interests of the non-Nordish races. It contains over 30% of the world Nordish population and over 40% of the central Nordish types. By contrast, it contains only 6% of the world Congoid population (less than Latin America), less than 3% of the non-Nordish Caucasoids and less than .3% of the Asian Mongoloids. North America is a central or core racial homeland for the Nordish race, containing a major and vital part of the racial body. For the other races North America, and their racial presence there, is peripheral and only a minor and non-vital part of their total racial being. [Note 1] The Nordish race has much more at stake, and much more to lose, in North America than any other. For it alone, North America is not expendable, as its racial loss might well prove racially fatal. For it alone, the struggle for the future of North America is a decisive one.

The unfolding process of Nordish racial death and extinction is the direct and unavoidable result of the Nordish race being deprived of the conditions of racial separation and reproductive isolation it requires for continued existence. This loss of the conditions essential for Nordish racial life is deliberate and intentional, and is strongly promoted by the dominant agents (ideas, values and practices, and the persons or institutions who promote, espouse or enforce them) of racial nihilism. Racial nihilism seeks to dissolve all the human races into one race, the world into one world, the different peoples into one people, and condemns as immoral any desire or attempt by the Nordish race to maintain or restore the conditions of racial separation and independence it needs to live. By denying the Nordish race the conditions required for its existence, racial nihilism is, in both effect and intent, the agent of Nordish nonexistence.

Racial intermixture is the ultimate means of achieving Nordish nonexistence. It negates or destroys Nordish traits by genetic submergence. The proportion of non-Northern Europeans in the U.S. population is already several times larger than necessary to genetically negate the Nordish race through intermixture. Non-Nordish immigration and high birthrates add extra nails for the coffin, and provide the reassurance of racial overkill. The ultimate result of this process is the nonexistence, destruction or death of the Nordish race, yet none dare call it genocide. It kills or murders no living person, but it does kill a race, and in killing a race it does preemptively ?kill? the unborn generations of the race. Future generations of Northern Europeans cannot live if the Nordish race does not live.

Racial separation is the only sure obstacle or barrier to intermixture. Without it, racial discrimination, or preference for one?s own race, in the selection of a mate is the sole remaining agent for racial preservation, but it is psychologically demanding, difficult and stressful, and only partially effective. If there were no racial separation, and no racial discrimination in the selection of a mate, and the rule of racial nihilism was complete, the Nordish race in America would probably pass the point of racial no-return, losing the ability to save itself, within one generation, and would be essentially extinct within four.

The actual timetable of Nordish racial death, including all its endangered populations, depends on certain interrelated variables, chiefly the rate of non-Nordish population increase within the Nordish homelands (determined by birthrates and immigration rates) and the rate of intermixture (determined by the relative strength of the agents of racial destruction versus the agents of racial preservation). But the actual sequence of major events or developments is more certain. First, the Nordish element will become a minority (likely to happen in the U.S. in the first decade of the 21st century) in its homeland and lose control of the country. Second, the Nordish element will lose its racial independence and freedom, control of its own racial destiny and the ability to save itself. This is the point of racial no-return. Third, and last, the Nordish elements will, through a combination of racial intermixture (absorption) and low rate of reproduction, diminish in both numbers and distinctiveness, quantity and quality, to the point of effective nonexistence.

Racial intermixture is a complex subject, and its effects vary depending on the genetic distance (degree of racial difference) and numerical proportions of the races involved in the mixture. Due to the highly recessive nature of many of its traits, the Nordish race is especially vulnerable to the negating effects of intermixture. The ability of the Nordish race to assimilate other races through intermixture is very limited. Some non-Nordish races are more assimilable than others. Those more closely related to the Nordish race are more assimilable than those more distantly related. Those with a lesser degree of racial difference from the Nordish race are more assimilable than those with a greater degree. Those whose genes are more compatible with Nordish genes are more assimilable than those whose genes are more conflicting. Those who are more assimilable can be successfully assimilated by a smaller proportionate ratio of Northern Europeans than those who are less assimilable. But assimilation has its unavoidable costs. Even a very dilute degree of intermixture has its effects, and these tend to be felt the most strongly where it hurts the race the most, in the most racially distinct elements, the core or heart of the race.

As a rule, the Ladogan, Alpine and Dinaric races can be regarded as the most assimilable by the Nordish race. Most of the peripheral Nordish types are in fact already a stabilized blend resulting from the mixture of central Nordish types with these races in a ratio of two to one in the Nordish favor. A five to one ratio mixture of central Northern Europeans with these races would be the equivalent of a one to one ratio mixture of peripheral with central Nordish types, with a resulting type about midway between the two. A six to one ratio mixture between central Northern Europeans and these races would be required for the result to favor the central Nordish type. In the United States, the present ratio of central Northern Europeans to these races is about 4.6 to one. This means that the Nordish capacity or capability for assimilation would be totally used, exhausted and even exceeded by the assimilation of these races alone, with no additional capability to spare for the assimilation of other, less assimilable, non-Nordish races.

The other Caucasoid races require a greater ratio of Northern Europeans to non-Northern Europeans for successful assimilation by the Nordish race, and the different non-Caucasoid subspecies require a much greater ratio. Their traits are often so discordant and incompatible with Nordish traits, and so dominant, that they, and their effects, persist even in very dilute mixture with Northern Europeans, significantly altering, diminishing and even negating more recessive Nordish traits, especially the more distinct ones. There are anomalies and individual exceptions to this rule. There are individuals who are mixtures of Nordish with a different subspecies in only a three to one ratio who are essentially Nordish. But while this demonstrates that racially mixed individuals should be racially classified on an individual basis, it is also true that when calculating the effects of intermixture on an entire population it is the rule, not the exceptions, the norm, not the deviations, that should be given primary consideration. By this rule, the non-Nordish races other than the Ladogan, Alpine and Dinaric should be classified as unassimilable.

At present, the greatest losses being suffered by the Nordish race are the result of simple nonreproduction. The low Nordish birthrate has already had, and continues to have, population effects more devastating and tragic than any war or plague within the Nordish experience. More than one out of four of the members of the Nordish race, including many of the most valuable and distinct, are lost from this cause. Intermixture with unassimilable non-Northern Europeans is only the second greatest cause of Nordish racial losses, claiming 10-20% of Northern Europeans at this time, mostly through intermixture with Mediterranids and Armenids.

As indicated by Table I, high non-Nordish immigration and birthrates are also major causes of the ongoing process of racial change, in which the Nordish race is being replaced by other races in its homelands. In this regard, what this table indicates for the United States is also true for many other Nordish homelands, from Canada and Australia to Great Britain and the Netherlands.

One of the common effects of this process of racial change can be referred to as racial displacement. This occurs whenever a member of another race takes the place or position of a person in our lives with whom we interact or form a relationship. These positions vary in importance. They can be major or minor, primary or secondary, central or peripheral, close or distant, but they all, in greater or lesser degree, have an effect, impact or influence on our lives. These positions can be a matter of free and discretionary choice, as in a husband or wife, or in the children, and relatives-in-law, that are the result of our choice in a mate. But mostly they are a matter of opportunity, over which we have little control if we are to interact or function in the larger society outside our home. Often they are in our own family, positions occupied by those chosen by a relative. The positions over which we have little or no control can be that of a step father or mother, a step brother or sister, a half brother or sister, the husband or wife of a sister or brother, nieces or nephews, a neighbor or co-worker, a teacher or student, an employer or employee, a barber or bank teller, the girl behind the drugstore counter or the children playing in the neighborhood.

Whenever one of these positions in our lives is filled by a member of another race they are taking the place of someone of our own race who would have filled that position in a homogeneous, monoracial society. A relationship or interaction that would have been with a member of our own race occurs instead with a member of another race. The more places in our lives taken by members of other races the fewer that remain for members of our own race, the more we are deprived of contact with members of our own race, and the more difficult and uncommon it becomes for us to form relationships with members of our own race. The places in our lives are filled more and more by members of other races, replacing members of our own race. We constantly see them and become used to seeing them. They become familiar and we often develop feelings of loyalty and friendship with them. But we fail to see the members of our own race who would have occupied those positions in our lives, and with whom we should have shared those feelings, if they had not been displaced by the members of other races.

Even the selection of a mate, which should be a matter of choice, is limited by opportunity and availability, factors largely beyond our control. As more and more of the prospective mate positions in our lives are taken by members of other races, displacing members of our own race, fewer positions are available for members of our own race, and our opportunities for finding a mate of our own race lessen. This greatly increases the likelihood that a mate of another race will be chosen. In this manner racial displacement promotes racial intermixture.

Racial nihilism is not an equal threat to all races. Some are more threatened than others. At present, and for the foreseeable future, multiracialism and the trend toward racial intermixture is endangering the independence and existence of the Nordish race more than any other. The homelands of the Mongoloid race in Asia, the Congoid race in Africa, the Dravidic race in India and other non-European races are not threatened by any movement toward multiracialism. Their races are in no peril of extinction through intermixture, immigration or displacement. There is no movement of alien races into their homelands. Non-Mongoloid races are not migrating into the Mongoloid homelands. Non-Congoid races are not migrating into the Congoid homeland. The Amerindian race in Latin America is in no demographic danger, but is thriving and increasing. In fact, the non-Nordish racial elements most affected by multiracialism are those now in the Nordish homelands, the very ones who are causing the destruction of the Nordish peoples by depriving them of the conditions of independence and separation they need to exist, while their own racial homelands, with the great majority of their racial populations, remain racially unthreatened, safe, secure, inviolate and homogeneous.

For the Nordish race intermixture is like the story of the ten little Indians, of whom there were fewer and fewer ?and then there were none.? If racial nihilism has its way the Nordish peoples will fall before it like dominoes, and will not only be ?the vanishing Americans,? but the vanishing Canadians, Britons, Scandinavians, Dutch, Germans and Australians as well. With their disappearance a great part of humanity?s diversity will be missing, irretrievably lost.

Racial nihilism, in denying the Nordish race the conditions it requires for existence and promoting the causes of its non-existence, is essentially denying its value and importance. Racial nihilism is saying that the continued existence of the Nordish race is not important, that it is not an important or vital part of life, creation and the universe, that it is expendable, that its loss or destruction is therefore not a legitimate subject for concern, and the prevention of its loss or destruction, its preservation, is not a legitimate or moral cause or goal. To racial nihilism, Nordish salvation, or continued existence, is not only not important, it is not desirable, as it would interfere with, and prevent, the achievement of its goal. To racial nihilism it is the nonexistence or extinction of the Nordish race that is important, not its continued existence or life.

The change now occurring is much more than political or economic change, much more even than religious, social or cultural change. It is racial change. Racial change is the most drastic form of change. It is permanent and irreversible change. It is more than a change in outward forms, it is a change in inner substance. It is biological change, genetic change, evolutionary change, a change of life forms, a change in creation, in life and in nature. One race, one life form, one evolutionary, biological, genetic line or continuum is being replaced by others. The drastic and irreversible change now being wrought by racial nihilism requires that its values and goals be carefully considered, questioned and examined, and, if the Nordish race is to be saved, challenged. Only one system of ideas and values, only one code of ethics and morality ? racial preservationism ? can challenge racial nihilism. Only it would dare to. Only it would have the will or reason to. Racial preservationism is the ?to be? to racial nihilism?s ?not to be.? Only it can save the Nordish race.

1. This is true even of the Amerindian race. At the time of the discovery of America by Columbus in 1492 only about 5% of the total Amerindian population lived north of the Rio Grande in what is referred to here as North America. The other 95% of the Amerindian race lived south of the Rio Grande, in what is now Latin America, or on the Caribbean Islands. Mexico alone had six times as many Amerindians as all of North America. The Amerindian race, including Mestizos, now numbers about 170 million. Only about 1.4% of these are native North American Indians, the rest being Latin American Indians or Latinos. The large influx of Mexican and other Latino immigrants into North America since 1965 has placed a large portion of the Amerindian population (27.4 million, or about 16%) north of the Rio Grande for the first time, but this Latino-Hispanic movement should be regarded as an expansion from their existing central homelands into neighboring, previously peripheral territory, rather than as a reclamation of formerly central territory by la Raza, ?the race,? as they call themselves.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]The Right to Racial Life

by

Richard McCulloch[/center]



[justify]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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]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[/center]

[justify]?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.[/justify]

[Libris]

[center]Racial Average is Racial Destiny

By

Richard McCulloch[/center]



Scale of Northern European Racial Assimilability






[justify]A scale which quantifies the effects of intermixture between the Northern European or Nordish race and other races, and thus the relative assimilability of other races by the Nordish race, provides a useful tool for Nordish racial preservationists. This scale is designed to help Nordish preservationists predict the results of intermixture in much the same manner as the periodic table of the elements helps scientists understand chemical reactions. It enables us to calculate the effect on the Nordish race of intermixture with different races, and thus the ability of a Nordish population to assimilate other racial elements. Also, expressing the requirements for Nordish racial preservation in quantitative terms creates an objective standard by which the preservationist effectiveness of different proposals for racial separation can be measured, compared and judged. The larger the numbers involved the more accurate the predicted result or effect will be. The results for individual cases or small samples of intermixture will vary more broadly, but the result for a larger number, especially an entire population, can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. When the consequences of racial intermixture are quantified, or graphically displayed on a scale or chart, they become clearer, more obvious and easier for many people to understand. There is an inflexibility or absoluteness about numbers that makes them more difficult to evade or deny.

Every scale must have a point of reference, from which the measurement is made. For this scale, which indicates the assimilability of different racial types with the Nordish type, and the effects of their intermixture upon the Nordish type, the point or standard of reference is the Nordish race, and specifically its central and most distinct types. Other races would have entirely different scales of assimilability, with themselves as the point or standard of reference, i.e., the beginning numbers. For example, on a scale based on the Japanese people, the indigenous Japanese population would number perhaps 0-4, the Nordish racial types would likely measure in the 30s or 40s, or the mid-range numbers, and the West Africans would again be the highest numbers.

This scale begins with the most distinct Northern European or Nordish types, the Central Nordish types (Nordic, Fälish, Trønder, Brünn and Borreby) indigenous to northern Europe, ranging in distinctiveness from ?0? to ?4,? with the most distinctly Nordish as ?0? and the least as ?4,? and proceeds through the Peripheral Nordish types (Atlantid, East Baltic, Neo-Danubian, Sub-Nordic) who range from ?3? to ?6? in Nordish distinctiveness, through the various non-Nordish European types, to the various non-European Caucasian types, to the various non-Caucasian racial types. (See The Nordish Race for a more detailed description of the Nordish types)

This progression of assimilability (or unassimilability) coincides fairly closely, as one might expect, with the degree of racial or genetic distance of the various races from the Nordish race. If two or more different races are grouped closely together it is not an indication that they are racially closely related or similar, but only that they share a similar degree of assimilability with ? or racial distance from ? the Central Nordish racial types. Similarly, if two individuals share the same racial rating on this scale it does not indicate that they are necessarily of the same racial type, ancestry or group, only that they share the same degree of assimilability with ? or racial distance from ? the Nordish race.

The Mediterranid group ranges from 9-16 with the more ?gracile? types being more assimilable for a Nordish population and the other types being less assimilable.

The Orientalid racial group consists of the ?Arab? or ?Semitic? populations of such countries as Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The Turanid group is the predominant element in Kazakhstan and is also common in Turkey.

The Indic group is the predominant racial type in Pakistan and northern India. The Dravidic group is the predominant racial element in the remainder of India.

The black population in the Americas is of the Palaecongoid and Sudanid subraces of West Africa. (See The Races of Humanity for a more detailed description of the non-Nordish races) Blood group studies have indicated that the U.S. black population is about 25% ?white? in its genetic composition as a consequence of past intermixture. Assuming the racial average of the ?white? element was a ?4,? this would place the U.S. black average at about ?64? on this scale.

The dividing line between ?white? and ?nonwhite? is not as clear as it once was. In the United States before 1880 ? before the ?new immigration? (1890-1924) added a large Mediterranid and Armenid element ? the population consisted almost exclusively of Northern Europeans and West Africans, and the racial designations of ?white? and ?black? referred to these two groups. For all practical purposes, and in popular usage, ?white? was synonymous with Northern European. With the increase in the number of intermediate types there has been an expansion or inflation in the definition of ?white? in its common usage to include a much broader range of racial types, many of which are quite racially distant from, and genetically incompatible with, the Nordish race. In current popular usage the dividing line on this scale between white and nonwhite would probably be in the 18-20 range. As a result, for purposes of Nordish racial preservationism the racial category of ?white? is now clearly inadequate, since so many of those included in this category are far removed beyond what the Nordish race is capable of assimilating without losing its own racial identity. As presently defined the ?white? race is not really a race, if a race is defined as a population that shares both a common biological ancestry and essentially similar, mutually compatible genetic traits which are not diminished or lost by within-group reproduction.

Racially mixed populations and individuals can range greatly over this scale. The racial average of mixed populations can be fairly accurately calculated based on their ancestral racial components, but the racial rating of mixed-race individuals can vary widely, although an average can be calculated. For example, one would expect the average racial rating of a quadroon (a person one-quarter black, with one black and three white grandparents) on this scale to be about ?23? if the white grandparents had a racial average of ?3? and the black grandparent were an unmixed West African rated at ?83? (3+3+3+83 = 92. 92÷4 = 23). This would be outside the ?white? racial range (see above). But Carleton Coon cites C. Stern to the effect that about 25% of quadroons can ?pass? as ?white.? Given a quadroon racial average of ?23? it can be expected that some would be rated in the 16-20 range, and able to pass as ?white? when the ?white? population extends to that range. In the U.S. before 1880, when the ?white? racial range, with few exceptions, rarely extended beyond ?9,? it would have been much less common for a quadroon to ?pass? as ?white,? and even octoroons (persons one-eighth black, with one black and seven white great-grandparents), with a racial average of ?13,? would have had difficulty doing so, as evidenced by the octoroon children of the quadroon Sally Hemings, alleged to have been fathered either by Thomas Jefferson or his nephew. Of course, if the single black grandparent of a quadroon was in fact part white, and rated at the modern U.S. black average of ?64? on this scale, then the grandchild would be expected to rate near ?18? (3+3+3+64 = 73. 73÷4 = 18.25).

In the United States blacks who rate above ?40? on this scale (which would include most blacks who are half white in their genetic endowment) are generally perceived as simply black. Only when they rate below ?40? is there a general perception that they are part white.

For purposes of reference, Colin Powell would rate about ?35? on this scale. The late entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr. rated about ?45,? while his children by Swedish actress Mai Britt ? who rates at the most distinct Nordish level as a ?1? ? rate as predicted by this scale in the 21-25 range. O.J. Simpson would rate about ?55,? while his children by his late wife Nicole, who rated about ?4,? would be expected to rate in the 29-30 range.

Given the laws of chance that govern genetic combinations in racial intermixture, individual exceptions to the rule are common. But as a rule mixed-race individuals conform closely to the results one would predict from this scale. For example, Nancy Kwan, an attractive ?Chinese? actress of the 1950s and 1960s, was actually Eurasian, half European and half Chinese (Northeast Asian), and rated about 23 on this scale, as one would predict. But Occidental movie-goers wrongly perceived her as a representative of pure Chinese womanhood, rather than the result of an equal European-Chinese mixture.

Some population groups are not racial groups, and consist of a mixture of individuals spread over a fairly broad racial range. Such groups, of racially mixed composition, are not defined in specifically racial terms and can only be placed on this scale in general terms. Such is the case with the Hispanic group. The Hispanic category covers almost the total racial range of this scale, but the great majority of the U.S. Hispanic population consists of Latin American Amerindians and Mestizos ? persons of mixed Amerindian and white (usually Mediterranid) ancestry. Even this more specific group, being still racially mixed, covers a broad racial range, from about ?20? to ?45.? For purposes of calculation I place their average at ?30.?

Sample calculations using this scale to predict the effects of intermixture:

If the indigenous Nordish population of Sweden, which is rated at an average of ?2? on this scale (see below) were to assimilate a West African element that was 1% of its own size ? which it outnumbered 100 to 1 ? its average would shift to 2.8, a very substantial racial change from being the most distinct of Nordish populations to being of only about average Central Nordish distinctiveness. A similar racial result would occur in the intermixture of a population that was 92% Swedish and 8% Mediterranid, with the average Mediterranid rating ?12? on this scale, calculated as follows: 92% at ?2? = 184 and 8% at ?12? = 96. Add 184 + 96 = 280. Divide this by 100 and the resulting racial average is 2.8.

If the Swedish population assimilated a West African element that was 5% of the population, with the average West African rating ?83,? its racial average would change to 6, calculated as follows: 95% at ?2? = 190 and 5% at ?83? = 415. Add 190 + 415 = 605. Divide this by 100 and the resulting racial average is 6.05, a radical racial shift from being the most distinctively Nordish people to being borderline non-Nordish. A similar racial shift would occur in the intermixture of a population that was 60% Swedish and 40% Mediterranid, calculated as follows: 60% at ?2? = 120 and 40% at ?12? = 480. Add 120 + 480 = 600. Divide this by 100 and the resulting racial average is 6.

To take this sample series further, the mixture of a population that was 90% Swedish and 10% West African would result in a racial average of 10.1, calculated as follows: 90% at ?2? = 180 and 10% at ?83? = 830. Add 180 + 830 = 1,010. Divide this by 100 and the resulting racial average is 10.1. A similar racial average would result from the mixture of a population that was 20% Swedish and 80% Mediterranid, calculated as follows: 20% at ?2? = 40 and 80% at ?12? = 960. Add 40 + 960 = 1,000. Divide this by 100 and the resulting racial average is 10.

As should be evident from the above sample calculations, this scale teaches an important lesson ? for every degree of assimilation, however small it might seem, there are costs to be paid that are harmful to the preservation of the Nordish race and, if sufficiently large, actually destructive of the Nordish race. There is no getting around the numbers. They are inflexible and cannot be honestly evaded or denied.

The value of this scale to racial preservationists derives from the fact that when a population is composed of different racial elements it must be assumed that over time these elements will intermix or blend together, and the resulting mixed population will tend to increasingly cluster toward the mean, acquiring a growing uniformity around the racial average. In short, the racial average of a population is its racial destiny, its eventual racial future, predicting what the actual predominant racial type of the population will be after the process of intermixture has been completed. But due to global immigration patterns the racial average in many populations is not stable. This is especially true of many historically Nordish or part-Nordish populations, where immigration is causing them to shift ever further away from their indigenous racial average.

Scandinavia: As is universally recognized, the most distinctly Nordish populations are in Scandinavia. The totally Central Nordish indigenous population of Sweden, for example, would average about a ?2? on this scale, calculated as follows: 15% of the population are ?0s? = 0; 20% of the population are ?1s? = 20; 30% are ?2s? = 60; 20% are ?3s? = 60; and 15% are ?4s? = 60. Add these numbers together (0+20+60+60+60 = 200) and divide by 100 (for 100%) and the average is ?2.? The indigenous populations of Norway and Denmark would average about ?2.2,? with 10% ?0s,? 20% ?1s,? 30% ?2s,? 20% ?3s? and 20% ?4s.? [See The Nordish Race for the racial composition of indigenous European populations]

When one takes into account the recent (post-1965) non-Nordish immigration into Scandinavia, and especially the racial composition of births, then the racial average of the population changes dramatically. For example, about 10% of the births in Sweden are to immigrants. If we assume that the assimilability of these immigrant newborns averages ?40? (i.e., assuming there are about twice as many Caucasians among the immigrants than black Africans, while the remainder are Asian), then the racial composition of births in Sweden would be calculated as follows: 90% are ?2s? (the indigenous Swedish births) = 180 and 10% are ?40s? = 400. Add 180 + 400 = 580. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of Swedish births is currently about 5.8, a dramatic change from the indigenous population which has historically defined Nordish racial distinctiveness. The late physical anthropologist Carleton Coon called Sweden a refuge area for the classic Nordic racial type. This refuge area is now clearly endangered, as a ?5.8? racial average is far removed from the classic Nordic type.

Britain: The Central Nordish element in the British population, not so distinctly Nordish on average as the Scandinavians, would average about a ?3? on this scale, calculated as follows: 10% are ?1s? = 10; 20% are ?2s? = 40; 30% are ?3s? = 90; and 40% are ?4s? = 160. Add these numbers together (10+40+90+160 = 300) and divide by 100 and the average is ?3.? The average of the indigenous British Peripheral Nordish element would be about ?5,? calculated as follows: 10% are ?3s? = 30; 20% are ?4s? = 80; 30% are ?5s? = 150; and 40% are ?6s? = 240. Add these numbers together (30+80+150+240 = 500) and divide by 100 and the average is ?5.? The indigenous population of Britain as a whole would average about 3.66, calculated as follows: 67% are ?3s? (the Central Nordish elements) = 201 and 33% are ?5s? (the Peripheral Nordish elements) = 165. Add 201 + 165 = 366. Divide this by 100 and the average degree of Nordish distinctiveness of the indigenous British population is 3.66.

This again changes dramatically when the post-1955 non-Nordish immigrants into Britain and their descendants are considered, most noticeably in births, which together with immigration rates determine the racial composition of the future population. The non-indigenous elements are currently about 9% of the population. Assigning them an average assimilability rating of ?50? (as the black proportion is larger than in Scandinavia) the present racial composition of Britain would be calculated as follows: 91% are ?3.66s? (the average of the indigenous British element) = 333.06 and 9% are ?50s? = 450. Add 333 + 450 = 783. Divide this by 100 and the British racial average is now about 7.83. Britain, which has been an exclusively and distinctly Nordish country since prehistoric times, now has a non-Nordish racial average. The racial average of the birthrate indicates that Britain will be even further removed from the Nordish type in the future. The non-indigenous elements account for about 14% of births, so the racial composition of births in Britain would be calculated as follows: 86% are ?3.66s? (the average of the indigenous British births) = 314.76 and 14% are ?50s? = 700. Add 315 + 700 = 1,015. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of British births is now about 10.15, which is about the same as Italy?s.

Select groups within a population can vary substantially from the racial average of a population as a whole. In 1975 I visited the British aircraft carrier H.M.S. Hermes while it was serving as a Commando carrier (and while Prince Charles was assigned to it as a helicopter pilot). On board were a Royal Marine Commando of about 700 men, a battery of Royal Artillery of about 90 men, and a ship?s company of about 1,000 Royal Navy officers and seamen. I was struck by the marked racial difference between the Royal Marines and the sailors, even when the clearly non-indigenous sailors were excluded. The Royal Marines were not only splendid examples of manhood, but on average much more distinctly Nordish than the sailors. On this scale I would place the Royal Marine racial average at ?2.5,? while the sailors would rate about ?4.? Obviously, some type of strong selection process was involved with these elite personnel beyond the expected one of physical conditioning. Similarly, when I visited the Norway pavilion at Epcot in May, 1988, just prior to its grand opening by the Norwegian Royal Family, I was impressed by the very high degree of Nordish racial distinctiveness of the young Norwegians staffing the pavilion at that time. Having visited Norway, I rate the Norwegian population as a whole at about ?2.2? on this scale, but the very select group at the pavilion rated about ?1.4.? On subsequent visits to the pavilion I have found the staff to be more representative of the Norwegian population as a whole, a still very distinctly Nordish ?2.2.? It might also be noted that groups that are voluntary associations are often very selective, confirming the old adage that ?Birds of a feather flock together,? and can differ dramatically from the racial average of a population as a whole.

Germany: The racial distinctiveness of the Nordish population of Germany can be calculated as follows: 75% are ?3s? (the average of the Central Nordish elements) = 225, and 25% are ?5s? (the average of the Peripheral Nordish elements) = 125. Add 225 + 125 = 350. Divide this by 100 and the average degree of distinctiveness of the German Nordish population is 3.5. The racial average of the indigenous population of Germany as a whole would be calculated thus: 80% are ?3.5s? (the Nordish elements) = 280 and 20% are ?7.5s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric elements) = 150. Add 280 + 150 = 430. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the entire indigenous German population is 4.3. When non-indigenous immigrant elements ? currently about 9% of the population ? are included, the racial average of the German population shifts as follows: 91% are ?4.3s? (the average of the indigenous German element) = 391.3 and 9% are ?30s? (the average of the immigrant element, which is mainly Turkish and Orientalid) = 270. Add 391 + 270 = 661. Divide this by 100 and the German racial average is now about 6.61, which is outside the Nordish range. As the immigrant element accounts for about 15% of births the racial average of births in Germany is currently about 8.15.

France: The distinctiveness of the Nordish population of France can be calculated as follows: 14% are ?3s? (the average of the Central Nordish elements) = 42, and 86% are ?5s? (the average of the Peripheral Nordish elements) = 430. Add 42 + 430 = 472. Divide this by 100 and the average degree of distinctiveness of the French Nordish population is 4.72, which is outside the Central Nordish range. The racial average of the indigenous population of France as a whole would be calculated thus: 35% are ?4.72s? (the Nordish elements) = 165.2 and 65% are ?8.5s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Mediterranid elements) = 552.5. Add 165.2 + 552.5 = 717.7. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the entire indigenous French population is 7.18. When non-indigenous immigrant elements ? currently about 9% of the population ? are included, the racial average of the French population shifts as follows: 91% are ?7.18s? (the average of the indigenous French element) = 653.38 and 9% are ?50s? (the average of the immigrant element, which has a large proportion of black Africans) = 450. Add 653.4 + 450 = 1,103. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the French population as a whole is now about 11. The immigrant elements account for about 14% of births, so the racial average of births in France is now about 13.17.

Individuals in the 1-2 range are very rare among the indigenous French population. Actresses Emmanuelle Beart and Julie Delpy would rate about ?3? on this scale, while Catherine Deneuve, Leslie Caron and Brigitte Bardot would rate in the 4-6 range. While Mlle. Bardot, now of the elder generation, has supported the movement to preserve the French people by restricting and repatriating racially incompatible immigrants, Mlle. Beart, of the younger generation, has gained notoriety for her support of immigrant interests.

Italy: The position of the Italian population on this scale can be calculated as follows: 5% are ?4.5s? (the average of the Nordish elements) = 22.5; 35% are ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric elements) = 280; and 60% are ?12s? (the average of the Mediterranid elements) = 720. Add 22.5 + 280 + 720 = 1,022.5. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the indigenous Italian population is 10.22.

In general, in recent years there has been a tendency among European countries to adopt more restrictive immigration policies, but racial preservationists should not draw too much comfort from this, for three reasons. First, this tendency has been more a response to high unemployment and other adverse economic factors than to any explicit racial preservationist sentiment. No doubt such sentiment exists and is a factor, but the anti-preservationist ideology of racial nihilism is still overwhelmingly dominant, and unless it is replaced by a new preservationist paradigm the immigrant influx into Europe, and its racially destructive consequences, can be expected to eventually return to, and even exceed, its previous levels. Second, the level of immigration into western Europe is still high, exceeding two million per year. Third, the immigrant elements currently present in the countries of northwestern Europe are already too large to be assimilated by the indigenous populations without effectively destroying their existing and historical racial identity. Only their removal from Europe ? preferably by their repatriation to their own countries of origin, their own racial homelands ? can prevent the destruction of the indigenous European populations.

When racially incompatible immigrants settle in a European country they change its racial average, and thereby its racial destiny or future. Immigrants (and the political, economic and cultural leadership that promotes or permits their entry) have dramatically changed the racial average of such Nordish countries as Britain and Sweden, thereby also changing the racial destiny of these countries from a Nordish future to a non-Nordish future, from a destiny that continued and preserved their indigenous Nordish populations to a destiny in which their indigenous populations are transformed and replaced by non-Nordish populations ? a racially non-British Britain and non-Swedish Sweden ? although the transformed populations might still identify themselves nationally as British and Swedish. A restoration of the indigenous racial average, restoring a Britain for the British and a Sweden for the Swedes, is required for the continuation and preservation, the future existence and destiny, of the indigenous British, Swedish and other Nordish peoples.

United States: The racial distinctiveness of the Nordish population of the United States can be calculated as follows: 65% are ?3s? (the average of the Central Nordish elements) = 195, and 35% are ?5s? (the average of the Peripheral Nordish elements) = 175. Add 195 + 175 = 370. Divide this by 100 and the average degree of distinctiveness of the U.S. Nordish population is 3.7. In his 1965 work The Living Races of Man Carleton Coon cites Glass and Li to the effect that the proportion of black genes in the American ?white? population is negligible. Nearly all the gene flow between races from the intermixture of the last several centuries has been from the European races into the non-European races, and very little of the reverse has so far occurred (at least as of 1965). But there has been some assimilation of Alpine and Mediterranid genes by the American Nordish population, and this has caused their racial average to shift, reflecting a lessened degree of Nordish racial distinctiveness.

The racial average of the U.S. population as a whole on this scale (as of 1996) would be calculated thus: 57% are ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 210.9; 8% are ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 64; 9% are ?14s? (the average of the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 126; 9% are ?30s? (the average of the Hispanic Amerindian-Mestizo elements) = 270; 13% are ?64s? (the average of the black element) = 832; and 4% are ?41s? (the average of the Asian and Amerindian elements) = 164. Add 211 + 64 + 126 + 270 + 832 + 164 = 1,667. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the entire U.S. population is 16.67.

In this context it is interesting to note the new ?Betty Crocker? brand symbol of General Mills. One advertisement highlights a picture of the new Betty with the phrase, ?We look a lot like you.? The previous or old Betty, in her many guises over a 70 year period, was always distinctly Northern European, rating in the 2-4 range on this scale. The new Betty, her replacement, is definitely not Northern European, although she looks like she could still be considered as borderline ?white? according to the current common usage of the term. She looks, in fact, like a person who would be rated very near the current U.S. racial average of 16.67, or what the typical American would look like after the diverse racial elements in the current population had been intermixed or blended together. [ Betty_Crocker.jpg] The new Betty would certainly not have been perceived as typically American by an earlier generation, but with the racial shift since 1970 ? especially the marked increase in intermediate racial types ? the perception of what is typically American is also shifting. The old Betty Crocker symbolized the blending or mixing of bakery ingredients. The new Betty Crocker symbolizes the blending or mixing of races. The racial average of a population is its racial destiny, the racial future. The new Betty Crocker is a symbol of our intended future. The racial destiny of the American population is to be ?Betty Crockerized,? its ingredients blended together toward the racial average, and cooked in the racial meltdown of the ?melting pot.?

Of course, the racial average of the U.S. population since 1970 has been in a state of continual transformation due to high levels of non-Nordish immigration and differential birthrates, so the 1996 racial average of 16.67 ? itself much higher than the 1970 average of 13.13, which had changed relatively little from the 1880 average of 12.68 [Note 1] ? is continually rising, or shifting ever further away from the Nordish racial range.

The racial average of current U.S. births clearly shows this continuing shift, and would be calculated as follows: 48% are ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 177.6; 8% are ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 64; 9% are ?14s? (the average of the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 126; 14% are ?30s? (the average of the Hispanic Amerindian-Mestizo elements) = 420; 16% are ?64s? (the average of the black element) = 1,024; and 5% are ?41s? (the average of the Asian and Amerindian elements) = 205. Add 177.6 + 64 + 126 + 420 + 1,024 + 205 = 2,016.6. Divide this by 100 and the current (1996) racial average of U.S. births is 20.17, or outside the ?white? racial range.

Projections for the U.S. population in the year 2050, combining the effects of both projected immigration rates and differential birthrates, result in a racial average that shows this shift even more clearly, calculated as follows: 37% would be ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 136.9; 6% would be ?8s? (the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 48; 10% would be ?14s? (the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 140; 21% would be ?30s? (the Hispanic Amerindian-Mestizo elements) = 630; 16% would be ?64s? (the black element) = 1,024; and 11% would be ?41s? (the Asian and Amerindian elements) = 451. Add 136.9 + 48 + 140 + 630 + 1,024 + 451 = 2,429.9. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the entire U.S. population in 2050 would be 24.3, an 80% increase from 1996 in the distance of the racial average from the Nordish range.

The racial average of projected births in the U.S. in 2050 shows the racial change still more dramatically, calculated as follows: 27% would be ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 99.9; 4% would be ?8s? (the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 32; 9% would be ?14s? (the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 126; 26% would be ?30s? (the Hispanic Amerindian-Mestizo elements) = 780; 21% would be ?64s? (the black element) = 1,344; and 11% would be ?41s? (the Asian and Amerindian elements) = 451. Add 99.9 + 32 + 126 + 780 + 1,344 + 451 = 2,832.9. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of U.S. births in 2050 would be 28.33. This is near the current racial average of the population of Mexico.

This racial average, or one shifting continually higher or further away from the Nordish range, will eventually be our racial destiny, our racial future, the fate of our race, unless measures are taken to prevent it. If we want a different racial future we must change the racial average to give us the racial future we want. If we want our racial future to be Nordish, to preserve the racial identity of our past and present generations, we must partition the country into separate racial nations, including a Nordish nation with a population whose racial average is within the Nordish range.

The racial average of a separate ?white? nation which included the entire U.S. ?white? population (basically all persons in the 1-19 range on this scale) would be calculated as follows: 77% would be ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 284.9; 11% would be ?8s? (the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 88; and 12% would be ?14s? (the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 168. Add 285 + 88 + 168 = 541. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the population in the separate ?white? nation would be 5.41. This would be a racial average just barely within the Nordish racial range and well outside the Central Nordish range, similar to the racial average of Poland (5.6) or Austria (5.95). With an average this far removed from the more distinct part of the Nordish racial range it is unlikely that the most distinct Nordish elements in the 0-2 range would be fully preserved in the long-term. Certainly they would become very rare. (In 1880 the racial average of the U.S. ?white? population was a distinctly Nordish 3.69. In 1970 it was about 5.16. [Note 2] The shift occurred mainly during the ?New Immigration? of 1890-1924, which was ended by the passage of the National Origins Act in the latter year. The racial average of immigration into the U.S. before 1880 ? excluding African slaves ? was a distinctly Nordish 3.72. During the New Immigration from 1890-1924 it was about 8.5. Since 1970 it has been about 35.)

To fully preserve the most distinct Nordish elements a racial average closer to the center of the Nordish racial range is required. Toward this end I have proposed a preservationist plan for partition [see The Preservationist Alternative] which would divide the ?white? elements of the U.S. population into two separate racial nations. The population in the separate Nordish nation would consist of those persons in the 0-10 range on this scale. This would include the Nordish, Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan and gracile Mediterranid elements, but exclude the other ?white? elements in the 11 and over range, who would have their own separate nation. The racial average of the separate Nordish nation in my proposal would be calculated as follows: 83.4% would be ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 308.58; 12.6% would be ?8s? (the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 100.8; and 4% would be ?9.5s? (the average of the gracile Mediterranid elements) = 38. Add 308.58 + 100.8 + 38 = 447.38. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the population would be 4.47, well within the Nordish racial range as a whole, although just outside the Central Nordish range. This would be a racial average which could preserve the full range of the Nordish race, including the elements in the very distinct 0-2 range.

For racial preservationists in general, and Nordish preservationists is particular, this is the racial average that should be our goal, the one we should be moving toward, the one that will preserve the Nordish race.

Notes

1. The racial average of the 1970 U.S. population as a whole on this scale would be calculated thus: 66.5% were ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 246; 9.4% were ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 75.2; 8% were ?14s? (the average of the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 112; 3.2% were ?30s? (the average of the Hispanic Amerindian-Mestizo elements) = 96; 11.1% were ?64s? (the average of the black element) = 710.4; and 1.8% were ?41s? (the average of the Asian and Amerindian elements) = 73.8. Add 246 + 75.2 + 112 + 96 + 710.4 + 73.8 = 1,313. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the entire U.S. population in 1970 was 13.13.
The racial average of the 1880 U.S. population as a whole on this scale would be calculated thus: 83.5% were ?3.5s? (the Nordish elements) = 292.25; 2.6% were ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 20.8; .4% were ?14s? (the average of the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 5.6; .6% were ?30s? (the average of the Hispanic Amerindian-Mestizo elements) = 18; 12% were ?70s? (the average of the black element) = 840; and .9% were ?41s? (the average of the Asian and Amerindian elements) = 36.9. Add 292.25 + 75.2 + 5.6 + 18 + 840 + 36.9 = 1,267.95. Divide this by 100 and the racial average of the entire U.S. population in 1880 was 12.68. The Nordish elements are given an average of 3.5 for 1880 as the large Peripheral Nordish element of the New Immigration (1890-1924) had not yet arrived and there had been relatively less assimilation of Alpine and Mediterranid elements. The black elements are given an average of 70 as the added infusion of white genes from the 1880-1960 period had not yet occurred.
2. The racial average of the ?white? population of the U.S. in 1880 would be calculated thus: 96.5% were ?3.5s? (the Nordish elements) = 337.75; 3% were ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 24; .5% were ?14s? (the average of the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 7. Add 337.75 + 24 + 7 = 368.75. Divide this by 100 and the U.S. ?white? racial average in 1880 was 3.69.
The U.S. ?white? racial average in 1970 would be calculated as follows: 79.3% were ?3.7s? (the Nordish elements) = 293.41; 11.2% were ?8s? (the average of the Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan elements) = 89.6; 9.5% were ?14s? (the average of the Mediterranid-Armenid-Orientalid elements) = 133. Add 293.41 + 89.6 + 133 = 516.01. Divide this by 100 and the U.S. ?white? racial average in 1970 was 5.16.[/justify]