[center]Whom the Gods Would Destroy
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
?When falls on man the anger of the gods, first from his mind they banish understanding.?
Lycurgus
?When divine power plans evil for a man, it first injures his mind.?
Sophocles
?Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first deprives of their senses.?
Euripides
?Whom God wishes to destroy he first makes mad.?
Seneca
?For those whom God to ruin has design?d, He fits for fate, and first destroys their mind.?
John Dryden
?Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.?
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
[justify]?We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.?
Enoch Powell (1912-1998), British Conservative Member of Parliament, in a 1968 speech on the dangers of nonwhite immigration that effectively ended his chances for higher office.
Fact is often stranger than fiction. We are often entertained by apocalyptic works of fiction in which humanity, or an important part of it, is threatened with destruction. We are witnesses to the suspenseful efforts of the protagonists to save it. In the world of fact we are also witnesses ? to a real-life drama which is much more than a case of life imitating art. The drama unfolding before us is the gradual diminishment and extinction of the Nordish race through the process of racial intermixture and replacement. Its existence has already suffered major loss and diminishment. Yet the presently dominant morality prohibits Northern Europeans from engaging in any effort to save it, or sympathizing with any such effort, or even caring about its plight. They are not permitted to oppose the ongoing destruction of their race, but are expected to support it.
In fiction, a tragedy is a morally significant struggle ending in the destruction or downfall of something or someone of great value or importance. The tragic playwrights of ancient Greece invented the form, emphasizing the role of morality in the conflict. They also originated the classic warning quoted above, that madness precedes, and causes, destruction. But it is the essence of madness that those afflicted by it cannot see it, and scorn as mad those who do. The divine, ruling or dominant powers that have made them mad, that have turned them against their own vital interests, against themselves, to bring about their own destruction ? through the agency of a self-destructive ideology, religion, morality or system of beliefs and values ? prevent them from being aware of either their madness or the fate it brings upon them.
The Nordish race has been turned against itself. It has accepted a dominant ideology or morality, a system of ideas, beliefs and values, that denies and violates its vital rights and interests, promotes its diminishment and destruction, prohibits it from acting to save itself, and condemns as immoral those who do. The result, setting the stage for a classical tragedy, is that the Nordish race has been made effectively mad on racial matters. This tragic phenomenon is the overriding cause of the process of extinction now destroying the Nordish race. Without it, the other causes would be ineffective and soon eliminated. It permits and assists their operation, and prevents any defensive action against them.
The dominant ideology, or ruling power, accepted by the Nordish race at the potentially fatal cost of its racial sanity is racial nihilism. Most have no real choice in this matter. They are conditioned or indoctrinated. Their minds are molded, bent and shaped to fit and conform with the dominant ideology, morality, beliefs and values of racial nihilism almost from birth without fair exposure to alternatives. The combined institutional influence of the news and entertainment media, the educational system, government and churches, the personal influence of academic, political and religious authority figures and leadership personalities, and the peer influence from one?s social environment, are difficult to oppose. Those who succeed tend to possess an unusual degree of intellectual, psychological and moral independence and confidence, enabling them to think for themselves, form their own opinions and judgments, and stand alone, if need be, on their principles and beliefs.
Whatever the natural and proper loyalties of their genes, most Northern Europeans have been thoroughly conditioned by their environment ? the dominant racial nihilist, anti-Nordish culture ? to be against the vital rights and interests of their race, to regard them as immoral for conflicting with the secondary rights and interests of other races, and to regard those who support them as immoral. This conditioning is so effective in some people as to elicit an almost Pavlovian response, an unthinking, ?knee-jerk? reaction of blind indignation against vital Nordish interests and those who support them.
This conditioning begins when the subjects are young, even pre-school age. The young of any species are the easiest prey, being relatively trusting and defenseless. Young people are vulnerable to racial indoctrination. Racial awareness, consciousness and sensitivity grows with age. This is true of all forms of knowledge, experience and wisdom. But knowledge can be suppressed and distorted no less than nurtured and encouraged. The present culture, and its educational system, does not encourage awareness that racial nihilism can cause the nonexistence, by devolutionary intermixture, of the Nordish race. This information, this simple but very important item of knowledge, is not provided by the dominant culture. It is not regarded as a proper subject of concern. The object of racial nihilist education is to instill support for racial nihilism, and this is hindered by recognition of its destructive effects. The purpose of racial nihilist indoctrination is to steal the loyalties, the hearts and minds, of Northern Europeans away from their natural allegiance to their own race and its vital interests, and turn them, or pervert them, against themselves. As the Turks demonstrated with their corps of Janissaries, such soul-stealing efforts are most effective when started very young.
Because of the repression of knowledge about the destructive effects of racial nihilism, much of the support it now enjoys is not the product of well-informed thought. The decision by Northern Europeans to support racial nihilism has generally been ill-informed. This decision is also affected by such factors as racial intelligence, sensitivity, consciousness and awareness, which vary among different people, strong in some and weak (or even nonexistent) in others. The purpose of racial nihilist conditioning is to weaken or repress these factors, to racially desensitize the subject and make them racially unconscious, unaware, unintelligent, insensitive or senseless.
As Plato informs us in his famous allegory of the cave, all people are not gifted with the same vision, the same ability to see, to understand or to comprehend. What is clear and obvious to some can neither be seen nor understood by others. People often find it difficult to believe what they cannot comprehend, and often distrust or fear what they do not understand. They cannot appreciate the value of something they are unaware of, or love something they are unconscious of. Racial love, or love of one?s race, is not possessed in equal amount by all alike. The sense of concern, caring, appreciation and affection for one?s race, and desire to preserve and protect it, is stronger in some than in others. Those who lack it often cannot understand it. As is all too common among the all too human, they often ascribe values, ideals, emotions and behavior they cannot comprehend, and which they lack, to a negative, ignoble or inferior source of motivation ? such as hatred or mental illness ? rather than to a positive, noble or superior source ? such as love or mental fitness and well-being. To do otherwise would admit their own incapacity.
Those who cannot see the effects of racial nihilism ? the destruction of the Nordish race by replacement and devolutionary intermixture ? have much less reason to oppose it than those who can. Those who do not care about the Nordish race, who do not love or value it, who do not care if it lives or dies, have much less reason to oppose racial nihilism than those who do. Those who are not aware of the process of Nordish racial destruction now occurring are much less likely to oppose it than those who are. Those Northern Europeans who cannot see, who do not care, or who are not aware, are much more likely to support racial nihilism, or at least be complacent about it, than those who can see, who do care, and who are aware.
Another major cause of Northern European submission to racial nihilism and their own racial destruction is complacency. Complacency stems from the desire to believe that all is well, or if something is wrong it is only a minor problem, is not a cause for concern, and does not require decisive action. Complacent people conform to the dominant or established culture, accept its beliefs and values, comply with its doctrines and dogma. They do not like to be informed that something is seriously and dangerously amiss, that something important is in dire peril and requires action to save it. They do not like to be told that the existing order, the status quo, is seriously wrong and is destroying something of great value, and that major change is required to prevent its destruction. They do not like to be disturbed from their inertia and false sense of well-being by knowledge that imposes a moral responsibility or duty to act, and resent those who confront them with such knowledge.
Complacency, indifference, unconcern or lack of caring about the survival or destruction of the Nordish race is assisted by racial unawareness and unconsciousness. Because many people are unaware of just what the Nordish race is, and what it includes, they often fail, or are unable, to make connections between various Nordish traits and characteristics and the Nordish race itself. This often results in very inconsistent values and attitudes. They might value many Nordish traits and characteristics (particularly physical traits related to esthetics and beauty, such as Nordish facial features, skin, hair and eye coloration, skin and hair texture, etc.) without connecting them or their existence with the Nordish race itself, separating them from the race which gives them existence, and upon whose continued undiminished existence and well-being their continued undiminished existence and well-being also depends. By failing to make this connection, they might hold ideological beliefs and values which do not value the existence of the Nordish race and deny it the conditions it needs to continue to exist, while at the same time valuing various unique Nordish racial traits and characteristics and opposing anything which might endanger their continued existence. They fail to connect the race and its traits, and to see that the diminishment or non-existence of one will necessarily include the diminishment or nonexistence of the other. In reality, they cannot be separated.
Avoidance or evasion of reality is even worse than the inability to see reality, and even more dangerous, for it scorns and rejects those who can see and are willing to see. ?There are none so blind as those who will not see.? They willingly embrace ignorance out of fear of knowledge they do not want to know. Like the subjects in the tale of ?The Emperor?s New Clothes,? they do not want to see or know what they are not supposed to see or know, as they believe such sight and knowledge indicates immorality.
There is another reason to avoid reality, embrace ignorance and fear knowledge. People frequently wish to be spared knowledge that will cause them pain. The ability to perceive reality, when one?s people are undergoing a process of destruction by a ruling power so dominant it seems impossible to stop, is a source of great pain and suffering to those who have it, and who care. To Northern Europeans who love their race, knowledge of its ongoing diminishment, and awareness of the racial death that awaits it a few generations in the future down its present path, brings the pain of an open, continuously bleeding wound that will not heal. But pain serves a positive and very important purpose. It is a warning. It makes us aware that something is causing us harm, even potentially killing us, to give us a chance to avoid it, to act to protect or save ourselves, to stop the harm or destruction, the hemorrhaging, before it is too late. There are two types of Northern Europeans who do not feel pain at the destruction of their race ? those who do not know and those who do not care.
The ancient folk tales of the Nordish race were commonly practical warnings, often in allegorical form, against the dangers of the world. It was hoped that these warnings would be heeded by their audience, and possibly save them from pain or destruction. The existential dangers to life were often symbolized by predatory animals. The wolf was the most common and familiar symbol of these perils. But the greatest threat, peril on the grand scale, was symbolized by the dragon (or great snake, serpent or worm).
The dragon, like the other predators, was the enemy and destroyer of life, but of epic proportions. It hungered to destroy the very source of life itself. The dragon?s preferred victim was the virgin, symbolizing the life-source, the center of the race. In this allegorical world, as in the real world, woman was the source of renewed and continued life. The virgin was a woman who had not yet reproduced, the source of new life who had not yet created new life, who had not yet fulfilled her existential purpose, mission and destiny as intended by nature and the powers of Creation. The dragon sought to prevent the virgin from creating new life, from fulfilling her destiny, to preempt life at its source. The virgin, the life-source, was either consumed or hoarded as a prisoner; the most precious part of its hoard of treasure. Either way, she was prevented from fulfilling her purpose, and the continuation of life was catastrophically denied.
The dragon is a metaphor for the anti-Creation and anti-Life ideas, beliefs, practices, values and ethics that prevent or discourage the creation, preservation and continuation of life. It is a metaphor for the forces of death. For the Nordish race, this metaphor is realized in its most dangerous, destructive and life-threatening form in the ideology of racial nihilism. Racial nihilism is the dragon that denies the right of the Nordish race to life, that deprives it of the conditions it requires for continued life, that destroys its life at its source by devolutionary, decreative intermixture, that has already claimed millions of Northern Europeans as its victims ? more than any war or plague ? and threatens it with extinction. It is the dragon of racial death that now rules the Nordish race. The living generations of Northern Europeans have been born in the dragon?s cave and have lived all their lives there, under the dragon?s spell. For most of them it is the only world they have ever known, or can conceive of. They have learned their values and ethics in this world, with the dragon ? their destroyer and anti-Creator ? as their teacher and law-giver. They judge and measure all ideas and values by the dragon?s standards, the only ones they know. They have been taught and believe that the dragon?s will and way ? the way of racial destruction ? is the right and just way, and they see everything only through the dragon?s eyes. The only light they know is that provided by the dragon?s fiery and destructive breath. They have never seen the light of Creation.
Northern Europeans have learned to worship the dragon of racial nihilism as their foremost god, with failure to obey its will as the foremost sin, and failure to worship it as the foremost form of heresy. The foremost form of worship is to feed Northern Europeans to the dragon. It consumes them in small bites or large gulps, as fast as it can, as fast as its willing victims place themselves in its jaws, mesmerized and hypnotized, or as fast as unwilling victims can be pushed into them. Millions have been consumed, bit by bit, a little bite of beauty or talent here, a bigger chunk there. Many have been led, and fed, to the dragon by their friends, teachers, preachers and even their parents, placed by them on the dragon?s sacrificial altar. The greater the racial value of the victim the more the dragon desires to consume them, and the greater its pleasure and enjoyment in satisfying its appetite.
In the symbolism of the folklore and chivalric romances that are part of the ancient wisdom of the Nordish race, the hero-knight saves the virgin-princess from the dragon that would have destroyed her and prevented her from creating new life. She is grateful to her champion for her salvation, and they join together in the creation of new life, completing their triumph over the dragon. But the victims of the dragon of racial nihilism, in their madness, have lost this ancient wisdom. They have been conditioned to seek and welcome their destruction, to regard those who would save them as enemies and traitors to the dragon, and to reject and condemn them ? and their efforts ? as evil and immoral. This dragon is the god who seeks to destroy the Nordish race, first making it mad by turning it against itself.
Racial nihilism is the established religion, the orthodox faith, of the present culture. All other religions must conform to its values and beliefs or be regarded as irreligious. All members of the culture, of whatever other professed religious affiliation or preference, or of no other religious affiliation, are indoctrinated in its doctrines and dogma from early childhood by every cultural institution, public or private. Public funds and laws are used to support and enforce its policies and teaching. Tax money is given to those who teach and promote its doctrines, withheld from those who do not. Any expression of disbelief or disagreement is condemned as heresy. The indoctrination of its adherents is often so complete as to produce a dogmatic, and even hysterical, fanaticism which cannot tolerate dissenting opinions or alternative points of view.
Racial nihilism is an idolatrous religion. Its idols are the various personalities and celebrities that espouse, or espoused, its doctrines and dogma. Many of the adherents of racial nihilism personify its ideas and values in these idolized personalities. They regard any idea or value which conflicts with those espoused by the idols of these personality cults as heresy. The diverse idols, rightly or wrongly, include such late personalities as John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, Margaret Mead, John Lennon and Mohandas Gandhi, all enshrined in the racial nihilist pantheon, as well as numerous living political, artistic, entertainment and athletic celebrities. The names of these various idols are invoked to condemn ideas which disagree with the racial nihilist doctrines with which they are associated and identified.
The major denominations of Christianity give their full support to the promotion of racial nihilism. They deny the vital rights and interests of the Nordish race, assist the cause of its destruction, and denounce any desire or effort to save it. They encourage interracial marriage and adoption among their congregations, bring non-Nordish immigrants into the Nordish homelands, and assist their settlement and absorption into the Nordish community. The Christmas holiday, which replaced the yule holiday of the pre-Christian Nordish racial religion, has itself been subverted to promote racial nihilism, which is now hailed as the finest expression of the Christmas spirit. The universalist (non-racial) doctrines and world-view of Christianity have readily embraced the ?One World, One Race? ideology in their missionary efforts to gather all the world?s races into their faith. This ideology, which would destroy the Nordish race by devolution and replacement, is increasingly equated by Christian leaders with salvation. By this confused reasoning, the souls of Northern Europeans can only be saved if they support the destruction of their race.
As Christianity becomes ever more anti-Nordish in its values and teachings, the Nordish race is confronted with religious issues and questions that affect its very survival and continued existence. Is it evil for the Nordish race to continue to exist, to live? Are the conditions of racial separation and independence required for continued Nordish life evil? Or, is the destruction of the Nordish race by genetic submergence, and the denial of the conditions it needs to exist, the true evil? If religion is worship of, and service to, Creation and Life, what is the pro-Creation and pro-Life answer to the above questions? Certainly, if the Nordish race is to survive, it needs a religion that is for it rather than against it, one that defends rather than condemns its vital rights and interests. It needs a religion that supports its right to racial life, not one that joins the gods who wish to destroy it, and promotes the ideas that are making it mad.
Nordish support for racial nihilism is madness. It is a mass psychosis that leads the Nordish race to self-destruction. It turns Northern Europeans against themselves and their own race, alienating them from their natural loyalties. It causes parents to lead and give their children to the racial murder of racial intermixture, ending the racial line or continuum of generations. Suicide and self-destructiveness are not mentally healthy. When a person or race is against their own existence, and the conditions they require for existence, they are mentally ill. For the Nordish race to accept an ideology that denies its right to live, and the conditions it needs to live, it must be mad. To equate such racially destructive madness with idealism, niceness and love, as the proponents of racial nihilism do, is to equate death with life. The madness of racial nihilism is the madness destroying the Nordish race.
The Nordish race will not achieve racial mental health until it recognizes what is racially healthy and unhealthy. The conditions that are conducive to continued, undiminished racial life and well-being are racially healthy. Those that tend toward racial diminishment and nonexistence are racially unhealthy. Those Northern Europeans who support and practice the former conditions are racially healthy, those who support and practice the latter are racially unhealthy. The racially healthy Northern Europeans want their race to live. They have a racial life wish. The racially unhealthy Northern Europeans do not want their race to live, or do not care. They have a racial death wish, by intent or default. The healthy are racial lifeists, and support racial livism, the live and let live racism of the Racial Golden Rule. The unhealthy are racial deathists, and support racial deathism, the racial nihilist program for Nordish extinction.
To achieve racial mental health the Nordish race needs philosophical, ideological, religious and moral health. This is the racial immune system. Health in this area provides the Nordish race with immunity from the self-destructive mental illness of racial nihilism. Lack of health in this area creates an immunity deficiency that weakens its ability to protect itself from the racial nihilist madness. Health in this area enables us to distinguish what is good for us from what is bad for us, what is healthy for us from what is unhealthy, what is wholesome for us from what is unwholesome, what is right for us from what is wrong, what is helpful for us from what is harmful. Without the ability to make such distinctions, and set standards by which such matters can be measured and judged, the Nordish race will soon show the symptoms of racial nihilism and suffer its deadly effects.
Ethics, behavior, values and practices cannot be properly judged apart from their results and effects. These effects and results must be made clear and explicit, brought out in the open for all to see and judge without evasion or confusion. Results and effects are more important than motive or intent. Assertions of positive motivations of goodness, niceness and love should be measured by an objective standard. Creation and Life, and the vital interests of the race, are the objective points of reference by which we should measure and judge all such assertions, and all ethics, values, behavior and practices.
It is common for advocates of every idea to claim that it is the position of love, and that its opposition represents hate. With objective points of reference these claims can be properly evaluated. If its effects are harmful to the vital interests of the race, endanger its continued life and threaten to decreate or undo its creation, it should not be accepted as a product or example of goodness, niceness and love. Racial nihilism has such effects. It leads to Nordish extinction through a process of intermixture and replacement. The culture it dominates portrays this racially destructive process ? the genocide of the Nordish race ? as emotionally warm, humorous and the natural result of love. (Mixed racial families, by marriage or adoption, are a particularly favored theme.) Those Northern Europeans it has made mad accept this portrayal, and believe that goodness, niceness and love achieve their highest expression in actions which violate the vital interests of their race and contribute to its destruction and death.
The madness of racial nihilism finds its most complete success in those Northern Europeans who are turned so completely against their race and its vital interests that they deny, or refuse to admit, its very existence, to others as well as themselves. That it even exists is something they cannot bear to contemplate. They will not name it or grant it any recognition, status or legitimacy. If, at some level of their consciousness, they do know that their race really exists, it is only cause for them to hope more intensely for its speedy extinction, to hope more fervently that nothing will save it, to support more strongly the causes of its death, to deny more strenuously its right to life, and oppose more fanatically its continued existence and anything that might save it. Other racial nihilists minimize the value and importance of what will be lost if the Nordish race becomes extinct. But those who deny its very existence, its identity, its status as a racial-genetic continuum, its past and future generations, its history and potential destiny, do much more than reduce the perception of the value and importance of that which is being destroyed, that which will be lost ? they reduce its extinction to a non-fact, to the destruction of nothing, to the nonexistence of something that never really existed. No form of genocide, or suicide, could be more complete, and no form of madness could be more total.
The worst enemies of the Nordish race are to be found within the Nordish race itself. They are those who have been turned against the vital interests of their race, against its very existence, by the maddening effects of racial nihilist ideas and values. A house divided against itself cannot stand, part wanting their race to be free and part wanting it to be enslaved to the interests of other races, part wanting their race to live and part wanting to sacrifice its life on the altar of racial nihilism. The struggle for Nordish salvation is internal, not external, within itself, against the part or side of itself that is against itself. In this chapter, as Pogo said, ?We have met the enemy and he is us.?
Nietzsche wrote, ?That which does not destroy me makes me stronger.? But the avoidance of destruction itself requires strength. That which does not destroy us is that which we are strong enough to resist. The madness now destroying the Nordish race, racial nihilism, is succeeding because the Nordish race has lacked the strength to resist it, because the Nordish race has been too weak to oppose its own diminishment and destruction. The lack of strength, the weakness, is not physical, but ? like the madness itself ? spiritual, moral and mental. The weakness is in racial consciousness, racial loyalty, racial caring and racial love.
How many Northern Europeans today, especially those in positions of power, prominence or influence, could say that they love and care for their race, and are loyal to it? How many Northern Europeans would admit to such feelings of loyalty, care and love if they had them? The answer is not many but few. This lack of loyalty, care and love is the source of the madness that is destroying the Nordish race. The Nordish race is dying of, being killed by, a lack of care and love. Those whom the dominant ideology or religion ? the metaphorical god ? would destroy it first makes not to care or love. It must first cause them not to love or care for that which is being destroyed ? themselves.
Richard Wagner, with whom Nietzsche often disagreed, believed that love was the answer to all the questions of life, that it was the source of all redemption and salvation, that it alone had the power to overcome the forces of destruction. Perhaps he was right. Perhaps the strength and power the Nordish race needs to redeem and save itself, to overcome the destructive madness of racial nihilism, can only come from love. The Nordish race must learn to love itself, and that may well prove to be the greatest love of all.
Racial nihilism is the dominant ideology and religion wherever there are Northern Europeans to serve as its victims. By its values and beliefs Nordish racism ? the love of Northern Europeans for their race, their resistance to that which would cause its diminishment or death, their desire for it to live, to be free, separate and independent ? is equated with hatred. The assertion of vital Nordish rights and interests is regarded as a wrongful violation of the conflicting, non-vital desires of other races.
As racial nihilism is the foremost religion of the modern Nordish lands, so Nordish racism is the foremost heresy. As a heresy it is a victim of many popular misconceptions as to its true nature and intent, its motivation and purpose, means and ends. These misconceptions are propagated by the proponents of the racial nihilist orthodoxy, with the goal of enforcing conformism to the dogma they profess. In their portrayal of Nordish racism their method is to accentuate the negative and eliminate the positive. Their success is best measured by the number of Northern Europeans who accept their teaching and equate the cause of Nordish racial salvation and continued life with hatred and evil. No cause enjoys such universal support and acceptance as the cause of Nordish racial death. No cause suffers such universal condemnation as the cause of Nordish racial life. Nothing is so widely regarded as the highest form of goodness and morality as those values, beliefs and actions which are causing the death of the Nordish race. Nothing is so widely denounced as the worst form of immorality as those values, beliefs and actions which promote continued Nordish life. Death has never been so popular, and life never so unpopular, as when the life and death in question is that of the Nordish race.
For its life?s sake, the Nordish race must free itself from the coils of the genocidal dragon of racial nihilism. It must free itself from the spell of the anti-Nordish death song that sings of its destruction and nonexistence. It must learn to sing its life song, the song of racial life that will slay the dragon of racial death.[/justify]
The Racial Compact
Moderator: Le Tocard
[center]Racial Tender Loving Care
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
From fairest creatures we desire increase,
that thereby beauty?s rose might never die.
William Shakespeare, Sonnets I
No man is an Iland , intire of it selfe; every man
is a peece of the Continent , a part of the maine ; if
Clod bee washed away by the Sea , Europe is the lesse,
as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor
of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death
diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde ; And
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee .
John Donne
The Hegemony wrested from the enemy, the freedom won
from the malice of the monster, the life energy released from
the toils of the tyrant Holdfast ? is symbolized as a woman.
She is the maiden of the innumerable dragon slayings,
the bride abducted from the jealous father,
the virgin rescued from the unholy lover.
The Hero with a Thousand Faces , Joseph Campbell, 1949
[justify]The Nordish (Northern European) race is much like a garden. It is a select collection of life in the midst of the greater assortment of life outside its boundaries. Like a garden, it is a living and growing thing, or should be. Its life and growth are not guaranteed. It can wither and die. To flourish it must be lovingly tended and cared for. Its recessive genes are like vulnerable flowers that must be kept separate and safe from the other life forms that might overwhelm and destroy them in competition for the same patch of earth. The garden gives them a protected environment. The gardener cannot allow the other life forms into the garden or they will choke and replace the life that grows there. The proper place of the other life forms is outside the garden. If they get inside the garden they must be removed or they will kill it.
But the Nordish race, like a garden, needs more tending and care than just protecting it from those competing species that would replace it. It needs to be nurtured, guided and directed, and given the conditions it requires for healthy growth and well-being. It must be preserved from all the elements and forces that could diminish or destroy it. Some people care only for their own little part of the garden, their own children, and their own family and circle of friends. The race is the garden as a whole, which must be preserved and nurtured with tender loving care or none of the parts will long survive alone. Its gardeners are those who have extended their love and care beyond their own little part of the garden to the garden as a whole. The prize flowers ? the finest, most beautiful, most highly developed and valuable ? should be given particular care, lavished with the special attention and concern of the gardeners. The Nordish race is like a garden of beautiful flowers, ?beauty?s rose,? and its existence, and its esthetic ideal, must be treated with racial tender loving care so it will increase, and never die.
The Nordish race is a synergistic entity. The whole creates an effect greater than the sum of its individual parts. It is not an atomistic collection of unconnected individuals. All are interconnected to form an organic whole, the actions of each affecting the whole, separate threads woven together to form a fabric. Any action of one that lessens, diminishes or is destructive of what they are, of their essence or being, has the same effect on the race as a whole. Like ripples in a pond, the effects of their actions ripple out, reverberate and influence the race as a whole, even if only by setting an example ? good or bad ? for others to follow. The more racially valuable and important the individual is, the greater is the effect of their actions or behavior.
Social or racial customs influence behavior, and are themselves the result of the cumulative behavior of the individual members of the society or race. The failure of one to uphold moral standards and racial values has, by the influence of its bad example, a diminishing effect on the whole, weakening the strength of the racial fiber. Unhealthy or immoral actions that lessen one individual also lessen the race as a whole. They send ripples of harm through the threads of the racial fabric, influencing others and lessening the existence and health of the whole.
No man or woman is an island. We are all part of a larger body or entity. Our race is the larger entity, the continuum of life of which we are a part. We are a temporary manifestation of the genes it has bestowed on us, which we are obligated to return to the continuum undiminished for future manifestations. Many are unaware of this simple fact, or are aware of it only in a vague and unfocused way. They fail to make the connection between the distinctive traits which they value and the race which is the source of those traits, from which they come and of which they are a part. They do not see their own racial nature and identity, their place and role in Creation and Life, who and what they are, their purpose as a part of the whole of their race, as a link in the chain of generations between past and future. They fail to appreciate their racial role and responsibility to preserve those traits and pass them on to the future generations of the racial-genetic continuum.
The separation of the individual from the whole of their race creates an unnatural schism in values and interests, divorcing the narrow interests of the individual from the broader racial interest. This results in well-being and salvation being perceived solely in terms of the individual, as personal salvation and well-being, not in terms of the salvation and well-being of their race as a whole, their branch of Creation, the life of which they are a part and which continues their life. Those who value, care for and love their race and its traits, who are so involved in it that they feel any loss, pain, harm or diminishment to it as their own, suffer and grieve in concert with it, knowing that they and their race are one, and that when the bell tolls for their race it tolls for them also.
One of the characteristics of life is reproduction. All living things reproduce themselves. The reproduction or recreation of life enables it to continue beyond the current generation. Reproduction is the primary activity and purpose of life. In nonsapient life forms reproduction is ruled by instinct. In sapient life reproduction is, or should be, intentional, a matter of conscious choice and deliberate decision. Decisions involved in reproduction, the creation of new life, are the most important decisions of life. The cumulative effect of these decisions determines the composition of the next generation, and the course of evolution.
Whether or not to have children, who with and how many, whether to create new life, what life to create and in what quantity, are the fundamental choices and decisions of life. Many make these decisions with the belief that they affect no one beyond themselves and are strictly their own affair. But these decisions make the future. The composition and content of the future generations of the race, the course of evolution and the direction of Creation and Life, are determined by such seemingly mundane matters as what children, or whose children, are born, who reproduces and who does not. Those who reproduce themselves successfully cause life to evolve in the direction of their traits. Evolution moves toward those who reproduce themselves successfully and away from those who do not. When those of above average beauty or intelligence have a below average birthrate life will evolve away from these valuable traits. They will decrease rather than increase, diminished in both quality and quantity.
Successful reproduction must be successful in terms of both quantity and quality, type or kind. In terms of quantity, the replacement rate in the modern Nordish population is 2.1 children per woman. This replacement rate can be regarded as the rate, or position, at which no evolutionary or population change or movement occurs. It maintains the status quo. For change or movement to occur the number of children must be either above or below two. Change will occur in the direction of an increase in the traits of those with more than two children; in the direction of a decrease in the traits of those with less than two. Drastic change, or reproductive failure, occurs in the case of those with no children ? in the direction of negation or nonexistence of their traits.
In terms of quality, type or kind, successful reproduction can only occur with a mate who is of similar racial-genetic type or kind, with compatible genes and traits, as oneself. Having many children of a different racial-genetic type than oneself, with different traits than oneself, is ? in terms of racial reproduction ? the same as having no children, for one is not successfully reproduced in children that are so markedly different from oneself that they are outside one?s race. Individuals, and their traits, are only lost to their race if they fail to reproduce. In racial terms there are two types of reproductive failure ? having no children, and having children with a genetically incompatible partner whose traits negate or diminish one?s own.
The purpose of each generation in the racial-genetic continuum or evolutionary line is to successfully reproduce, recreate or continue itself, to pass on its genes undiminished and undiluted to its successor generations. This can only be accomplished by the mating of like with like, each with its own kind. This is genetic morality, serving the interests of one?s genes by providing the most favorable conditions for their continuation into future generations.
Reproduction is the only activity that creates new life, and is necessarily the central and most important activity of life. The decisions affecting reproduction are based on values. Pro-Life values serve the cause of Life. They are the values of continued life and existence for one?s racial-genetic line and kind, the values of reproduction, the values of Life. Anti-Life values do not serve Life but oppose it, or attempt to deny and evade it and the duties and responsibilities it imposes. They are the values of those who choose not to reproduce themselves or their genes, the material of Creation, the stuff that made them. They are the values of nonexistence and racial death.
But genes belong not only to the individual. They belong to the race and Creation. When an individual who possesses valuable racial-genetic traits does not successfully reproduce, they not only negate their own continued existence but diminish the continued existence of their race as well. All of the genetic traits and gifts, qualities and characteristics, physical and mental, that are so admired and enjoyed, are not just individual traits. They are racial traits, unique characteristics of a particular race, capable of being reproduced and continued through time down through the generations, inherited from ancestors and passed on to descendants.
All genetic traits come from the race and belong to the race. If they came from any other race they would not be what they are, and we would not be what we are. The beauty of the racial esthetic ideal belongs primarily to the race, only secondarily to those who embody it in the existing generation. Those of the present generation who possess valuable genetic traits are only their temporary possessors, custodians or stewards, enjoying their benefits and entrusted with the responsibility to take good care of them and reproduce them successfully, not misuse them or cause them to be lost. If they abuse the traits handed down to them over thousands of generations of racial evolution, causing those valued traits to end with them, they will deny their continued existence to the generations of the future.
Racial-genetic traits are ended or destroyed by nonreproduction. Misreproduction, or racial intermixture, which negates the racial-genetic traits of those who engage in it, is one form of nonreproduction. If the racially-mixed children produced by it are separated from the race, and prevented from being mixed with it, its effects are no more damaging to the race than the individual having no children at all. Having no children negates the traits of the childless individual, but ends there and does not spread the harm to the traits of others. Having racially-mixed children also negates the racial traits of the Northern European parent, and if the children are assimilated by the race of their non-Nordish parent, and not the Nordish race, the harm to the Nordish race also ends with the loss of the individual involved, and the traits of the race as a whole are not further harmed or endangered. But if the non-Nordish children, whether adopted or racially-mixed, are raised by the Nordish parent within the Nordish race, and assimilated or mixed into the racial-genetic continuum or evolutionary line of the Nordish race, the racial-genetic harm is spread into the racial body and alters, lessens, diminishes and negates the traits of the race as a whole, violating its right to racial life.
To accept members of other races, of other racial continuums and evolutionary lines, with other racial traits, into the social body is ultimately to accept them into the racial-genetic body, to accept the intermixture of one?s racial-genetic line ? one?s traits ? with them and with what they are, to be altered in the direction of what they are, and to become what they are. Such an act of acceptance violates the right of the Nordish race to the conditions it requires for continued life. It is a racially destructive, genocidal act which no individual has a right to do. Since it is destructive of a branch of Creation, of Life and of nature, and involves the interests of many generations, past and future, it is also an act which no one generation has a right to do.
In the metaphorical symbolism of the virgin and the dragon, the virgin ? or woman who has not yet reproduced ? represents the source of new life which has not yet fulfilled its existential purpose to create new life, and the dragon the anti-Life forces which work to prevent the creation of new life. The dragon does not have to consume or physically kill the virgin to prevent her from creating new life. In the ancient stories it frequently prevents her from fulfilling her mission by imprisoning her, by hoarding her as part of its hoard of treasure (the most valuable part), keeping her from those with whom she could join and create new life. In the present situation of the Nordish race, the role of the dragon is performed by all those forces and elements, persons and ideas, institutions and values, cultural and social influences that prevent or discourage Nordish reproduction and suppress the Nordish birthrate. The dragon, or its numerous servants, can take the guise of an ideology that promotes childlessness, a lifestyle incompatible with the creation or raising of children, or the persons, institutions and media that advocate such anti-Life and anti-Creation ideas and values.
This generation is a temporary and transitory manifestation of the racial-genetic continuum, passing on its traits to the next generation as they were passed on to it by its predecessors.Some members of the Nordish race are bearers of more valuable genetic traits ? physical and mental, in beauty and intelligence ? than others. Some embody and personify the purest essence of the race, its unique genetic traits and characteristics in their most racially distinct and valued form. These individuals are concentrations of racial-genetic wealth, racial-genetic treasures, the most precious examples of their kind, the center or heart of the race by which it is defined and without which its existence would lose most of its meaning, the personifications of the racial ideal toward which the race seeks to evolve as its goal and destiny, the meaning and purpose of its existence.
Those who embody the racial ideal, in body and mind, are the caretakers, custodians or stewards of the racial-genetic treasure that is the ideal, that has been entrusted to their care in this generation by their ancestors in whose care it was entrusted in preceding generations. Their responsibility in their turn, as it is in the turn of each and every generation, is to pass on the legacy of racial-genetic treasure entrusted to them to the next generation ? whole, complete and undiminished and, if possible, increased. If they allow it to be lost or lessened, wasted or consumed, by irresponsible behavior and lack of care, concern or appreciation, it is a loss not only to them, but the gravest loss of all to their race, its present being and future existence. They are the center of their race, and their preservation, salvation and reproduction is of the greatest racial importance. The loss of some on the racial periphery is a racial tragedy, but the loss of one in the racial center is a racial catastrophe. The former are wounds to the limbs of the racial body. The latter is a wound to the racial heart. The former are painful, but the latter are racially fatal. Those in the racial center personify the concentrated essence of the race, the most distinct from other races, the most evolved on the racial line of ascending life, and the most difficult to recreate or replace if lost. They are not expendable.
In the biblical ?Parable of the Three Talents,? three servants were each entrusted by their master with the care of an equal amount of wealth. The two servants who increased the treasure entrusted to their care were both praised and rewarded in proportion to the amount of the increase. The servant who did not increase the treasure entrusted to his care, but did not lose it and returned it to the master undiminished, was criticized for dereliction of duty and failure to fulfill his responsibility. The parable does not inform us how the master would regard a servant who allowed the wealth entrusted to his care to be diminished, lessened, wasted or lost, but the implication is clear that such wanton carelessness would be considered the gravest breach of trust.
So it is with the racial-genetic treasure, the greatest form of wealth in Life and Creation, that is entrusted to the care of those who are the bearers and embodiment of the racial ideal. The good servants of Life are those who increase, by successful reproduction, the racial-genetic wealth entrusted to their care and stewardship. The bad servants of Creation are those who cause or permit the racial-genetic treasure in their care to be wasted or lost through their lack of concern, appreciation or love. They not only waste, diminish or destroy themselves and what they are, but also a very valuable part of their race, Life and Creation, a racial-genetic treasure that is a legacy from countless preceding generations in the evolutionary line and racial continuum, the heart and soul of their race.
No individual is an island. All are interconnected parts in the existence, life and being of their race. All are interconnected links in the evolutionary line or genetic continuum of their race. The racial-genetic treasure of one is also a part of the race, that comes from it and belongs to it. If that treasure is wasted, diminished or lost, whether by intent, neglect or ignorance, the race as a whole is diminished by the loss of an important part of its being. To the extent that a person is the beneficiary of a legacy of racial-genetic wealth, they are equally the trustee of that legacy. This is the covenant between the generations of their kind ? past, present and future. It is the covenant of Life and Creation.
Those who are the stewards, custodians and caretakers of the most valuable traits of the race in body and mind, its racial-genetic wealth, have the greatest responsibility to reproduce themselves and their traits successfully. It is from them that the race desires increase. To do this they must have three or more children with a mate of their own kind, whose racial-genetic traits are similar to, and compatible with, their own. Unfortunately, many Northern Europeans who are the beneficiaries and trustees of racial-genetic wealth ? in beauty, talent or intelligence ? have little concern for its perpetuation and continuation, with its waste or loss, diminishment or destruction, as the all too frequent consequence. They do not appreciate the importance of their reproduction, that their choice of whether or not to have children, and their choice of a mate to have children with, determines the composition and content of the future generations of their race, what persons will or will not be created, will or will not exist, whether they will be like them, of their kind, or not like them, of other kind. It determines the genetic legacy that will be left to posterity.
It is a tragic fact that many Northern Europeans of great beauty, who personify the esthetic ideal of their race (including many actresses and models celebrated for their Nordish esthetic traits), who are often lavished with attention and praise for their Nordish good looks, and who themselves often lavish so much concern and effort on the care of that beauty, so that its care almost directs their way of life, frequently have no concern, and make no effort, to reproduce that beauty. The result is that they often have no children, or they have children with a mate whose racial-genetic traits are incompatible with their own, with whom they cannot reproduce their beauty but only negate it, cannot have children in whom their beauty is continued and perpetuated, but only diminished or lost. They are often proud of their beauty, but it is not their creation. They are only its temporary beneficiaries and trustees in this generation. It is a creation of their race, from which it comes and to which it belongs, passed on to them by their ancestors with the duty to pass it on undiminished to their descendants. They often use their beauty for their own benefit and enjoyment, to achieve their own ambitions and desires, but in matters of reproduction they treat it with careless disregard, neglect or indifference, or misuse and abuse it by joining with a mate whose traits negate their own.
This careless nonreproduction ? or misreproduction ? of those with valuable racial-genetic traits is not a new problem. The Roman emperor Augustus contended, with little success, against such practices among the patricians of his time. Shakespeare was concerned about such tendencies in the English nobility of his generation, and addressed the subject with sensitivity and eloquence in his first seventeen sonnets, since known as his ?procreation sonnets.? It is most common in periods of social and cultural pluralism, when the old customs and values that encouraged reproduction have weakened and are challenged by competing standards of sexual morality that conflict with family and procreation values.
The customs, values and ethics of reproduction are necessarily connected to, affected by, and dependent upon the customs, values and ethics of sexual morality and conduct that comprise the sexual culture. Sex is the means of reproduction, and sexual attitudes and behavior affect reproduction. The code of sexual morality and conduct most favorable to reproduction is that which encourages stable, permanent, secure, mutually faithful and monogamous relationships between male and female, in which the parents can concentrate their energy and attention on providing a healthy and wholesome environment for the birth and development of their children. Such a code of sexual ethics and behavior is the sexual culture of family or procreative values.
The sexual culture of the Nordish race is presently in a state of disarray and confusion. The lifestyle of unstable and temporary sexual relationships, with a series of sexual partners, that was formerly limited to a sexual subculture, has grown in influence and following over the course of the last several generations. It has become a sexual counterculture, competing with the traditionally dominant, mainstream sexual culture of family and procreation values, offering an alternative lifestyle that has achieved social and moral acceptability. It is the sexual culture and lifestyle of the playboy and playgirl, of transient, superficial and disposable sexual relationships, busily filled with secondary interests and activities, but empty of the most important, central and primary activity of life ? successful reproduction. It is a life-style that conflicts with the values of parenthood, of having and raising children and reproducing one?s racial-genetic traits. In the content of such cultural influences as novels, motion pictures, television programs and popular music it has become the prevailing, dominant sexual culture, replacing family and procreation values as the mainstream.
Those who have joined this sexual counterculture and practice its values are the prodigal sons and daughters of the Nordish race. They have become sexual spendthrifts, spending and wasting their substance and content ? the racial-genetic treasure accumulated over the course of many ancestral generations ? in the frivolous pursuit of transient and shallow pleasures. They may believe that their behavior causes no harm, to themselves or to others, but it does cause harm to both ? to themselves in their own racial-genetic death, and to their race as a whole by its diminishment through the loss of the racial-genetic wealth they contain, which will not be passed on to future generations.
Beyond themselves and their own loss, their behavior causes harm by the influence their example has on other members of their race. The sexual counterculture, and the moral environment it engenders, is produced by the cumulative effect of the sexual behavior of all those who practice its values. Its influence has caused the loss, by nonreproduction, of many valuable Northern Europeans, and all who have contributed to its influence by their behavior and example must share the responsibility for this loss. It has created a moral and sexual environment that discourages the successful reproduction of the Nordish race and has drastically lowered its birthrate, preempting the creation of new life at its source and preventing the existence of many who could have lived, and would have, if the moral and sexual environment had been more favorable to procreation. Further loss and harm can only be reduced if the prodigal sons and daughters return to their race ? after wasting many of their best reproductive years ? to reproduce themselves before it is too late. For some, participation in the sexual counterculture is only a stage of life limited to their adolescence and young adulthood, after which they move on to a permanent relationship with family and procreation values. But too many fail to move on before it is too late, and their content ? their racial treasure ? is forever lost, and their race is forever lessened by their loss.
The sexual counterculture has been a slippery slope to reproductive ruin for many valuable Northern Europeans. It has led them into a reproductive wasteland of recreational sex that does not recreate life, and sexual consumerism that does not produce life but only consumes it, where the goal is to sexually consume, possess, try or sample many partners and experiences without becoming emotionally involved or attached, and the creation of children is only considered as something to be prevented. This lifestyle often degenerates into wantonness and the carnage of sexual warfare, where the emotionally numb, cold and unfeeling are the ?winners? of a Pyrrhic Victory in which all are reproductive losers and evolutionary failures, defeated by their childlessness. They bury themselves, and with them bury a valuable part of their race. All within the race are interconnected, and all are losers when a treasured part of it is lost.
Many of those who have rejected and scorned the responsibilities of reproduction and parenthood attempt to give meaning to their lives by adopting an ideology, philosophy or view of existence in which children have little meaning or importance, but are only an unnecessary and undesirable interference, inconvenience or expense. In complete conflict with family and procreation values, they deny the importance of the creation of new life, and thereby deny the importance of Life itself. Children are the continuation of Life. To refuse to reproduce and have children is a betrayal and revolt against Life, against Creation, against the race that bore us and from which we came, against the future generations that depend on us for their creation, and against our ancestors whose commitment to reproduction and parental responsibility, and acceptance of their mission and purpose in the continuation of the generations, made our own existence possible. It is the supreme act of ingratitude and unappreciation. Those who have no appreciation or love for that which made them, the source from which they came, and no desire to continue its existence, are without gratitude. The greater the value of their racial-genetic endowment the more ungrateful is their refusal to procreate.
The dragon ? the allegorical symbol for all the persons and institutions, elements and influences, ideas and values that seek to end Nordish existence, to destroy or preempt Nordish life, to prevent the creation of new Nordish life or negate those who already live ? has many servants. Those Northern Europeans who conform to the ideas and values of the dragon are both its servants and its victims. Those who refuse to reproduce themselves are among its servants, and may also be among its victims, as it may be the source of the values and other influences causing their refusal. Those who misreproduce themselves through interracial mixture are often victims of its ideas and values, beliefs and conceptions, which they accept at the cost of their own negation, and the negation of a valued part of their race.
As the dragon of the allegory knows, woman is the source of new life. The allegorical virgin is a woman who has not yet performed her existential role to create new life, who has the ability to create life for the benefit and continuation of the race but has not yet used it. The creation of new life is the most important, central and primary purpose of life. All else is secondary and peripheral to this purpose. Both man and woman, husband and wife, serve this purpose. The man?s role is that of the gardener or husbandman, to tend, nurture, husband, protect and care for the woman and the new life. Those men who cause women of great racial value to be lost, who prevent them from reproducing or cause them to misreproduce, who hoard or waste their ability to create new life and prevent that ability from being used and fulfilled, who use their influence over them to discourage them from having children, who misuse them for their own benefit but block their use for the benefit of their race and continued life, are among the most harmful of the dragon?s servants.
As servants of the dragon, such men are examples of the tyrant Holdfast, who hoards wealth or holds it fast to himself, keeping it from being used for the benefit of Life and Creation. They can be men who are a good racial-genetic match for the woman they have taken as their partner, who could successfully reproduce with her and create new life like themselves, but who do not want to have children, and so prevent her from creating life and fulfilling her purpose. Or they can be men whose racial-genetic traits are incompatible with those of the woman they have taken, whose traits can only diminish or negate hers, not reproduce or continue them, who prevent her from reproducing her own race and kind, but often misuse her to miscreate children of a different race and kind than herself. Whether a man of her own race and kind or of another, both serve the dragon by preempting the creation of new Nordish life at its source, preventing the woman who is its source from performing her existential role. The effect of their actions and influence is to prevent a woman who could have had valuable Nordish children from having them, who could have created valuable new Nordish life from creating it, causing them to fail to reproduce themselves successfully, causing them and their traits to not be continued into the future, but to be lost with them, to the diminishment of their race as a whole.
Other servants of the dragon include the numerous social philosophers, cultural activists, ideologues and celebrities who urge Northern Europeans, by word and example, not to have children, not to create new Nordish life, teaching them that Nordish nonreproduction is better, and more moral, than Nordish reproduction, that few Nordish children are better than many, and none are better than few, that the best child is a non-Nordish child, and the best Nordish child is a non-existent one. They include all those who mislead and misdirect the Nordish race, as individuals and as a whole, toward their diminishment or negation and away from their procreation and salvation, who instill them with misconceptions about who and what they are, about their race and its interests, and who teach them that it is wrong for them to care for and love their race, but to approve of its destruction, and regard those who disapprove as evil.
The main road of life is the path of continued life, of procreation and successful reproduction. It is the road on which we create new life of our own kind and pass on our traits to future generations of our race. That is salvation, and it is the destination of life. To stay on the main road is to proceed with all possible safety and certainty toward that destination. To stray from the main road, to wander onto the backroads or into the woods, the wasteland and wilderness, is to venture into the realm of existential danger where successful reproduction is imperiled, to become easy prey for the dragon and the wolf (the allegorical sexual predator who seduces its prey away from a lifestyle consistent with successful reproduction), to risk being lost in the woods and never finding the way back, and never reaching the destination ? the renewal of life.
The road of life is the road of virtue. Morality or virtue must have a point of reference, standard or goal by which it can be measured. The continuation of life through successful reproduction is the goal, purpose and end of life, and the point of reference or standard by which morality and virtue should be measured. Sex is the means to that end. Sexual virtue is sexual conduct and values that are consistent with the goal of successful reproduction, that are life-creative, pro-Life and pro-Creation, that fulfill the mission and responsibility to procreate and pass on valuable traits undiminished to the successor generation.
The duration of the process of creating new life, of raising children, is much longer than the sexual act that conceives it. It may require two decades or more of parental help, support, care and love. Virtue serves this prolonged period of creation by forming a permanent bond between the mother and father, creating a stable, secure, helping, caring and loving family and social environment in which the child can grow into a healthy adult fully prepared to create new life in their turn. Virtue is conduct and behavior, lifestyle and values, consistent with this purpose, conducive to the formation of a permanent, stable, secure, healthy, trusting, caring and loving mother-father relationship and family environment. The male-female relationship that is involved in the creation of new life should take priority over those that are not. It should be distinguished as the central relationship of life, to which all others are peripheral. Sex, the means of creation, is also the means by which the central relationship should be distinguished from all others, and should be limited to the central, life-creative relationship through which we fulfill our existential purpose. All other life activities, no matter how important, from sports and art to science and the search for God, are secondary to this purpose. Without it all other activities would cease, as there would be no new life to engage in them.
Sexual activity outside of a permanent, life-creative relationship has a weakening effect on sexual bonding and family relationships, leading many persons of great racial-genetic wealth away from the values and lifestyle of successful reproduction, harming them and their race as a whole by their loss. The race is the biological body, the living organism, of which we are a part, each with a role to play, a purpose to perform as a part of that body. It is the physical manifestation of the genetic stream, both the product and the carrier of the stuff of which we are made, which our ancestors passed on to us, making us, and which we are charged to pass on undiminished to our descendants, making them. This is our evolutionary responsibility, our duty to our race, Life and Creation. Those who violate virtue too often fail in this responsibility, to the lessening and diminishment of their race as a whole.
Unfortunately, racial-genetic wealth, unlike material wealth, can be taken to the grave with its possessors, and is buried with them if they fail to reproduce themselves successfully, impoverishing their race by its loss. The social, cultural and moral environment is shaped and formed by the cumulative effect and influence of the actions, values, conduct and behavior of all within it. Some have greater power and influence in shaping the environment than others, but all contribute, by their action or inaction, to a greater or lesser degree. When a person of great racial-genetic quality, value and importance is lost because of their acceptance and practice of the lifestyle of childlessness, all those who ? by their actions, behavior, values or influence, whether as parents, teachers, friends or ?lovers? of the one who is lost, or only as members of their environment ? contributed to the promotion of that lifestyle, by word or deed, by advocating it or participating in it, share the responsibility for their loss, for their racial-genetic extinction and death.
All members of the race are interconnected. Those who believe they harm no one other than themselves by their anti-Life lifestyle and anti-Creation sexual ethics and behavior are sadly mistaken. Their actions have effects beyond themselves, for which they are responsible. They have effects on their children (including the ultimate effect ? whether or not they will even have children, whether or not their children will even exist or live), on others they influence by their example, values and conduct, and on their race as a whole. Many suffer for their sins. Their self-destructive behavior sends out ripples of harm throughout the racial body, a chain-reaction that touches the lives of many, diminishing the race morally and spiritually as well as physically.
All activities which prevent, discourage or interfere with successful reproduction are part of the process of death, of racial death, the negation of one?s genetic traits. This includes many activities which are widely described or regarded as ?living? or ?enjoying life? but are actually harmful in their effects on successful reproduction. Such activities are anti-Life, and however pleasurable or exciting their short term effects might be, as their product is not life but death, so they should be viewed not as ?living? but as dying. The bed shared with an ?unholy lover? ? one with whom one will not or cannot successfully reproduce oneself ? is not a bed of life but, to the extent that it leads one away from successful reproduction, a bed of racial-genetic death, a racial death bed. Too many Northern Europeans have killed and are killing themselves with what they believe is ?living? but is actually dying. In doing so they are also killing the Nordish race.
The purest and greatest act of Nordish racial preservationism is the creation of new Nordish life. The creation of Nordish children is the renewal of Nordish life, the ultimate pro-Nordish act. The higher and finer their racial quality and value, the more the Nordish race is enriched and benefited by their creation. The ultimate anti-Nordish act, the act most harmful to the Nordish race, is to refuse or prevent the creation of new Nordish life, either by noncreation or the miscreation of intermixture. The refusal to create Nordish children prevents Nordish life from renewing itself. It preempts Nordish life at its source.
The greatest act of both self-love and racial love is to join together and have children with one whose racial-genetic traits are similar and compatible with our own. Until we reproduce ourselves ? for so long as we are capable of reproducing ourselves ? our future is more important than our past. Our reproduction, or failure to reproduce, and who we reproduce with, is the most important decision or choice, action or inaction of our lives. It determines the future of our race and the course of its evolution. By having children of our own kind we defeat death. Our life wins. We and what we are continues to live. By failing to have children of our own kind we are defeated by death, negated by racial death. Our life loses. Our racial-genetic traits are lost. We and what we are die. Death wins. The potential for immortality, for eternal life for us and our kind, is embodied in our children and the children of our kind. They are our life renewing itself.
Virtue serves Life. It is life-serving. Sexual virtue is sexual conduct and values that are life-serving, life-creative and life-sustaining. Virtue limits sexual activity to marriage, the life-serving and life-creating relationship that fulfills the covenant with Life. It prevents the tragic waste and loss that occurs to Life whenever sex is divorced from its life-serving purpose, and its effectiveness as a bonding force for life-creative and life-sustaining relationships is weakened.
Virtue is conduct and values consistent with the goal of successful reproduction. It is ethics and behavior consistent with the intent of having children and forming a healthy and wholesome environment for their growth and development. It is a lifestyle that plans for children and for the conditions that will be most beneficial for them. It is the selection of a mate, a life-creation partner, whose racial-genetic traits are compatible with one?s own, with whom one can successfully reproduce oneself and one?s own kind. It is pro-Creation and pro-Life conduct and values.
Virtue should be assisted in the renewal of racial life by cultural and economic conditions and influences that favor the creation of new life. The race should have a religion that considers it and its vital interests to be important, and promotes the renewal of its life. The race should have reverence for itself, for its beauty and virtue, its spirit and genius, and hold its life as its highest value.
Healthy, monoracial societies are vitally interested and concerned with the successful reproduction of their members, properly regarding this activity as the central and primary purpose of life. To maximize the extent of successful reproduction, and minimize the extent of reproductive failure and racial-genetic loss, they instill the values of sexual virtue, the values that are most conducive to a lifestyle of marriage, family and children, and warn against the dangers of deviation from the path of virtue (often through the medium of allegorical stories).
With the growth of the sexual counterculture and the acceptance of alternate childless lifestyles competing with the lifestyle of family and procreation values, the power of social custom to promote permanent male-female bonding and successful reproduction has been greatly weakened. The only other power that can form and hold male-female bonds together and create new life is love. Not the promiscuous love of generalized libido, but romantic love that is fixed on one person, the true love of the poets that is deep and abiding, that endures even time. The erosion of social custom makes the Nordish race more dependent than ever on the power of love to bond men and women together and create children. The high divorce rate, high unmarried rate and low birthrate are not only signs of the weakness of procreative social customs, but also of the weakness of our love.
Our love is not yet strong enough to fill the void left by the decline of social custom. Perhaps this is because we cannot depend on the romantic love between a man and woman to perform the task alone, in isolation and without help. Perhaps romantic love would be more effective as one part of a larger environment of love, surrounded by many other forms of love, all supporting it and working for the same purpose. Perhaps we need more than just love for our partner. Perhaps we need love for ourselves, for our children, for our ancestors and descendants, and for our race as a whole. Such a varied source of love, all promoting successful reproduction, would provide a more complete source of motivation than one form alone.
If the Nordish race is to continue itself, if it is to be saved and survive, it must learn to love itself, to value itself and what it is, to care for its vital interests and well-being. It must re-learn much of what it has been taught about itself, re-learn how to think about itself from the manner in which it has been conditioned, identify and reject the many misconceptions and anti-Nordish ideas and values with which it has so long been indoctrinated to the detriment of its vital rights and interests, threatening its very existence. It must learn that it is not immoral or evil for it to value, care for and love itself and what it is, but vital, natural, pro-Life and pro-Creation, the highest form of morality, virtue and love.
If and when the Nordish race comes to love itself, to regard itself and its existence as important, it will oppose that which would cause its diminishment or destruction, whether racial intermixture and replacement or nonreproduction. This is the love that saves, the love that preserves, the love that serves. It is the love that cures the madness that causes destruction. It is the love that gives us the miracle of life.
In the ancient allegories of virgins and dragons, heroes and beasts, the salvation of life often depended on the power of love. The answer to many riddles, the passing of many tests, and the successful completion of many quests depended on love and virtue. Such love and virtue is what the Nordish race needs to answer its riddles, to pass its tests, and to fulfill its quests ? the riddles, tests and quests of life. It needs the tender love and care of those to whom it gave existence and life, and who give it existence and life, those whom it gave everything they are and everything they have, and who give it everything it is and everything it has. It needs racial tender loving care from those who are what it is, those who are itself. Only such love can save its life.[/justify]
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
From fairest creatures we desire increase,
that thereby beauty?s rose might never die.
William Shakespeare, Sonnets I
No man is an Iland , intire of it selfe; every man
is a peece of the Continent , a part of the maine ; if
Clod bee washed away by the Sea , Europe is the lesse,
as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor
of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death
diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde ; And
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee .
John Donne
The Hegemony wrested from the enemy, the freedom won
from the malice of the monster, the life energy released from
the toils of the tyrant Holdfast ? is symbolized as a woman.
She is the maiden of the innumerable dragon slayings,
the bride abducted from the jealous father,
the virgin rescued from the unholy lover.
The Hero with a Thousand Faces , Joseph Campbell, 1949
[justify]The Nordish (Northern European) race is much like a garden. It is a select collection of life in the midst of the greater assortment of life outside its boundaries. Like a garden, it is a living and growing thing, or should be. Its life and growth are not guaranteed. It can wither and die. To flourish it must be lovingly tended and cared for. Its recessive genes are like vulnerable flowers that must be kept separate and safe from the other life forms that might overwhelm and destroy them in competition for the same patch of earth. The garden gives them a protected environment. The gardener cannot allow the other life forms into the garden or they will choke and replace the life that grows there. The proper place of the other life forms is outside the garden. If they get inside the garden they must be removed or they will kill it.
But the Nordish race, like a garden, needs more tending and care than just protecting it from those competing species that would replace it. It needs to be nurtured, guided and directed, and given the conditions it requires for healthy growth and well-being. It must be preserved from all the elements and forces that could diminish or destroy it. Some people care only for their own little part of the garden, their own children, and their own family and circle of friends. The race is the garden as a whole, which must be preserved and nurtured with tender loving care or none of the parts will long survive alone. Its gardeners are those who have extended their love and care beyond their own little part of the garden to the garden as a whole. The prize flowers ? the finest, most beautiful, most highly developed and valuable ? should be given particular care, lavished with the special attention and concern of the gardeners. The Nordish race is like a garden of beautiful flowers, ?beauty?s rose,? and its existence, and its esthetic ideal, must be treated with racial tender loving care so it will increase, and never die.
The Nordish race is a synergistic entity. The whole creates an effect greater than the sum of its individual parts. It is not an atomistic collection of unconnected individuals. All are interconnected to form an organic whole, the actions of each affecting the whole, separate threads woven together to form a fabric. Any action of one that lessens, diminishes or is destructive of what they are, of their essence or being, has the same effect on the race as a whole. Like ripples in a pond, the effects of their actions ripple out, reverberate and influence the race as a whole, even if only by setting an example ? good or bad ? for others to follow. The more racially valuable and important the individual is, the greater is the effect of their actions or behavior.
Social or racial customs influence behavior, and are themselves the result of the cumulative behavior of the individual members of the society or race. The failure of one to uphold moral standards and racial values has, by the influence of its bad example, a diminishing effect on the whole, weakening the strength of the racial fiber. Unhealthy or immoral actions that lessen one individual also lessen the race as a whole. They send ripples of harm through the threads of the racial fabric, influencing others and lessening the existence and health of the whole.
No man or woman is an island. We are all part of a larger body or entity. Our race is the larger entity, the continuum of life of which we are a part. We are a temporary manifestation of the genes it has bestowed on us, which we are obligated to return to the continuum undiminished for future manifestations. Many are unaware of this simple fact, or are aware of it only in a vague and unfocused way. They fail to make the connection between the distinctive traits which they value and the race which is the source of those traits, from which they come and of which they are a part. They do not see their own racial nature and identity, their place and role in Creation and Life, who and what they are, their purpose as a part of the whole of their race, as a link in the chain of generations between past and future. They fail to appreciate their racial role and responsibility to preserve those traits and pass them on to the future generations of the racial-genetic continuum.
The separation of the individual from the whole of their race creates an unnatural schism in values and interests, divorcing the narrow interests of the individual from the broader racial interest. This results in well-being and salvation being perceived solely in terms of the individual, as personal salvation and well-being, not in terms of the salvation and well-being of their race as a whole, their branch of Creation, the life of which they are a part and which continues their life. Those who value, care for and love their race and its traits, who are so involved in it that they feel any loss, pain, harm or diminishment to it as their own, suffer and grieve in concert with it, knowing that they and their race are one, and that when the bell tolls for their race it tolls for them also.
One of the characteristics of life is reproduction. All living things reproduce themselves. The reproduction or recreation of life enables it to continue beyond the current generation. Reproduction is the primary activity and purpose of life. In nonsapient life forms reproduction is ruled by instinct. In sapient life reproduction is, or should be, intentional, a matter of conscious choice and deliberate decision. Decisions involved in reproduction, the creation of new life, are the most important decisions of life. The cumulative effect of these decisions determines the composition of the next generation, and the course of evolution.
Whether or not to have children, who with and how many, whether to create new life, what life to create and in what quantity, are the fundamental choices and decisions of life. Many make these decisions with the belief that they affect no one beyond themselves and are strictly their own affair. But these decisions make the future. The composition and content of the future generations of the race, the course of evolution and the direction of Creation and Life, are determined by such seemingly mundane matters as what children, or whose children, are born, who reproduces and who does not. Those who reproduce themselves successfully cause life to evolve in the direction of their traits. Evolution moves toward those who reproduce themselves successfully and away from those who do not. When those of above average beauty or intelligence have a below average birthrate life will evolve away from these valuable traits. They will decrease rather than increase, diminished in both quality and quantity.
Successful reproduction must be successful in terms of both quantity and quality, type or kind. In terms of quantity, the replacement rate in the modern Nordish population is 2.1 children per woman. This replacement rate can be regarded as the rate, or position, at which no evolutionary or population change or movement occurs. It maintains the status quo. For change or movement to occur the number of children must be either above or below two. Change will occur in the direction of an increase in the traits of those with more than two children; in the direction of a decrease in the traits of those with less than two. Drastic change, or reproductive failure, occurs in the case of those with no children ? in the direction of negation or nonexistence of their traits.
In terms of quality, type or kind, successful reproduction can only occur with a mate who is of similar racial-genetic type or kind, with compatible genes and traits, as oneself. Having many children of a different racial-genetic type than oneself, with different traits than oneself, is ? in terms of racial reproduction ? the same as having no children, for one is not successfully reproduced in children that are so markedly different from oneself that they are outside one?s race. Individuals, and their traits, are only lost to their race if they fail to reproduce. In racial terms there are two types of reproductive failure ? having no children, and having children with a genetically incompatible partner whose traits negate or diminish one?s own.
The purpose of each generation in the racial-genetic continuum or evolutionary line is to successfully reproduce, recreate or continue itself, to pass on its genes undiminished and undiluted to its successor generations. This can only be accomplished by the mating of like with like, each with its own kind. This is genetic morality, serving the interests of one?s genes by providing the most favorable conditions for their continuation into future generations.
Reproduction is the only activity that creates new life, and is necessarily the central and most important activity of life. The decisions affecting reproduction are based on values. Pro-Life values serve the cause of Life. They are the values of continued life and existence for one?s racial-genetic line and kind, the values of reproduction, the values of Life. Anti-Life values do not serve Life but oppose it, or attempt to deny and evade it and the duties and responsibilities it imposes. They are the values of those who choose not to reproduce themselves or their genes, the material of Creation, the stuff that made them. They are the values of nonexistence and racial death.
But genes belong not only to the individual. They belong to the race and Creation. When an individual who possesses valuable racial-genetic traits does not successfully reproduce, they not only negate their own continued existence but diminish the continued existence of their race as well. All of the genetic traits and gifts, qualities and characteristics, physical and mental, that are so admired and enjoyed, are not just individual traits. They are racial traits, unique characteristics of a particular race, capable of being reproduced and continued through time down through the generations, inherited from ancestors and passed on to descendants.
All genetic traits come from the race and belong to the race. If they came from any other race they would not be what they are, and we would not be what we are. The beauty of the racial esthetic ideal belongs primarily to the race, only secondarily to those who embody it in the existing generation. Those of the present generation who possess valuable genetic traits are only their temporary possessors, custodians or stewards, enjoying their benefits and entrusted with the responsibility to take good care of them and reproduce them successfully, not misuse them or cause them to be lost. If they abuse the traits handed down to them over thousands of generations of racial evolution, causing those valued traits to end with them, they will deny their continued existence to the generations of the future.
Racial-genetic traits are ended or destroyed by nonreproduction. Misreproduction, or racial intermixture, which negates the racial-genetic traits of those who engage in it, is one form of nonreproduction. If the racially-mixed children produced by it are separated from the race, and prevented from being mixed with it, its effects are no more damaging to the race than the individual having no children at all. Having no children negates the traits of the childless individual, but ends there and does not spread the harm to the traits of others. Having racially-mixed children also negates the racial traits of the Northern European parent, and if the children are assimilated by the race of their non-Nordish parent, and not the Nordish race, the harm to the Nordish race also ends with the loss of the individual involved, and the traits of the race as a whole are not further harmed or endangered. But if the non-Nordish children, whether adopted or racially-mixed, are raised by the Nordish parent within the Nordish race, and assimilated or mixed into the racial-genetic continuum or evolutionary line of the Nordish race, the racial-genetic harm is spread into the racial body and alters, lessens, diminishes and negates the traits of the race as a whole, violating its right to racial life.
To accept members of other races, of other racial continuums and evolutionary lines, with other racial traits, into the social body is ultimately to accept them into the racial-genetic body, to accept the intermixture of one?s racial-genetic line ? one?s traits ? with them and with what they are, to be altered in the direction of what they are, and to become what they are. Such an act of acceptance violates the right of the Nordish race to the conditions it requires for continued life. It is a racially destructive, genocidal act which no individual has a right to do. Since it is destructive of a branch of Creation, of Life and of nature, and involves the interests of many generations, past and future, it is also an act which no one generation has a right to do.
In the metaphorical symbolism of the virgin and the dragon, the virgin ? or woman who has not yet reproduced ? represents the source of new life which has not yet fulfilled its existential purpose to create new life, and the dragon the anti-Life forces which work to prevent the creation of new life. The dragon does not have to consume or physically kill the virgin to prevent her from creating new life. In the ancient stories it frequently prevents her from fulfilling her mission by imprisoning her, by hoarding her as part of its hoard of treasure (the most valuable part), keeping her from those with whom she could join and create new life. In the present situation of the Nordish race, the role of the dragon is performed by all those forces and elements, persons and ideas, institutions and values, cultural and social influences that prevent or discourage Nordish reproduction and suppress the Nordish birthrate. The dragon, or its numerous servants, can take the guise of an ideology that promotes childlessness, a lifestyle incompatible with the creation or raising of children, or the persons, institutions and media that advocate such anti-Life and anti-Creation ideas and values.
This generation is a temporary and transitory manifestation of the racial-genetic continuum, passing on its traits to the next generation as they were passed on to it by its predecessors.Some members of the Nordish race are bearers of more valuable genetic traits ? physical and mental, in beauty and intelligence ? than others. Some embody and personify the purest essence of the race, its unique genetic traits and characteristics in their most racially distinct and valued form. These individuals are concentrations of racial-genetic wealth, racial-genetic treasures, the most precious examples of their kind, the center or heart of the race by which it is defined and without which its existence would lose most of its meaning, the personifications of the racial ideal toward which the race seeks to evolve as its goal and destiny, the meaning and purpose of its existence.
Those who embody the racial ideal, in body and mind, are the caretakers, custodians or stewards of the racial-genetic treasure that is the ideal, that has been entrusted to their care in this generation by their ancestors in whose care it was entrusted in preceding generations. Their responsibility in their turn, as it is in the turn of each and every generation, is to pass on the legacy of racial-genetic treasure entrusted to them to the next generation ? whole, complete and undiminished and, if possible, increased. If they allow it to be lost or lessened, wasted or consumed, by irresponsible behavior and lack of care, concern or appreciation, it is a loss not only to them, but the gravest loss of all to their race, its present being and future existence. They are the center of their race, and their preservation, salvation and reproduction is of the greatest racial importance. The loss of some on the racial periphery is a racial tragedy, but the loss of one in the racial center is a racial catastrophe. The former are wounds to the limbs of the racial body. The latter is a wound to the racial heart. The former are painful, but the latter are racially fatal. Those in the racial center personify the concentrated essence of the race, the most distinct from other races, the most evolved on the racial line of ascending life, and the most difficult to recreate or replace if lost. They are not expendable.
In the biblical ?Parable of the Three Talents,? three servants were each entrusted by their master with the care of an equal amount of wealth. The two servants who increased the treasure entrusted to their care were both praised and rewarded in proportion to the amount of the increase. The servant who did not increase the treasure entrusted to his care, but did not lose it and returned it to the master undiminished, was criticized for dereliction of duty and failure to fulfill his responsibility. The parable does not inform us how the master would regard a servant who allowed the wealth entrusted to his care to be diminished, lessened, wasted or lost, but the implication is clear that such wanton carelessness would be considered the gravest breach of trust.
So it is with the racial-genetic treasure, the greatest form of wealth in Life and Creation, that is entrusted to the care of those who are the bearers and embodiment of the racial ideal. The good servants of Life are those who increase, by successful reproduction, the racial-genetic wealth entrusted to their care and stewardship. The bad servants of Creation are those who cause or permit the racial-genetic treasure in their care to be wasted or lost through their lack of concern, appreciation or love. They not only waste, diminish or destroy themselves and what they are, but also a very valuable part of their race, Life and Creation, a racial-genetic treasure that is a legacy from countless preceding generations in the evolutionary line and racial continuum, the heart and soul of their race.
No individual is an island. All are interconnected parts in the existence, life and being of their race. All are interconnected links in the evolutionary line or genetic continuum of their race. The racial-genetic treasure of one is also a part of the race, that comes from it and belongs to it. If that treasure is wasted, diminished or lost, whether by intent, neglect or ignorance, the race as a whole is diminished by the loss of an important part of its being. To the extent that a person is the beneficiary of a legacy of racial-genetic wealth, they are equally the trustee of that legacy. This is the covenant between the generations of their kind ? past, present and future. It is the covenant of Life and Creation.
Those who are the stewards, custodians and caretakers of the most valuable traits of the race in body and mind, its racial-genetic wealth, have the greatest responsibility to reproduce themselves and their traits successfully. It is from them that the race desires increase. To do this they must have three or more children with a mate of their own kind, whose racial-genetic traits are similar to, and compatible with, their own. Unfortunately, many Northern Europeans who are the beneficiaries and trustees of racial-genetic wealth ? in beauty, talent or intelligence ? have little concern for its perpetuation and continuation, with its waste or loss, diminishment or destruction, as the all too frequent consequence. They do not appreciate the importance of their reproduction, that their choice of whether or not to have children, and their choice of a mate to have children with, determines the composition and content of the future generations of their race, what persons will or will not be created, will or will not exist, whether they will be like them, of their kind, or not like them, of other kind. It determines the genetic legacy that will be left to posterity.
It is a tragic fact that many Northern Europeans of great beauty, who personify the esthetic ideal of their race (including many actresses and models celebrated for their Nordish esthetic traits), who are often lavished with attention and praise for their Nordish good looks, and who themselves often lavish so much concern and effort on the care of that beauty, so that its care almost directs their way of life, frequently have no concern, and make no effort, to reproduce that beauty. The result is that they often have no children, or they have children with a mate whose racial-genetic traits are incompatible with their own, with whom they cannot reproduce their beauty but only negate it, cannot have children in whom their beauty is continued and perpetuated, but only diminished or lost. They are often proud of their beauty, but it is not their creation. They are only its temporary beneficiaries and trustees in this generation. It is a creation of their race, from which it comes and to which it belongs, passed on to them by their ancestors with the duty to pass it on undiminished to their descendants. They often use their beauty for their own benefit and enjoyment, to achieve their own ambitions and desires, but in matters of reproduction they treat it with careless disregard, neglect or indifference, or misuse and abuse it by joining with a mate whose traits negate their own.
This careless nonreproduction ? or misreproduction ? of those with valuable racial-genetic traits is not a new problem. The Roman emperor Augustus contended, with little success, against such practices among the patricians of his time. Shakespeare was concerned about such tendencies in the English nobility of his generation, and addressed the subject with sensitivity and eloquence in his first seventeen sonnets, since known as his ?procreation sonnets.? It is most common in periods of social and cultural pluralism, when the old customs and values that encouraged reproduction have weakened and are challenged by competing standards of sexual morality that conflict with family and procreation values.
The customs, values and ethics of reproduction are necessarily connected to, affected by, and dependent upon the customs, values and ethics of sexual morality and conduct that comprise the sexual culture. Sex is the means of reproduction, and sexual attitudes and behavior affect reproduction. The code of sexual morality and conduct most favorable to reproduction is that which encourages stable, permanent, secure, mutually faithful and monogamous relationships between male and female, in which the parents can concentrate their energy and attention on providing a healthy and wholesome environment for the birth and development of their children. Such a code of sexual ethics and behavior is the sexual culture of family or procreative values.
The sexual culture of the Nordish race is presently in a state of disarray and confusion. The lifestyle of unstable and temporary sexual relationships, with a series of sexual partners, that was formerly limited to a sexual subculture, has grown in influence and following over the course of the last several generations. It has become a sexual counterculture, competing with the traditionally dominant, mainstream sexual culture of family and procreation values, offering an alternative lifestyle that has achieved social and moral acceptability. It is the sexual culture and lifestyle of the playboy and playgirl, of transient, superficial and disposable sexual relationships, busily filled with secondary interests and activities, but empty of the most important, central and primary activity of life ? successful reproduction. It is a life-style that conflicts with the values of parenthood, of having and raising children and reproducing one?s racial-genetic traits. In the content of such cultural influences as novels, motion pictures, television programs and popular music it has become the prevailing, dominant sexual culture, replacing family and procreation values as the mainstream.
Those who have joined this sexual counterculture and practice its values are the prodigal sons and daughters of the Nordish race. They have become sexual spendthrifts, spending and wasting their substance and content ? the racial-genetic treasure accumulated over the course of many ancestral generations ? in the frivolous pursuit of transient and shallow pleasures. They may believe that their behavior causes no harm, to themselves or to others, but it does cause harm to both ? to themselves in their own racial-genetic death, and to their race as a whole by its diminishment through the loss of the racial-genetic wealth they contain, which will not be passed on to future generations.
Beyond themselves and their own loss, their behavior causes harm by the influence their example has on other members of their race. The sexual counterculture, and the moral environment it engenders, is produced by the cumulative effect of the sexual behavior of all those who practice its values. Its influence has caused the loss, by nonreproduction, of many valuable Northern Europeans, and all who have contributed to its influence by their behavior and example must share the responsibility for this loss. It has created a moral and sexual environment that discourages the successful reproduction of the Nordish race and has drastically lowered its birthrate, preempting the creation of new life at its source and preventing the existence of many who could have lived, and would have, if the moral and sexual environment had been more favorable to procreation. Further loss and harm can only be reduced if the prodigal sons and daughters return to their race ? after wasting many of their best reproductive years ? to reproduce themselves before it is too late. For some, participation in the sexual counterculture is only a stage of life limited to their adolescence and young adulthood, after which they move on to a permanent relationship with family and procreation values. But too many fail to move on before it is too late, and their content ? their racial treasure ? is forever lost, and their race is forever lessened by their loss.
The sexual counterculture has been a slippery slope to reproductive ruin for many valuable Northern Europeans. It has led them into a reproductive wasteland of recreational sex that does not recreate life, and sexual consumerism that does not produce life but only consumes it, where the goal is to sexually consume, possess, try or sample many partners and experiences without becoming emotionally involved or attached, and the creation of children is only considered as something to be prevented. This lifestyle often degenerates into wantonness and the carnage of sexual warfare, where the emotionally numb, cold and unfeeling are the ?winners? of a Pyrrhic Victory in which all are reproductive losers and evolutionary failures, defeated by their childlessness. They bury themselves, and with them bury a valuable part of their race. All within the race are interconnected, and all are losers when a treasured part of it is lost.
Many of those who have rejected and scorned the responsibilities of reproduction and parenthood attempt to give meaning to their lives by adopting an ideology, philosophy or view of existence in which children have little meaning or importance, but are only an unnecessary and undesirable interference, inconvenience or expense. In complete conflict with family and procreation values, they deny the importance of the creation of new life, and thereby deny the importance of Life itself. Children are the continuation of Life. To refuse to reproduce and have children is a betrayal and revolt against Life, against Creation, against the race that bore us and from which we came, against the future generations that depend on us for their creation, and against our ancestors whose commitment to reproduction and parental responsibility, and acceptance of their mission and purpose in the continuation of the generations, made our own existence possible. It is the supreme act of ingratitude and unappreciation. Those who have no appreciation or love for that which made them, the source from which they came, and no desire to continue its existence, are without gratitude. The greater the value of their racial-genetic endowment the more ungrateful is their refusal to procreate.
The dragon ? the allegorical symbol for all the persons and institutions, elements and influences, ideas and values that seek to end Nordish existence, to destroy or preempt Nordish life, to prevent the creation of new Nordish life or negate those who already live ? has many servants. Those Northern Europeans who conform to the ideas and values of the dragon are both its servants and its victims. Those who refuse to reproduce themselves are among its servants, and may also be among its victims, as it may be the source of the values and other influences causing their refusal. Those who misreproduce themselves through interracial mixture are often victims of its ideas and values, beliefs and conceptions, which they accept at the cost of their own negation, and the negation of a valued part of their race.
As the dragon of the allegory knows, woman is the source of new life. The allegorical virgin is a woman who has not yet performed her existential role to create new life, who has the ability to create life for the benefit and continuation of the race but has not yet used it. The creation of new life is the most important, central and primary purpose of life. All else is secondary and peripheral to this purpose. Both man and woman, husband and wife, serve this purpose. The man?s role is that of the gardener or husbandman, to tend, nurture, husband, protect and care for the woman and the new life. Those men who cause women of great racial value to be lost, who prevent them from reproducing or cause them to misreproduce, who hoard or waste their ability to create new life and prevent that ability from being used and fulfilled, who use their influence over them to discourage them from having children, who misuse them for their own benefit but block their use for the benefit of their race and continued life, are among the most harmful of the dragon?s servants.
As servants of the dragon, such men are examples of the tyrant Holdfast, who hoards wealth or holds it fast to himself, keeping it from being used for the benefit of Life and Creation. They can be men who are a good racial-genetic match for the woman they have taken as their partner, who could successfully reproduce with her and create new life like themselves, but who do not want to have children, and so prevent her from creating life and fulfilling her purpose. Or they can be men whose racial-genetic traits are incompatible with those of the woman they have taken, whose traits can only diminish or negate hers, not reproduce or continue them, who prevent her from reproducing her own race and kind, but often misuse her to miscreate children of a different race and kind than herself. Whether a man of her own race and kind or of another, both serve the dragon by preempting the creation of new Nordish life at its source, preventing the woman who is its source from performing her existential role. The effect of their actions and influence is to prevent a woman who could have had valuable Nordish children from having them, who could have created valuable new Nordish life from creating it, causing them to fail to reproduce themselves successfully, causing them and their traits to not be continued into the future, but to be lost with them, to the diminishment of their race as a whole.
Other servants of the dragon include the numerous social philosophers, cultural activists, ideologues and celebrities who urge Northern Europeans, by word and example, not to have children, not to create new Nordish life, teaching them that Nordish nonreproduction is better, and more moral, than Nordish reproduction, that few Nordish children are better than many, and none are better than few, that the best child is a non-Nordish child, and the best Nordish child is a non-existent one. They include all those who mislead and misdirect the Nordish race, as individuals and as a whole, toward their diminishment or negation and away from their procreation and salvation, who instill them with misconceptions about who and what they are, about their race and its interests, and who teach them that it is wrong for them to care for and love their race, but to approve of its destruction, and regard those who disapprove as evil.
The main road of life is the path of continued life, of procreation and successful reproduction. It is the road on which we create new life of our own kind and pass on our traits to future generations of our race. That is salvation, and it is the destination of life. To stay on the main road is to proceed with all possible safety and certainty toward that destination. To stray from the main road, to wander onto the backroads or into the woods, the wasteland and wilderness, is to venture into the realm of existential danger where successful reproduction is imperiled, to become easy prey for the dragon and the wolf (the allegorical sexual predator who seduces its prey away from a lifestyle consistent with successful reproduction), to risk being lost in the woods and never finding the way back, and never reaching the destination ? the renewal of life.
The road of life is the road of virtue. Morality or virtue must have a point of reference, standard or goal by which it can be measured. The continuation of life through successful reproduction is the goal, purpose and end of life, and the point of reference or standard by which morality and virtue should be measured. Sex is the means to that end. Sexual virtue is sexual conduct and values that are consistent with the goal of successful reproduction, that are life-creative, pro-Life and pro-Creation, that fulfill the mission and responsibility to procreate and pass on valuable traits undiminished to the successor generation.
The duration of the process of creating new life, of raising children, is much longer than the sexual act that conceives it. It may require two decades or more of parental help, support, care and love. Virtue serves this prolonged period of creation by forming a permanent bond between the mother and father, creating a stable, secure, helping, caring and loving family and social environment in which the child can grow into a healthy adult fully prepared to create new life in their turn. Virtue is conduct and behavior, lifestyle and values, consistent with this purpose, conducive to the formation of a permanent, stable, secure, healthy, trusting, caring and loving mother-father relationship and family environment. The male-female relationship that is involved in the creation of new life should take priority over those that are not. It should be distinguished as the central relationship of life, to which all others are peripheral. Sex, the means of creation, is also the means by which the central relationship should be distinguished from all others, and should be limited to the central, life-creative relationship through which we fulfill our existential purpose. All other life activities, no matter how important, from sports and art to science and the search for God, are secondary to this purpose. Without it all other activities would cease, as there would be no new life to engage in them.
Sexual activity outside of a permanent, life-creative relationship has a weakening effect on sexual bonding and family relationships, leading many persons of great racial-genetic wealth away from the values and lifestyle of successful reproduction, harming them and their race as a whole by their loss. The race is the biological body, the living organism, of which we are a part, each with a role to play, a purpose to perform as a part of that body. It is the physical manifestation of the genetic stream, both the product and the carrier of the stuff of which we are made, which our ancestors passed on to us, making us, and which we are charged to pass on undiminished to our descendants, making them. This is our evolutionary responsibility, our duty to our race, Life and Creation. Those who violate virtue too often fail in this responsibility, to the lessening and diminishment of their race as a whole.
Unfortunately, racial-genetic wealth, unlike material wealth, can be taken to the grave with its possessors, and is buried with them if they fail to reproduce themselves successfully, impoverishing their race by its loss. The social, cultural and moral environment is shaped and formed by the cumulative effect and influence of the actions, values, conduct and behavior of all within it. Some have greater power and influence in shaping the environment than others, but all contribute, by their action or inaction, to a greater or lesser degree. When a person of great racial-genetic quality, value and importance is lost because of their acceptance and practice of the lifestyle of childlessness, all those who ? by their actions, behavior, values or influence, whether as parents, teachers, friends or ?lovers? of the one who is lost, or only as members of their environment ? contributed to the promotion of that lifestyle, by word or deed, by advocating it or participating in it, share the responsibility for their loss, for their racial-genetic extinction and death.
All members of the race are interconnected. Those who believe they harm no one other than themselves by their anti-Life lifestyle and anti-Creation sexual ethics and behavior are sadly mistaken. Their actions have effects beyond themselves, for which they are responsible. They have effects on their children (including the ultimate effect ? whether or not they will even have children, whether or not their children will even exist or live), on others they influence by their example, values and conduct, and on their race as a whole. Many suffer for their sins. Their self-destructive behavior sends out ripples of harm throughout the racial body, a chain-reaction that touches the lives of many, diminishing the race morally and spiritually as well as physically.
All activities which prevent, discourage or interfere with successful reproduction are part of the process of death, of racial death, the negation of one?s genetic traits. This includes many activities which are widely described or regarded as ?living? or ?enjoying life? but are actually harmful in their effects on successful reproduction. Such activities are anti-Life, and however pleasurable or exciting their short term effects might be, as their product is not life but death, so they should be viewed not as ?living? but as dying. The bed shared with an ?unholy lover? ? one with whom one will not or cannot successfully reproduce oneself ? is not a bed of life but, to the extent that it leads one away from successful reproduction, a bed of racial-genetic death, a racial death bed. Too many Northern Europeans have killed and are killing themselves with what they believe is ?living? but is actually dying. In doing so they are also killing the Nordish race.
The purest and greatest act of Nordish racial preservationism is the creation of new Nordish life. The creation of Nordish children is the renewal of Nordish life, the ultimate pro-Nordish act. The higher and finer their racial quality and value, the more the Nordish race is enriched and benefited by their creation. The ultimate anti-Nordish act, the act most harmful to the Nordish race, is to refuse or prevent the creation of new Nordish life, either by noncreation or the miscreation of intermixture. The refusal to create Nordish children prevents Nordish life from renewing itself. It preempts Nordish life at its source.
The greatest act of both self-love and racial love is to join together and have children with one whose racial-genetic traits are similar and compatible with our own. Until we reproduce ourselves ? for so long as we are capable of reproducing ourselves ? our future is more important than our past. Our reproduction, or failure to reproduce, and who we reproduce with, is the most important decision or choice, action or inaction of our lives. It determines the future of our race and the course of its evolution. By having children of our own kind we defeat death. Our life wins. We and what we are continues to live. By failing to have children of our own kind we are defeated by death, negated by racial death. Our life loses. Our racial-genetic traits are lost. We and what we are die. Death wins. The potential for immortality, for eternal life for us and our kind, is embodied in our children and the children of our kind. They are our life renewing itself.
Virtue serves Life. It is life-serving. Sexual virtue is sexual conduct and values that are life-serving, life-creative and life-sustaining. Virtue limits sexual activity to marriage, the life-serving and life-creating relationship that fulfills the covenant with Life. It prevents the tragic waste and loss that occurs to Life whenever sex is divorced from its life-serving purpose, and its effectiveness as a bonding force for life-creative and life-sustaining relationships is weakened.
Virtue is conduct and values consistent with the goal of successful reproduction. It is ethics and behavior consistent with the intent of having children and forming a healthy and wholesome environment for their growth and development. It is a lifestyle that plans for children and for the conditions that will be most beneficial for them. It is the selection of a mate, a life-creation partner, whose racial-genetic traits are compatible with one?s own, with whom one can successfully reproduce oneself and one?s own kind. It is pro-Creation and pro-Life conduct and values.
Virtue should be assisted in the renewal of racial life by cultural and economic conditions and influences that favor the creation of new life. The race should have a religion that considers it and its vital interests to be important, and promotes the renewal of its life. The race should have reverence for itself, for its beauty and virtue, its spirit and genius, and hold its life as its highest value.
Healthy, monoracial societies are vitally interested and concerned with the successful reproduction of their members, properly regarding this activity as the central and primary purpose of life. To maximize the extent of successful reproduction, and minimize the extent of reproductive failure and racial-genetic loss, they instill the values of sexual virtue, the values that are most conducive to a lifestyle of marriage, family and children, and warn against the dangers of deviation from the path of virtue (often through the medium of allegorical stories).
With the growth of the sexual counterculture and the acceptance of alternate childless lifestyles competing with the lifestyle of family and procreation values, the power of social custom to promote permanent male-female bonding and successful reproduction has been greatly weakened. The only other power that can form and hold male-female bonds together and create new life is love. Not the promiscuous love of generalized libido, but romantic love that is fixed on one person, the true love of the poets that is deep and abiding, that endures even time. The erosion of social custom makes the Nordish race more dependent than ever on the power of love to bond men and women together and create children. The high divorce rate, high unmarried rate and low birthrate are not only signs of the weakness of procreative social customs, but also of the weakness of our love.
Our love is not yet strong enough to fill the void left by the decline of social custom. Perhaps this is because we cannot depend on the romantic love between a man and woman to perform the task alone, in isolation and without help. Perhaps romantic love would be more effective as one part of a larger environment of love, surrounded by many other forms of love, all supporting it and working for the same purpose. Perhaps we need more than just love for our partner. Perhaps we need love for ourselves, for our children, for our ancestors and descendants, and for our race as a whole. Such a varied source of love, all promoting successful reproduction, would provide a more complete source of motivation than one form alone.
If the Nordish race is to continue itself, if it is to be saved and survive, it must learn to love itself, to value itself and what it is, to care for its vital interests and well-being. It must re-learn much of what it has been taught about itself, re-learn how to think about itself from the manner in which it has been conditioned, identify and reject the many misconceptions and anti-Nordish ideas and values with which it has so long been indoctrinated to the detriment of its vital rights and interests, threatening its very existence. It must learn that it is not immoral or evil for it to value, care for and love itself and what it is, but vital, natural, pro-Life and pro-Creation, the highest form of morality, virtue and love.
If and when the Nordish race comes to love itself, to regard itself and its existence as important, it will oppose that which would cause its diminishment or destruction, whether racial intermixture and replacement or nonreproduction. This is the love that saves, the love that preserves, the love that serves. It is the love that cures the madness that causes destruction. It is the love that gives us the miracle of life.
In the ancient allegories of virgins and dragons, heroes and beasts, the salvation of life often depended on the power of love. The answer to many riddles, the passing of many tests, and the successful completion of many quests depended on love and virtue. Such love and virtue is what the Nordish race needs to answer its riddles, to pass its tests, and to fulfill its quests ? the riddles, tests and quests of life. It needs the tender love and care of those to whom it gave existence and life, and who give it existence and life, those whom it gave everything they are and everything they have, and who give it everything it is and everything it has. It needs racial tender loving care from those who are what it is, those who are itself. Only such love can save its life.[/justify]
[center]Separation: The Preservationist Imperative
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.
Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857
[justify]In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man . At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: ?Separate or die.? Those were his last words to me, and that is fitting, for that simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, that racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of the Northern European race, the founding and still the majority American racial type, which I refer to as the Nordish race. It is a simple matter of either-or ? either racial separation or racial death. Second, that the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests. [Note 1] None of these things can save us. Only separation can. Separation is the preservationist imperative.
The reason separation is necessary for racial preservation is simple ? the evolution and continued existence of different races is made possible by reproductive isolation. When different populations are reproductively isolated they cannot interbreed or intermix, and consequently evolve in different directions, developing into different races with their own unique and distinct ensemble of genetic traits. Reproductive isolation requires an absence of physical contact. As a practical matter, this requires geographic separation.
There is already a law of biology (Gause?s law of exclusion) which states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist in the long term in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat (i.e., lacking the race-creating and preserving condition of reproductive isolation) will eventually intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with the most racially destructive consequences for the race with the more recessive genetic traits.
For the Nordish race, with its many recessive genetic traits, the consequences of extensive intermixture are racial destruction, and as intermixture is unavoidable in a multiracial environment, the inevitable consequence of multiracial conditions is the destruction or extinction of the Nordish race. Since the Nordish race requires racial separation for its continued existence or preservation, to oppose racial separation is to effectively oppose the preservation or continued existence of the Nordish race, to effectively propose and support Nordish racial destruction or extinction, and this is the position of the presently dominant or ?mainstream? elements.
Since intermixture is an unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions, those conditions themselves are the proximate cause of intermixture, and the blame for racial intermixture and its destructive consequences belongs to all those who promote, support or defend multiracial conditions and oppose the separation-isolation which is the only effective means to prevent intermixture and secure racial preservation. This is true even for persons who ostensibly oppose racial intermixture, for if they support multiracial conditions of existence ? or oppose separation, which amounts to the same thing ? they are in fact supporting the cause of intermixture. They might say they favor the reimposition of a segregationist, white supremacist or ?traditional? society, where intermixture is prohibited by law and custom, but a multiracial society is not a ?traditional? society. The ?traditional? society of the Nordish race, the type of society in which it was created and preserved for many thousands of years, is a monoracial society. Such a society provides reproductive isolation, the condition required for both racial creation and preservation, and does not need to prohibit intermixture by law or custom because by its very monoracial nature it prevents intermixture far more effectively than any law or custom ever could. Thus the only effective cure for intermixture, the only way to prevent it from destroying the Nordish race, is to restore it to its traditional, separate monoracial existence.
Unfortunately, the fact that separation is required for Nordish preservation is either not known or evaded by far too many people, thus permitting multiracial conditions to proceed toward their inevitable consequences without those consequences being recognized and addressed. It often seems as if everyone in the ?mainstream? behaves and speaks as if they were racial ingénues, ignorant, thoughtless and naive regarding racial realities and consequences. Even those race-conscious conservatives regarded as being on the extreme right fringe of the limits of ?respectability? on the racial issue (typically defined by opposition to affirmative action and support for immigration restrictions), by their evasion or denial of the requirement for racial separation for racial preservation, offer no more than palliatives to soothe the symptoms of this fatal disease without effecting a real cure. In fact, many mainstream conservatives and liberals actually view intermixture as a cure, as a means to promote national unity and prevent ethnic differences from fracturing or tearing the country apart, and thus as highly desirable. Such intermixture (euphemistically referred to as assimilation) is of course the true end of multiracialism, revealing it as a sham, a temporary or transitional social condition which provides the means for racial destruction by the assimilation of (i.e., intermixture with) incompatible elements. Multiracialism is thus the prelude to Nordish extinction. The prelude might seem long, lasting generations or even centuries, but the extinction that follows is forever. Racial preservationist alternatives ? i.e., separation if multiracial conditions already exist, or immigration restrictions to prevent the creation of multiracial conditions where they do not yet exist ? are not considered, but are evaded or denied.
The pattern of evasion or denial of the necessity for racial separation for racial preservation, the unwillingness or inability to face racial realities and the consequences of multiracialism, is made possible by the fatal fantasy of the Nordish race. This fatal fantasy is the false belief or misconception that the Nordish race can continue to exist in a multiracial society. [Note 2] It is the escapist fantasy for Northern Europeans who refuse to face the threats to their survival. This misconception is fatal because it permits people to evade and deny the consequences of multiracialism rather than face them and take action to prevent them. When the ultimate destinations of two different paths cannot be clearly seen, there is a natural tendency to take the easier path and deny the need or desirability of the more difficult course. Separation would certainly be difficult, and so its necessity for preservation has long been evaded and denied. But this pattern of evasion and denial is itself the first difficulty, the first obstacle along the path to separation, that must be overcome before separation can be achieved. Separation will be achieved only when enough people want it to be achieved, and this will probably happen only when it is widely recognized as necessary for racial preservation. Therefore the first important step on the road to racial separation and preservation is to free the Nordish people of the fatal fantasy, so they can see, recognize, understand and face the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism rather than evade them.
The current process of displacement, replacement and destruction of the Nordish race is caused by four interacting processes ? non-Nordish immigration, a high non-Nordish birthrate, a low Nordish birthrate (actually below the replacement level for more than 20 years), and racial intermixture. In a multiracial society all of these processes result in members of the Nordish race being replaced by members of other races. But in a monoracial society both intermixture and immigration by members of other races would be effectively prevented, and the differential birthrates of two races in different countries could not result in the replacement of one by the other. A low Nordish birthrate would result only in a smaller population. Also, it could be recognized as a problem, and its causes addressed and hopefully corrected. In contrast, the currently dominant racial nihilist ideology and value-system of the multiracial society is so hostile to Nordish preservation that any attempt to recognize, address or solve the problems threatening Nordish existence would face strong resistance and condemnation, and in any event would be ultimately futile without separation.
Racial nihilism, the ideological foundation of multiracialism, regards the very existence of different races (or at least the Nordish race) as something regrettable or even evil ? as if the original sin of our ancestors was their divergence into different races ? and thus something not worthy of preservation, or even acknowledgment. The only traits it considers valuable and important are those which all humans share in common, which are universal to all, not any which are particular to a certain group, in which they differ or are unique and distinct. It promotes the destruction of racial diversity through racial intermixture to create one universal race, and welcomes the growing population of racially-mixed persons as its ideal. As Shirlee Taylor Haizlip writes in The Sweeter the Juice, ?Genes and chromosomes from Africa, Europe, and a pristine America commingled and created me?I am an American anomaly. I am an American ideal. I am the American nightmare. I am the Martin Luther King dream. I am the new America.? In a multiracial society racially-mixed persons are not ? as the fatal fantasy would have us believe ? an aberration, or ? as an Alabama school principal naively remarked ? a mistake. They are in fact the natural, normal, unavoidable and inevitable end product of a multiracial society. They are the personification of the racial nihilist and multiracialist version of the American Dream ? that America is, must be, and was meant to be a multiracial society ? that has now been exported to the formerly monoracial Nordish homelands of Europe.
This was not the dream of our Nordish-American ancestors. Quite the opposite. They desired a monoracial nation, and with the exception of the Southern states ? where the black population was concentrated ? that is essentially what they had. Until the 1890s the non-black population of America was overwhelmingly Nordish, and the country and its culture had a distinctly Nordish racial identity and character, which remained predominant until the 1960s. (One indicator of the extension of this predominance into the 1960s is the fact that all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts were Nordish.) Yet, ironically, the prevailing hostility to racial conservation, and acceptance of the racial nihilist version of the American dream, is shared by many who are identified as ?conservatives.? Those mainstream conservatives who are not explicitly hostile to racial conservationist concerns are generally indifferent to them. Most are interested in conserving the political and economic system, some in conserving the Western cultural heritage, but it would be difficult to find a prominent conservative willing to publicly express an interest in conserving the race that created the heritage they profess to cherish.
As an example, consider a statement by John O?Sullivan, former editor of National Review, widely regarded as the premier publication of American conservatism. In an article entitled ?America?s Identity Crisis? (Nov. 21, 1994, p. 76), in which he ostensibly defends American nationality and cultural continuity by supporting immigration restrictions, he effectively denies all concern for racial identity and continuity, saying ?f?black Americans were to become the majority in 2050 (which is, of course, demographically unrealistic), we would view this with indifference. A changing ethnic balance resulting from differential ethnic birthrates among people of the same nationality?should not make white Americans feel culturally dispossessed.? But what about racially dispossessed? He divorces race from nationality and culture, asserting that only the latter are a legitimate matter of concern, and that other ?white? Americans should share this racial nihilist view. Yet he still invokes the soothing fantasy that there is no need for concern by reassuring the reader that a black majority is demographically unrealistic, displaying the long outdated tendency to define the racial issue in narrowly white-black terms. But it is now universally accepted by the pundits ? they say beyond serious dispute ? and acceptable to publicly state in the mainstream media, that although blacks alone will not be a majority by 2050, ?non-whites? as a whole certainly will be. So Mr. O?Sullivan, or his spiritual descendants, will have the opportunity in 2050 to view a majority non-white America with indifference, unless separation intervenes. In fact, he would probably be indifferent to know that the Nordish race, currently (1995) 57% of the population as a whole, 50% of the population under the age of 15, and 47% of births, will by 2050, at an immigration level of 880,000 per year (i.e., the current official legal level; 40% below the current actual legal level), and allowing for differential birthrates and intermixture, be reduced to 32% of the population as a whole, 20% of the population under the age of 15, and 19% of births. Even if all immigration were stopped it would still be reduced to 41% of the population as a whole, 28% of the population under the age of 15 and 27% of births.
Anyone who has witnessed the dramatic worsening in the Nordish racial situation in just the last thirty years should be aware of how rapidly the process of destruction can develop. If present trends continue, I project that by the year 2050 the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S. will be reduced by 25-30% (the lower figure based on zero immigration) due to the effects of intermixture alone. By 2050 intermixture alone will likely cause the Nordish population in the U.S. to be reduced by 15-18 million (the lower figure again based on zero immigration). Furthermore, the loss will not stop in 2050, but will only accelerate with each generation. [Note 3] Are there any mainstream conservatives who, if they were aware of this, would not be indifferent to it, who would wish to prevent it and conserve the Nordish race?
Far too many people fail to think in long range terms about the eventual consequences of multiracialism. Do they really think that the multiracial society can continue indefinitely, go on forever just as it is at this moment, never changing? Unfortunately, few people seem to give the subject serious thought. This lack of awareness and urgency is largely due to the fact that racial destruction is a gradual process, occurring incrementally, not all at once. Yet it is not something that will suddenly occur as a singular event in the distant future, nor something that is not imminent and can therefore be evaded or ignored. It is a process that is occurring now and has been occurring on a significant scale for more than a generation. Great loss and destruction has already occurred. Many members of the Nordish race have already been lost through intermixture, and many more are being lost every day. Would Mr. O?Sullivan still be indifferent to the demographic changes that will occur ? even if all immigration were stopped ? if he understood that they were not only a matter of shifting proportions, not even only a matter of Nordish displacement and replacement, but a matter of Nordish racial destruction and extinction, of the eventual nonexistence of his race, as a result of the multiracial conditions he defends? If he were still indifferent with this knowledge he would not be alone. A common reaction to it is a shrug explained by the remark that ?We won?t live to see it,? or a desolate rhetorical ?Who cares?? This indifference and lack of caring is both a product and a cause of the prevailing ideology of racial nihilism.
Racial nihilism is now so dominant that it is not considered morally acceptable to advocate or support racial preservation, to be pro-race, to love or value racial differences or view them as important and desire their continued existence. It is barely acceptable to support cultural preservation, and few ?conservatives? are publicly willing to conserve more than this. Cultural preservationists are somewhat protected in their opposition to multiculturalism by the fact that many ?liberals? also oppose multiculturalism for fear that it will obstruct and slow the process of intermixture-assimilation. But they need not fear. Multiculturalism probably will not slow the process of intermixture enough to really matter. The growth of multiculturalism only means that Western culture will be replaced along with the race that created it, to the dismay of those conservative grave diggers who are only too happy to bury the Nordish race, but who become grave robbers in their ghoulish desire to preserve the culture and institutions of the West disembodied from the race that created them. Yet for racial preservationists multiculturalism does provide another supporting reason for separation. Cultural preservationists should be made aware that separation for racial preservation would also be the surest means ? perhaps the only means ? to achieve their goal of cultural preservation. It should be presumed that race and culture go together, that multiracialism and multiculturalism go together, that racial and cultural replacement and destruction go together, and that racial and cultural preservation go together. Only willful evasion and denial, or folly, or madness, would permit any other presumption.
Separation is the only preservationist solution effective in the long-term, and to fail to realize this ? or worse, to deny it ? is to fall victim to the fatal fantasy. After generations of this fantasy, of evasion and denial of racial realities, the racial situation has reached a crisis point where we can no longer afford to continue this racial madness and folly. We can no longer afford to be racial ingénues, innocent of racial knowledge, ignorant of racial reality and the racial consequences of our actions, deluding ourselves with the false hope that minor changes, or a return to an earlier stage in the process of racial replacement, will suffice to prevent the process from reaching its fateful conclusion. Such minor measures, or attempts to restore the status quo ante, can do no more than slow the process. Only a major measure ? separation ? can effectively assure racial preservation.
The first goal of a separation-for-preservation movement would be to raise the issue of racial preservation to public awareness, to place it on the public agenda, to make it a subject of debate and discussion in the forum of public opinion, where it must be addressed and can no longer be evaded. Every politician, every holder of public office or would-be holder of the public trust, would be required to clearly state their position on the issue of racial preservation, to go on the record as for or against, pro or con. Eventually, it must become the overriding, dominating issue of our time, taking precedence over all others, so that all other issues become secondary, and differences on all other issues are subordinated to alliances based on agreement on the issue of racial preservation. The first supporters of racial separation-for-preservation will be those who already love and value their race and only need to know that separation is necessary for its preservation and can be achieved by moral means. Later supporters ? the majority ? will be those who require a more extensive process of education to convince them that separation-for-preservation is both necessary and morally right, for reasons ranging from the traditional liberal concern for rights and independence to a conservationist ethic in favor of preserving human racial diversity. Their support will be critical and decisive. If and when the Nordish race wins their support it will be saved. If it fails to win their support it will be lost. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that a separation-for-preservation movement be based on an ideology with well-defined values, goals and methods that are morally acceptable to the majority of the Nordish race.
As a practical matter geographic separation will always be required for reproductive isolation. In the past geographic distance and barriers in themselves were usually sufficient providers of geographic separation and reproductive isolation. But due to the transportation advances of the modern age, we can no longer rely on geographic distance and barriers alone to provide reproductive isolation. We must provide it for ourselves by creating monoracial nations with well-guarded borders that effectively prevent entry by members of other races. (A multiracial society is unable to protect itself from immigration by foreign races because it has no racial identity, and therefore no racial identity to protect.) Given the projected rapid rate of demographic change in the U.S., with the rapid decline in the Nordish portion of the population, the sooner a partition is achieved the more favorable the terms will be for the Nordish-American people. In another essay, Racial Partition for Racial Preservation, I propose a partition settlement that would be appropriate for the present generation. [Note 4]
The original meaning of the Indo-European word ?paradise? in the Avestan (Old Iranian) language was ?walled-around? (pairi, around + daeza, wall), and referred to a walled-in park or garden. (From this the Greeks referred to a garden or park as a paradeisos .) The wall was necessary to protect the life-forms in the garden by separating them from the life-forms outside. Without that walled separation the life-forms outside the garden would not be kept outside and the life in the garden would be overwhelmed and replaced. If the Nordish race is to have its paradise, a place where it can survive and its life be preserved, it must also have a ?wall? that effectively separates it from other races and provides it with the protected monoracial habitat and reproductive isolation it needs for its preservation. Without a wall of secure borders separating the Nordish race from other races there will be no protected habitat, no reproductive isolation, no paradise for the Nordish race where its existence can be safely preserved, but only the wasteland of the multiracial society where it cannot live, only die, where its existence cannot be continued, only destroyed.
The monoracial existence of our past was a racial paradise. We lost that paradise first with the creation of new multiracial societies, then with the transformation of our old monoracial societies into multiracial societies, exchanging our monoracial paradise for a multiracial wasteland where our race cannot survive. We must regain that lost paradise if our race is to be preserved.
Separation is the preservationist imperative. It is necessary for Nordish racial survival. This is the bottom line, the point where no retreat, appeasement or surrender is possible without surrendering the very existence of the Nordish race by perpetuating the multiracial conditions that are destroying it. Thus separation must be the clear goal of all our efforts. Anything less is simply not worth the effort. I realize that this goal will be difficult to achieve, but the truly amazing thing is that so far we have not really even begun to try. To date, no serious effort of any significance has been made by Nordish-Americans to promote and achieve the goal of racial preservation by political-geographic separation. To achieve this goal we will need to gain the support of the majority of Nordish-Americans, with the other Nordish nations hopefully then following our lead on the path of racial preservation as they are now following us on the path of racial destruction. This admittedly seems to be a daunting task, but it is one that must be undertaken. The future existence of the Nordish race depends upon it.
Notes
1. Legitimate racial rights and interests are primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests and those secondary or non-vital rights and interests which do not violate or conflict with the primary or vital rights and interests of other races.
2. Works of science fiction set several centuries in the future which feature a still-thriving Nordish population in a multiracial society (such as the various Star Trek series) are among the most obvious and misleading examples of this fatal fantasy. Imperial Earth , by Arthur C. Clarke, which portrays a future where the Nordish race no longer exists due to racial intermixture, is one of the very rare truthful exceptions to this rule, although Clarke only mentions this fact as an aside midway through the story, and treats it as a matter of no concern or importance.
3. Allowing for intermixture, my projections in generation intervals of 30 years for the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S., which in 1992 was 27.7 million, are as follows: 2020 = 22.4 million; 2050 = 15 million; 2080 = 9 million; 2110 = 5 million; 2140 = 2.7 million (i.e., a 90% reduction in 150 years). This projection is based on the assumption that fully 50% of each Nordish generation would strictly discriminate on racial grounds in their selection of a mate and refuse to mate with a member of another race or a racially-mixed person who is only partly of their own race. The other 50% would not racially discriminate in their choice of a mate, with the consequence that the racial proportions among their mates would reflect the racial proportions of the population (specifically, the pool of prospective mates) as a whole. (Thus the 15 million Nordish-Americans of the under-15 generation of 2050 would comprise only about 20% of their generation of Americans as a whole, so that 50%, or 7.5 million, who racially discriminated in their choice of a mate, and 20% of the remainder, or 1.5 million, who did not racially discriminate but by chance chose a mate of their own race, totaling 9 million, would produce the 9 million Nordish-Americans of the generation of 2080.) Since each Nordish generation would constitute an ever smaller proportion of the total population, it would be increasingly difficult for 50% to racially discriminate successfully in their choice of mates. Even among the current generation of Nordish youth, who have been heavily indoctrinated with the racial nihilist belief that any kind of racial discrimination is morally evil, it is unlikely that 50% would practice strict racial discrimination in the choice of a mate.
4. If partition is not achieved in the current generation, it is likely that the Nordish racial grouping would have to settle for much less favorable terms of partition in the future, with a much smaller proportion of territory, as by 2020 (allowing for intermixture) they would be only 53% of the population, and by 2050 only 38%. Of course, by that point their situation would be so desperate that they would be fortunate ? and probably unlikely ? to obtain any terms of partition.[/justify]
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.
Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857
[justify]In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man . At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: ?Separate or die.? Those were his last words to me, and that is fitting, for that simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, that racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of the Northern European race, the founding and still the majority American racial type, which I refer to as the Nordish race. It is a simple matter of either-or ? either racial separation or racial death. Second, that the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests. [Note 1] None of these things can save us. Only separation can. Separation is the preservationist imperative.
The reason separation is necessary for racial preservation is simple ? the evolution and continued existence of different races is made possible by reproductive isolation. When different populations are reproductively isolated they cannot interbreed or intermix, and consequently evolve in different directions, developing into different races with their own unique and distinct ensemble of genetic traits. Reproductive isolation requires an absence of physical contact. As a practical matter, this requires geographic separation.
There is already a law of biology (Gause?s law of exclusion) which states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist in the long term in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat (i.e., lacking the race-creating and preserving condition of reproductive isolation) will eventually intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with the most racially destructive consequences for the race with the more recessive genetic traits.
For the Nordish race, with its many recessive genetic traits, the consequences of extensive intermixture are racial destruction, and as intermixture is unavoidable in a multiracial environment, the inevitable consequence of multiracial conditions is the destruction or extinction of the Nordish race. Since the Nordish race requires racial separation for its continued existence or preservation, to oppose racial separation is to effectively oppose the preservation or continued existence of the Nordish race, to effectively propose and support Nordish racial destruction or extinction, and this is the position of the presently dominant or ?mainstream? elements.
Since intermixture is an unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions, those conditions themselves are the proximate cause of intermixture, and the blame for racial intermixture and its destructive consequences belongs to all those who promote, support or defend multiracial conditions and oppose the separation-isolation which is the only effective means to prevent intermixture and secure racial preservation. This is true even for persons who ostensibly oppose racial intermixture, for if they support multiracial conditions of existence ? or oppose separation, which amounts to the same thing ? they are in fact supporting the cause of intermixture. They might say they favor the reimposition of a segregationist, white supremacist or ?traditional? society, where intermixture is prohibited by law and custom, but a multiracial society is not a ?traditional? society. The ?traditional? society of the Nordish race, the type of society in which it was created and preserved for many thousands of years, is a monoracial society. Such a society provides reproductive isolation, the condition required for both racial creation and preservation, and does not need to prohibit intermixture by law or custom because by its very monoracial nature it prevents intermixture far more effectively than any law or custom ever could. Thus the only effective cure for intermixture, the only way to prevent it from destroying the Nordish race, is to restore it to its traditional, separate monoracial existence.
Unfortunately, the fact that separation is required for Nordish preservation is either not known or evaded by far too many people, thus permitting multiracial conditions to proceed toward their inevitable consequences without those consequences being recognized and addressed. It often seems as if everyone in the ?mainstream? behaves and speaks as if they were racial ingénues, ignorant, thoughtless and naive regarding racial realities and consequences. Even those race-conscious conservatives regarded as being on the extreme right fringe of the limits of ?respectability? on the racial issue (typically defined by opposition to affirmative action and support for immigration restrictions), by their evasion or denial of the requirement for racial separation for racial preservation, offer no more than palliatives to soothe the symptoms of this fatal disease without effecting a real cure. In fact, many mainstream conservatives and liberals actually view intermixture as a cure, as a means to promote national unity and prevent ethnic differences from fracturing or tearing the country apart, and thus as highly desirable. Such intermixture (euphemistically referred to as assimilation) is of course the true end of multiracialism, revealing it as a sham, a temporary or transitional social condition which provides the means for racial destruction by the assimilation of (i.e., intermixture with) incompatible elements. Multiracialism is thus the prelude to Nordish extinction. The prelude might seem long, lasting generations or even centuries, but the extinction that follows is forever. Racial preservationist alternatives ? i.e., separation if multiracial conditions already exist, or immigration restrictions to prevent the creation of multiracial conditions where they do not yet exist ? are not considered, but are evaded or denied.
The pattern of evasion or denial of the necessity for racial separation for racial preservation, the unwillingness or inability to face racial realities and the consequences of multiracialism, is made possible by the fatal fantasy of the Nordish race. This fatal fantasy is the false belief or misconception that the Nordish race can continue to exist in a multiracial society. [Note 2] It is the escapist fantasy for Northern Europeans who refuse to face the threats to their survival. This misconception is fatal because it permits people to evade and deny the consequences of multiracialism rather than face them and take action to prevent them. When the ultimate destinations of two different paths cannot be clearly seen, there is a natural tendency to take the easier path and deny the need or desirability of the more difficult course. Separation would certainly be difficult, and so its necessity for preservation has long been evaded and denied. But this pattern of evasion and denial is itself the first difficulty, the first obstacle along the path to separation, that must be overcome before separation can be achieved. Separation will be achieved only when enough people want it to be achieved, and this will probably happen only when it is widely recognized as necessary for racial preservation. Therefore the first important step on the road to racial separation and preservation is to free the Nordish people of the fatal fantasy, so they can see, recognize, understand and face the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism rather than evade them.
The current process of displacement, replacement and destruction of the Nordish race is caused by four interacting processes ? non-Nordish immigration, a high non-Nordish birthrate, a low Nordish birthrate (actually below the replacement level for more than 20 years), and racial intermixture. In a multiracial society all of these processes result in members of the Nordish race being replaced by members of other races. But in a monoracial society both intermixture and immigration by members of other races would be effectively prevented, and the differential birthrates of two races in different countries could not result in the replacement of one by the other. A low Nordish birthrate would result only in a smaller population. Also, it could be recognized as a problem, and its causes addressed and hopefully corrected. In contrast, the currently dominant racial nihilist ideology and value-system of the multiracial society is so hostile to Nordish preservation that any attempt to recognize, address or solve the problems threatening Nordish existence would face strong resistance and condemnation, and in any event would be ultimately futile without separation.
Racial nihilism, the ideological foundation of multiracialism, regards the very existence of different races (or at least the Nordish race) as something regrettable or even evil ? as if the original sin of our ancestors was their divergence into different races ? and thus something not worthy of preservation, or even acknowledgment. The only traits it considers valuable and important are those which all humans share in common, which are universal to all, not any which are particular to a certain group, in which they differ or are unique and distinct. It promotes the destruction of racial diversity through racial intermixture to create one universal race, and welcomes the growing population of racially-mixed persons as its ideal. As Shirlee Taylor Haizlip writes in The Sweeter the Juice, ?Genes and chromosomes from Africa, Europe, and a pristine America commingled and created me?I am an American anomaly. I am an American ideal. I am the American nightmare. I am the Martin Luther King dream. I am the new America.? In a multiracial society racially-mixed persons are not ? as the fatal fantasy would have us believe ? an aberration, or ? as an Alabama school principal naively remarked ? a mistake. They are in fact the natural, normal, unavoidable and inevitable end product of a multiracial society. They are the personification of the racial nihilist and multiracialist version of the American Dream ? that America is, must be, and was meant to be a multiracial society ? that has now been exported to the formerly monoracial Nordish homelands of Europe.
This was not the dream of our Nordish-American ancestors. Quite the opposite. They desired a monoracial nation, and with the exception of the Southern states ? where the black population was concentrated ? that is essentially what they had. Until the 1890s the non-black population of America was overwhelmingly Nordish, and the country and its culture had a distinctly Nordish racial identity and character, which remained predominant until the 1960s. (One indicator of the extension of this predominance into the 1960s is the fact that all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts were Nordish.) Yet, ironically, the prevailing hostility to racial conservation, and acceptance of the racial nihilist version of the American dream, is shared by many who are identified as ?conservatives.? Those mainstream conservatives who are not explicitly hostile to racial conservationist concerns are generally indifferent to them. Most are interested in conserving the political and economic system, some in conserving the Western cultural heritage, but it would be difficult to find a prominent conservative willing to publicly express an interest in conserving the race that created the heritage they profess to cherish.
As an example, consider a statement by John O?Sullivan, former editor of National Review, widely regarded as the premier publication of American conservatism. In an article entitled ?America?s Identity Crisis? (Nov. 21, 1994, p. 76), in which he ostensibly defends American nationality and cultural continuity by supporting immigration restrictions, he effectively denies all concern for racial identity and continuity, saying ?f?black Americans were to become the majority in 2050 (which is, of course, demographically unrealistic), we would view this with indifference. A changing ethnic balance resulting from differential ethnic birthrates among people of the same nationality?should not make white Americans feel culturally dispossessed.? But what about racially dispossessed? He divorces race from nationality and culture, asserting that only the latter are a legitimate matter of concern, and that other ?white? Americans should share this racial nihilist view. Yet he still invokes the soothing fantasy that there is no need for concern by reassuring the reader that a black majority is demographically unrealistic, displaying the long outdated tendency to define the racial issue in narrowly white-black terms. But it is now universally accepted by the pundits ? they say beyond serious dispute ? and acceptable to publicly state in the mainstream media, that although blacks alone will not be a majority by 2050, ?non-whites? as a whole certainly will be. So Mr. O?Sullivan, or his spiritual descendants, will have the opportunity in 2050 to view a majority non-white America with indifference, unless separation intervenes. In fact, he would probably be indifferent to know that the Nordish race, currently (1995) 57% of the population as a whole, 50% of the population under the age of 15, and 47% of births, will by 2050, at an immigration level of 880,000 per year (i.e., the current official legal level; 40% below the current actual legal level), and allowing for differential birthrates and intermixture, be reduced to 32% of the population as a whole, 20% of the population under the age of 15, and 19% of births. Even if all immigration were stopped it would still be reduced to 41% of the population as a whole, 28% of the population under the age of 15 and 27% of births.
Anyone who has witnessed the dramatic worsening in the Nordish racial situation in just the last thirty years should be aware of how rapidly the process of destruction can develop. If present trends continue, I project that by the year 2050 the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S. will be reduced by 25-30% (the lower figure based on zero immigration) due to the effects of intermixture alone. By 2050 intermixture alone will likely cause the Nordish population in the U.S. to be reduced by 15-18 million (the lower figure again based on zero immigration). Furthermore, the loss will not stop in 2050, but will only accelerate with each generation. [Note 3] Are there any mainstream conservatives who, if they were aware of this, would not be indifferent to it, who would wish to prevent it and conserve the Nordish race?
Far too many people fail to think in long range terms about the eventual consequences of multiracialism. Do they really think that the multiracial society can continue indefinitely, go on forever just as it is at this moment, never changing? Unfortunately, few people seem to give the subject serious thought. This lack of awareness and urgency is largely due to the fact that racial destruction is a gradual process, occurring incrementally, not all at once. Yet it is not something that will suddenly occur as a singular event in the distant future, nor something that is not imminent and can therefore be evaded or ignored. It is a process that is occurring now and has been occurring on a significant scale for more than a generation. Great loss and destruction has already occurred. Many members of the Nordish race have already been lost through intermixture, and many more are being lost every day. Would Mr. O?Sullivan still be indifferent to the demographic changes that will occur ? even if all immigration were stopped ? if he understood that they were not only a matter of shifting proportions, not even only a matter of Nordish displacement and replacement, but a matter of Nordish racial destruction and extinction, of the eventual nonexistence of his race, as a result of the multiracial conditions he defends? If he were still indifferent with this knowledge he would not be alone. A common reaction to it is a shrug explained by the remark that ?We won?t live to see it,? or a desolate rhetorical ?Who cares?? This indifference and lack of caring is both a product and a cause of the prevailing ideology of racial nihilism.
Racial nihilism is now so dominant that it is not considered morally acceptable to advocate or support racial preservation, to be pro-race, to love or value racial differences or view them as important and desire their continued existence. It is barely acceptable to support cultural preservation, and few ?conservatives? are publicly willing to conserve more than this. Cultural preservationists are somewhat protected in their opposition to multiculturalism by the fact that many ?liberals? also oppose multiculturalism for fear that it will obstruct and slow the process of intermixture-assimilation. But they need not fear. Multiculturalism probably will not slow the process of intermixture enough to really matter. The growth of multiculturalism only means that Western culture will be replaced along with the race that created it, to the dismay of those conservative grave diggers who are only too happy to bury the Nordish race, but who become grave robbers in their ghoulish desire to preserve the culture and institutions of the West disembodied from the race that created them. Yet for racial preservationists multiculturalism does provide another supporting reason for separation. Cultural preservationists should be made aware that separation for racial preservation would also be the surest means ? perhaps the only means ? to achieve their goal of cultural preservation. It should be presumed that race and culture go together, that multiracialism and multiculturalism go together, that racial and cultural replacement and destruction go together, and that racial and cultural preservation go together. Only willful evasion and denial, or folly, or madness, would permit any other presumption.
Separation is the only preservationist solution effective in the long-term, and to fail to realize this ? or worse, to deny it ? is to fall victim to the fatal fantasy. After generations of this fantasy, of evasion and denial of racial realities, the racial situation has reached a crisis point where we can no longer afford to continue this racial madness and folly. We can no longer afford to be racial ingénues, innocent of racial knowledge, ignorant of racial reality and the racial consequences of our actions, deluding ourselves with the false hope that minor changes, or a return to an earlier stage in the process of racial replacement, will suffice to prevent the process from reaching its fateful conclusion. Such minor measures, or attempts to restore the status quo ante, can do no more than slow the process. Only a major measure ? separation ? can effectively assure racial preservation.
The first goal of a separation-for-preservation movement would be to raise the issue of racial preservation to public awareness, to place it on the public agenda, to make it a subject of debate and discussion in the forum of public opinion, where it must be addressed and can no longer be evaded. Every politician, every holder of public office or would-be holder of the public trust, would be required to clearly state their position on the issue of racial preservation, to go on the record as for or against, pro or con. Eventually, it must become the overriding, dominating issue of our time, taking precedence over all others, so that all other issues become secondary, and differences on all other issues are subordinated to alliances based on agreement on the issue of racial preservation. The first supporters of racial separation-for-preservation will be those who already love and value their race and only need to know that separation is necessary for its preservation and can be achieved by moral means. Later supporters ? the majority ? will be those who require a more extensive process of education to convince them that separation-for-preservation is both necessary and morally right, for reasons ranging from the traditional liberal concern for rights and independence to a conservationist ethic in favor of preserving human racial diversity. Their support will be critical and decisive. If and when the Nordish race wins their support it will be saved. If it fails to win their support it will be lost. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that a separation-for-preservation movement be based on an ideology with well-defined values, goals and methods that are morally acceptable to the majority of the Nordish race.
As a practical matter geographic separation will always be required for reproductive isolation. In the past geographic distance and barriers in themselves were usually sufficient providers of geographic separation and reproductive isolation. But due to the transportation advances of the modern age, we can no longer rely on geographic distance and barriers alone to provide reproductive isolation. We must provide it for ourselves by creating monoracial nations with well-guarded borders that effectively prevent entry by members of other races. (A multiracial society is unable to protect itself from immigration by foreign races because it has no racial identity, and therefore no racial identity to protect.) Given the projected rapid rate of demographic change in the U.S., with the rapid decline in the Nordish portion of the population, the sooner a partition is achieved the more favorable the terms will be for the Nordish-American people. In another essay, Racial Partition for Racial Preservation, I propose a partition settlement that would be appropriate for the present generation. [Note 4]
The original meaning of the Indo-European word ?paradise? in the Avestan (Old Iranian) language was ?walled-around? (pairi, around + daeza, wall), and referred to a walled-in park or garden. (From this the Greeks referred to a garden or park as a paradeisos .) The wall was necessary to protect the life-forms in the garden by separating them from the life-forms outside. Without that walled separation the life-forms outside the garden would not be kept outside and the life in the garden would be overwhelmed and replaced. If the Nordish race is to have its paradise, a place where it can survive and its life be preserved, it must also have a ?wall? that effectively separates it from other races and provides it with the protected monoracial habitat and reproductive isolation it needs for its preservation. Without a wall of secure borders separating the Nordish race from other races there will be no protected habitat, no reproductive isolation, no paradise for the Nordish race where its existence can be safely preserved, but only the wasteland of the multiracial society where it cannot live, only die, where its existence cannot be continued, only destroyed.
The monoracial existence of our past was a racial paradise. We lost that paradise first with the creation of new multiracial societies, then with the transformation of our old monoracial societies into multiracial societies, exchanging our monoracial paradise for a multiracial wasteland where our race cannot survive. We must regain that lost paradise if our race is to be preserved.
Separation is the preservationist imperative. It is necessary for Nordish racial survival. This is the bottom line, the point where no retreat, appeasement or surrender is possible without surrendering the very existence of the Nordish race by perpetuating the multiracial conditions that are destroying it. Thus separation must be the clear goal of all our efforts. Anything less is simply not worth the effort. I realize that this goal will be difficult to achieve, but the truly amazing thing is that so far we have not really even begun to try. To date, no serious effort of any significance has been made by Nordish-Americans to promote and achieve the goal of racial preservation by political-geographic separation. To achieve this goal we will need to gain the support of the majority of Nordish-Americans, with the other Nordish nations hopefully then following our lead on the path of racial preservation as they are now following us on the path of racial destruction. This admittedly seems to be a daunting task, but it is one that must be undertaken. The future existence of the Nordish race depends upon it.
Notes
1. Legitimate racial rights and interests are primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests and those secondary or non-vital rights and interests which do not violate or conflict with the primary or vital rights and interests of other races.
2. Works of science fiction set several centuries in the future which feature a still-thriving Nordish population in a multiracial society (such as the various Star Trek series) are among the most obvious and misleading examples of this fatal fantasy. Imperial Earth , by Arthur C. Clarke, which portrays a future where the Nordish race no longer exists due to racial intermixture, is one of the very rare truthful exceptions to this rule, although Clarke only mentions this fact as an aside midway through the story, and treats it as a matter of no concern or importance.
3. Allowing for intermixture, my projections in generation intervals of 30 years for the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S., which in 1992 was 27.7 million, are as follows: 2020 = 22.4 million; 2050 = 15 million; 2080 = 9 million; 2110 = 5 million; 2140 = 2.7 million (i.e., a 90% reduction in 150 years). This projection is based on the assumption that fully 50% of each Nordish generation would strictly discriminate on racial grounds in their selection of a mate and refuse to mate with a member of another race or a racially-mixed person who is only partly of their own race. The other 50% would not racially discriminate in their choice of a mate, with the consequence that the racial proportions among their mates would reflect the racial proportions of the population (specifically, the pool of prospective mates) as a whole. (Thus the 15 million Nordish-Americans of the under-15 generation of 2050 would comprise only about 20% of their generation of Americans as a whole, so that 50%, or 7.5 million, who racially discriminated in their choice of a mate, and 20% of the remainder, or 1.5 million, who did not racially discriminate but by chance chose a mate of their own race, totaling 9 million, would produce the 9 million Nordish-Americans of the generation of 2080.) Since each Nordish generation would constitute an ever smaller proportion of the total population, it would be increasingly difficult for 50% to racially discriminate successfully in their choice of mates. Even among the current generation of Nordish youth, who have been heavily indoctrinated with the racial nihilist belief that any kind of racial discrimination is morally evil, it is unlikely that 50% would practice strict racial discrimination in the choice of a mate.
4. If partition is not achieved in the current generation, it is likely that the Nordish racial grouping would have to settle for much less favorable terms of partition in the future, with a much smaller proportion of territory, as by 2020 (allowing for intermixture) they would be only 53% of the population, and by 2050 only 38%. Of course, by that point their situation would be so desperate that they would be fortunate ? and probably unlikely ? to obtain any terms of partition.[/justify]
[center]Many Mansions
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
[justify]After thousands of generations of creative divergent evolution the reality of humanity, of human life and existence, is a great and rich diversity of type and kind. The preservation or continued existence of this diversity requires the reproductive isolation of its particular and distinctive parts or varieties. As a practical matter, reproductive isolation and racial preservation can only be effectively guaranteed by geographic separation, which is also the best guarantee of racial independence.
The unprecedented mass movements of peoples over great distances that has characterized the modern age has placed the historical geographic separation of the races in jeopardy. For the Nordish race, reproductive isolation has already been largely lost. Its restoration requires the adoption of a new culture of human racial relations that recognizes, affirms and promotes racial rights, preservation and independence. This would be a radical departure from the presently dominant culture, which denies racial rights and rejects racial preservation and independence, yet it would be a logical and consistent development or extension of the ethical principles and values of the Western liberal tradition, or of any other ethical tradition based on the Golden Rule of live and let live.
The presently dominant culture of human racial relations is universalism, the ideology that promotes the racial nihilist goal of human ?Oneness? ? the unification of the races into one race through multiracialism and intermixture ? and therefore opposes racial independence and preservation. The ?Oneness? goal is one of human uniformity, the elimination of racial diversity, particularities or differences. The dominance of universalism can be traced back many centuries to the creation of the first multiracial empires. Universalist philosophies and religions provided a justification for the existence of such empires, and a means to hold them together. In fact, there has always been a close connection between imperialism and universalism, and universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam, with their missionary zeal to convert, transform or assimilate other peoples, have often provided the impetus for imperialist endeavors.
In part, the current dominance of universalism and the racial nihilist goal of human ?Oneness? is a legacy of the imperialist mentality. It is also a product of the still active missionary mentality which seeks to transform, convert or remake the world into its own image, whether that image be defined in terms of religion, culture, political ideology or race. [Note 1] The imperialist empire-building and missionary activities of the nineteenth century, which attempted to unify diverse races and cultures into one political and economic system, provided the practical foundation for the development of modern universalism. It is the essence of empire ? of imperialism ? that it subordinates a diverse group of people or races to one unified political or economic order, and denies or rejects their right to independence, control of their own lives, or a separate existence, and this is a central characteristic of the currently dominant form of universalism.
The consequence for the Nordish race ? whose imperialist and missionary efforts to dominate other races and transform them into its own religious, cultural, economic or political image provided the basis for modern universalism ? is that it is now threatened by that universalist ideology with the loss of its own racial existence and independence. That ideology promotes multiracialism, racial nihilism and the goal of ?One-World, One-Race,? to be achieved by a process of racial intermixture that would replace the transitional condition of multiracialism (the means to the end) with one unified mixed race (the end). To facilitate that end it claims that the unification of the diverse races and countries of the world into one race and one global political and economic order ? a ?world without borders? ? is inevitable and progressive, that there are no alternatives, and that resistance is futile and regressive. [Note 2]
In truth there is only one world, but there is more than one race. Our one world is the home of many different races, not just one. It is a world with ?Many Mansions,? many different habitations, with sufficient territory for each race to be secure in the exclusive possession of its own ?mansion,? habitat or homeland. The fact that they exist together on one world does not require, nor make it inevitable or progressive, that they unite into one mixed race. In fact, the course of human development since the beginning of human existence has been predominantly in the direction of evolutionary divergence rather than convergence ? toward greater diversity, variety and differences, not less. It is neither inevitable nor progressive that this creative process of divergence should now be reversed. There are alternatives to the universalist vision of the future, alternatives that would preserve human racial diversity by the restoration and continuation of reproductive isolation rather than destroy it by mixing the diverse races together into one race.
A ?world without borders? is ultimately a world without diversity. Given the fact that different races which share the same territory under conditions of extensive contact interbreed, the preservation of human racial diversity requires reproductive isolation, which as a practical matter ? especially in the long term ? requires the geographic or territorial separation of the races, which requires racial territorial exclusivity, boundaries or borders. Racial preservation requires recognition of the right of every race to exist within secure borders, in its own territory or ?mansion,? exclusive of all genetically incompatible racial elements.
A view of humanity as ?a house with many mansions? would encourage tolerance for the existence of many diverse races, all living on the same planet as they have for many thousands of generations, yet each possessing its own exclusive territory or ?mansion,? and each enjoying the full rights of independence, self-determination and control of its own life, existence and development ? its own country, its own culture, its own religion and its own political and economic system. The ethic of ?Many Mansions? would protect the continued existence on our ?one world? of many different races, cultures, religions and political and economic systems, promoting diversity in all of these areas rather than imposing ?Oneness,? sameness, uniformity or submission to an imperialist or universalist world order or system. It would recognize each race as unique and special, value and appreciate their diversity and differences, and promote their preservation.
The diversity of humanity is often likened to a rainbow. The beauty of a rainbow lies in its many separate and distinct colors. If these different colors are blended together into one mixed color the beauty of the rainbow is lost. So it is with human racial diversity. If the different races are blended together into one mixed race the distinct races of humanity will be diminished and lost, and with them the variety provided by human racial diversity.
Humanity has enjoyed some hard-won ethical progress over the centuries. New ethics have been developed against slavery, imperialism, racial or national supremacism, the violation of human rights and the destruction of the environment. To preserve the diversity of life on earth, including and especially human racial diversity, a new preservationist ethic is needed ??to take all reasonable action to protect every species and race in perpetuity.? [Note 3] Such an ethic would be based on the principle that humanity ??should not knowingly allow any species or race to go extinct.? [Note 4] For humanity, such an ethic would promote an understanding and agreement between the races, a Racial Compact that would affirm the value and importance of each race, recognizing and protecting the right of each race to exist, to live, and to control its own life, free and independent, without animosity or aggression toward other races, but with mutual respect and consideration.
The preservationist ethic of the Racial Compact would promote the coexistence and continued existence of the different races and peoples of humanity. It would permit the different races or nations to continue to be what they are, to be themselves, secure in their continued existence and in the possession of their own homelands. It would let Poland be Poland, Sweden be Sweden, Scotland be Scotland, France be France, Japan be Japan, China be China, India be India, Tunisia be Tunisia, and Nigeria be Nigeria. It would ensure that Holland belonged to the Dutch, England to the English, Norway to the Norwegians, Spain to the Spanish, Vietnam to the Vietnamese, Iran to the Iranians, and Ethiopia to the Ethiopians, and so on, in perpetuity, for all the races and nations of the earth.
If the different races are to coexist with each other, they must first be allowed to exist. Their right to exist, and their right to the conditions they require to exist, must be recognized and respected. The races developed, evolved or were created in different lands, geographically separated and reproductively isolated from each other, and in that condition coexisted on the same planet until recent times, and that is the condition required for the different races ? and especially the Nordish race ? to continue to exist, and therefore to coexist. To coexist they must first exist, and the continued existence of the Nordish race depends on its separation from other races in its own racially exclusive territory or country. In a multiracial society where it was joined with other races it would soon cease to coexist as it would soon cease to exist.
Racial preservation is a matter of special concern for the Nordish race. More than any other race, its independence and very existence is endangered by the currently dominant culture and policies of universalism and multiracialism. No other race is similarly threatened. For that reason racial preservationism is most commonly Nordish preservationism, and opposition to racial preservation is most commonly opposition to Nordish preservation. Given the strongly anti-Nordish bias of the currently dominant ideology and cultural elements, the current culture tends to be strongly opposed to racial preservation in general and Nordish preservation in particular.
The opponents of racial preservation use a variety of arguments and assertions to promote their position. One of these is the oft-repeated claim that little or nothing of value or importance would be endangered or lost through intermixture. To support this claim they commonly minimize, trivialize or belittle the extent, value or importance of racial differences, diversity or variety. For example, they commonly portray racial differences as solely a matter of color, ignoring or denying all other racial differences. Or, in more scientific terms, they argue that since the races of humanity share over 99.5% of their genes (or DNA) in common, racial differences are trivial and of little value or importance, and little will be lost if one or several races (and their unique ensemble of genetic traits and characteristics) ceased to exist. It is true that the 99.5% of genes which all human races share in common is not endangered, and will not be lost or destroyed, by an intermixture of the races, or even by genocide. That 99.5% will continue to exist as long as any human race continues to exist. [Note 5] But it is the .5% or less of genes in which the human races are different that are the source of human racial diversity, variety and differences, and these genes would suffer loss, diminishment or destruction by intermixture. It is the differences that are in need of preservation, not the similarities which all humans share in common. Racial nihilism and universalism regard only the genes and traits which are universal ? which all humans share in common ? as important, valuable and worth preserving. They regard the genes and traits which are not universal ? which differ between the races ? as unimportant, without value, and expendable.
Somewhat similar to the claim that the differences between human races are not sufficient to justify racial preservation, is the claim frequently made by opponents of racial preservation ? sometimes explicitly, but more often implicitly ? that a race must be ?pure? ? or ?special,? ?superior? or ?unique? ? to be worth preserving. But these qualities are either not defined, or are defined so narrowly that they are essentially defined out of existence. Thus in arguing against racial preservationism they commonly assert that there are no ?pure? races, with the implication that a race which is not ?pure? is not worthy of preservation. Again, their definition of ?pure? is generally not given, but it is obviously so narrow that no race existing in reality meets its standard, and as it is not based on ? or related to ? any existing racial reality it must be regarded as arbitrary and capricious. [Note 6]
In concept and motive the assertion that there are no ?pure? races is similar to the more extreme racial nihilist assertion of the racial deconstructionists ? who deny the reality of race ? that different races do not exist. The underlying purpose or motive of both assertions is to deny racial rights ? especially the primary right to life, existence or preservation ? by denying or belittling racial existence. The assertion of racial nonexistence tends to be ineffective as most people can readily see the physical reality of race and racial differences, and easily distinguish one race from another, but the assertion of racial ?impurity? tends to be more effective as most people do not know what a proper or objective standard of racial ?purity? should be, or whether such a standard should determine whether a race is worthy of preservation.
A standard of racial purity so narrow and restricted that it does not exist in any real population cannot be regarded as objective, valid or proper. It is possible to define almost anything out of existence if it is defined by a sufficiently narrow standard, as in this instance. Definitions of race should be based on existing reality, on real existing races, not on misconceptions of racial reality or arbitrary standards that do not exist in any real population. An objectively meaningful measure, standard or definition of race would be based on distinctness and uniqueness. If the identity of a race is clear and distinct, so that it is clearly and distinctly identifiable as itself and nothing else, and its ensemble of genetic traits and characteristics are unique to itself, belonging exclusively to itself and to no other, its racial existence and rights should be recognized. As for the condition of the Nordish race, the usual target of racial nihilist denials of purity, although it has suffered ? and increasingly suffers ? extensive losses due to multiracialism and intermixture, by far the greater part of it still exists with its racial identity fully intact, clear and distinct.
Under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact the right of all races to life, continued existence and preservation would be recognized and protected. These rights would not depend on any requirement for purity, specialness or superiority. All races would be recognized as inherently special, unique, and valuable, worthy of continued life and preservation, and entitled to the full complement of racial rights.
The opponents of racial preservationism also attempt to ethically discredit it by equating it with immoral racism, or emotionally discredit it by claiming it is based on negative emotions or hate. They use reductionist logic to claim that there is only one form of racism, rejecting and denying any difference between the immoral forms of racism that deny and violate racial rights and the moral forms that recognize, assert and protect racial rights. They typically refuse to recognize the existence ? or even the possibility ? of moral racism, even as they refuse to recognize the existence of racial rights.
Emotions and feelings such as hate or love are not in themselves either moral or immoral, right or wrong. Morality is based on behavior and actions, not emotions. Moral behavior toward other races consists of recognizing and respecting their legitimate rights and interests, especially their right to life, independence and their own territory. Immoral behavior toward other races consists of denying, rejecting or violating their legitimate rights and interests, especially those vital rights required for their continued existence.
The equating of love for one?s race and the desire to preserve it with hate for other races can be partly attributed to the agapic concept of love favored by nihilistic ideologies and religions, including the currently dominant ideology of racial nihilism. Agape, or agapic love, is egalitarian and universal, given equally to all without exclusion, preference or discrimination. It does not recognize a love which is exclusive, selective, preferential, discriminating or unequal as love. It regards such an emotion as evil and immoral, as a violation of egalitarian values, as negative rather than positive, and therefore defines it not as love for its object, but as hatred for the others that are not its object. By the tenets of racial nihilism the only love recognized as love is the agapic, equal, universal, non-discriminating, non-particular, all-inclusive and all-embracing love for all humankind as an undifferentiated whole. As a consequence, for a person to express a particular love or preference for their own race is commonly regarded as if it were the moral equivalent of an expression of hate for other races. [Note 7]
The association of racial preservationism with hatred can also be partly attributed to the effects of racial subjectivity, which causes many persons to view their race as the center of existence, not only for itself but for all other races as well. Thus they view their race as the reason and motive for the actions of other races, as the standard and point of reference by which the actions and emotions of all other races are judged, and define all actions solely in relation to their race. Their subjectivity blinds them to the fact that other races have purposes of their own unrelated to any other race, that each race exists of itself, by itself and for itself, not because of, by or for other races, that each race is the center of its own existence and uses itself and its own interests ? not some other race ? as its own point of reference, and that each race has motives and reasons for its actions based on its own separate existence, determined by its pursuit of its own interests and goals unrelated to any other race. Thus they subjectively define any action by another race to preserve its existence or independence not as an action by that race for (or pro) its own interests, but as an action against (or anti) their interests, and assume that hatred for their race rather than love of the other race for itself is the motive for the action.
As a consequence, offense is taken when members of a race want to preserve their racially unique traits and characteristics, which other races do not have, or when they value and love these traits, in which they differ from other races, and regard them as important and worth preserving. (Racial subjectivity is often so extreme that merely to express consciousness of racial identity, or of racial differences, is regarded as being against and violating the rights of other races.) This love and caring for unique and exclusive racial traits, and consequent desire to preserve them by separation from the other races which do not share them, is wrongly equated with hatred or demeanment of the other races. The result of this arbitrary subjectivity is that those who oppose the legitimate, vital and primary rights of another race to continued life, existence, preservation and independence feel morally right in doing so, wrongly believing that the assertion of such rights by the other race is against them rather than for itself.
Members of one race should not take offense if members of another race value and love their distinct and unique racial traits and identity, seek to preserve their race, and desire to be separate from other races as required for both racial preservation and independence. Under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact these sentiments and desires would not be regarded as offensive, insulting, demeaning or threatening to other races, but would be seen as a proper and legitimate expression of racial love and assertion of fundamental racial rights. All living things wish to continue their life, to preserve their existence. This natural wish should not only be tolerated and respected, but treated with the utmost honor and reverence, and it should enjoy the presumption that it is motivated by love of itself and its own life, not hate for others.
In fact, there should be a presumption of morality in favor of preservation, and of racial preservation in particular, and a presumption of immorality with regard to destruction. Similarly, in terms of emotional motivation, there should be a presumption that preservation is motivated by love, benevolence or good-will, and that destruction ? or opposition to preservation ? is motivated by hate, malice or ill-will. But the real issue and choice of morality is between preservation and destruction, between the recognition and protection of racial rights and the denial and destruction of racial rights, not between love and hate. The recognition and protection of racial rights, not subjective emotional motivation, is the objective ethical standard on which a new paradigm or culture of racial relations ? the Racial Compact ? would be based. The recognition and protection of racial rights, whatever its emotional motivation, would be judged as moral, while the denial and violation of racial rights, whether for reasons of love or hate, would be judged as immoral.
Since at the present time, and for the foreseeable future, racial preservationism is especially ? in fact almost uniquely ? a matter of Nordish preservation, as the continued existence of the non-Nordish races is not similarly threatened, the opponents of racial preservation ? who are thus in effect opponents only of Nordish preservation ? often use arguments that are specifically critical of the Nordish race. In particular, the concept of collective guilt is used to claim that the Nordish race is collectively guilty of past wrongs against other races, and therefore has no right to continued life or independence, but should, in effect, be sentenced to the penalty of racial death or extinction. There is a different version of this argument for each race claiming to be a victim of past wrongs by the Nordish race. In what is probably the most common version of these endless recriminations, it is argued, more often implicitly than explicitly, that the German people have no right to life because Nazi (National Socialist) Germany violated the right to life of other peoples, and this argument is then extended to claim that by association the entire Nordish race ? to which most Germans (as well as the English, Scots, Irish, Scandinavians, Dutch and many others, including Nordish-Americans) belong ? is collectively guilty of these violations and is therefore uniquely evil, unworthy of preservation, and has no right to exist, thus justifying its annihilation ? or reduction to nothingness and nonexistence. [Note 8]
From such a perspective it is almost to be expected that reductionist logic would be used to link any expression of Nordish preservationism ? and assertion of vital Nordish rights and interests ? with the immoral forms of racism which deny and violate the rights of other races. Ironically and hypocritically, with such arguments as these the opponents of racial preservation and racial rights are using allegations of past violations of individual and racial rights to justify and excuse the present denial and violation of the vital or life-essential rights of the Nordish race. By contrast, under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact, the doctrine of collective guilt ? which condemns an entire people for the misdeeds of some of its members ? would be rejected as inherently violative of both individual and racial rights, and would not be permitted to justify or excuse the denial or violation of the primary, vital and life-essential rights and interests of any race.
The currently dominant ideology of racial nihilism is so hostile to the vital and life-essential interests of the Nordish race that Nordish reproduction itself is increasingly regarded with disfavor. It is considered offensive when preference is shown for a mate of the same race, and immoral when motivated by a conscious intent or desire to preserve or continue the Nordish race. Reproduction is the very essence of preservation. It is the ultimate preservationist act. The purpose of reproduction is the continuation or preservation of the genetic continuum or race. The opponents of Nordish preservation therefore oppose Nordish reproduction. Since successful reproduction requires that the partners be genetically compatible ? so that the traits of both will be continued, preserved or reproduced in their descendants ? the opponents of Nordish preservation and reproduction are especially opposed to any discrimination or preference by Nordish people in favor of their own race in the selection of reproductive partners. When the right of a race to reproduce is threatened or denied, its reproduction discouraged or condemned as immoral, and the conditions it requires to reproduce and preserve itself are violated, the result is a racial wasteland, where racial life or existence cannot be continued.
The anti-Nordish and anti-preservationist misconceptions and arguments discussed above are part of the currently dominant ideology, and as such are taught to school children from the earliest ages. The quotation below ? from an editorial written by a high school student ? is representative of these teachings, particularly the dual argument that racial preservationism (specifically ?white? preservationism) is motivated by hatred for other races and is inseparable from the immoral forms of racism that deny and violate the rights of other races. (She also repeats the arbitrary assertion ? and statement of racial nihilist factual faith ? that there are no ?pure? races, without defining ?pure? and with the implication that a race which is not ?pure? is not worthy of preservation.)
I was watching a TV talk show recently and the guests were young women whose sole mission in life was to have as many children as they could in order to preserve the white race.
After I got my jaw off the floor, I realized how truly hateful some people are?.
Obviously something has happened in their lives to make these people so hateful?. What I, other blacks like me, Hispanics, Jews, and others ever did to hurt these people is beyond me.
It saddens me to think that there is so much hate that some young white women are actually giving birth in the name of racial preservation. They are so consumed with hate that they fail to realize that there are no pure races. My heart goes out to their children, who through ignorance will undoubtedly carry on the ideas and beliefs of their parents.
Unfortunately, most of us don?t take enough time to consider why the differences in people are so wonderful. Too often we automatically assume that the differences make people somehow wrong or inferior. We should learn to accept one another for what we are and to make judgments solely on the content of a person?s character.
Racism and hate always will exist. But I hope in some way we can bring it down to a bare minimum: Make it the exception, not the rule.
We as young people need to realize that if we all came together as one, many of the troubles that we have today might be gone tomorrow. [Note 9]
The platitudinous expressions of appreciation for the ?wonderful? racial differences of humanity are logically inconsistent with the condemnation of racial preservation, without which this diversity ? or at least the Nordish part of it ? would be lost. If the student editorialist really valued these differences she should support racial preservationism, and recognize that it is based on love, and the consequent desire to preserve that which it loves. To paraphrase her key paragraph in racial preservationist terms, the racism based on hate will always exist, but we can hope to bring it down to a bare minimum ? making the racism based on hate the exception, and the racism based on love the rule.
It should be pointed out that the children of the preservation-motivated women will not only carry on the ideas and beliefs of their parents, but their genes and race as well. Unlike many other members of their race, who have accepted and practice the anti-preservationist teachings of racial nihilism, and have neglected or rejected the primary responsibility of all life to create the next generation of their kind, these women at least will have children, and by doing so will preserve the continuum of generations of racial life of which they are the currently living representatives.
There is an element of logical inconsistency, and perhaps hypocrisy, in the student?s claim that her heart goes out to the children, when she condemns the preservationist motive for their conception as hateful. All living things seek to reproduce or continue their kind, their unique life form, what they themselves are, their genes, their traits, their race. This is the essence of preservationism, and it is the driving reason, purpose and motive for reproduction throughout nature. The ultimate purpose of reproduction is the continuation or preservation of one?s race. This is the foundation of life. It is also the essence ? and perhaps the ultimate natural source ? of the positive emotions called love. There is no better, more moral, proper, natural, life-serving or loving reason for reproduction than the continuation or preservation of one?s genetic line and race. To equate such natural and life-serving positive feelings with hate is to equate the continuation of life itself with hate. To equate such life-serving feelings by members of the Nordish race with hate is to equate the continued life of the Nordish race with hate.
According to the proverb, it is by their fruits (effects, consequences or results) that you will know them (their motives or intent). The fruits of anti-preservationism ? consistent with racial nihilism ? are the denial, rejection and violation of racial rights and, ultimately, racial destruction. As to motives, although anti-preservationists claim to be motivated by friendship, benevolence and love, the destructive effects of their policies are more consistent with the emotions of malice and hate. Like the proverbial wolf in sheep?s clothing, racial nihilism has long cloaked its racially destructive values and goals in the words of love. But love should support the well-being, preservation and continued existence of that which it loves, not its destruction. What the members of every race require ? and have a right to expect ? is respect for their racial right to continued life, preservation and independence, not a destructive and harmful ?love? that denies and violates their rights and opposes their independence and continued existence.
The culture of racial nihilism teaches that it is wrong to hate other races. It also teaches that it is wrong to love one?s own race ? although not in such terms, as it does not recognize a love which is given unequally to one particular race as love, but as the equivalent of hate for other races. In practice, the explicit racial nihilist campaign against racial hate is much more an implicit campaign against racial love, or to be more accurate ? given the anti-Nordish double standard currently operative in racial matters ? a campaign against Nordish racial love. The dominant racial nihilist elements, advocates of racial intermixture and ?Oneness,? and opponents of racial preservation, know that racial love, and the consequent desire to save and preserve that which is loved, is both the primary motive for racial preservationism and the primary obstacle to the goal of Nordish annihilation ? the reduction of the Nordish race to nothingness. To defeat racial preservationism they must first weaken, suppress, inhibit or discredit racial love. Their method is to deconstruct racial love, to define it out of existence by equating it with hate.
By contrast, the culture of the Racial Compact would teach that racial love is a positive, healthy and life-serving ? and perhaps life-essential ? emotion. But much more important than their different teachings about emotions, the two cultures would differ in their moral teachings, for whereas the current racial nihilist culture teaches that the denial, rejection and violation of racial rights is moral, and the recognition, assertion and promotion of racial rights is immoral, the Racial Compact would teach the opposite. The Racial Compact would be based on objective ethics rather than subjective emotions, on mutual and reciprocal recognition, respect and protection for racial rights rather than arbitrary assertions of love or accusations of hate. Being for (recognizing and supporting) the rights of a certain race is ethically much more important and meaningful than one?s emotional feelings for that race. It is not ethically necessary to have the same or equal emotional feelings for every race, or even to have positive emotional feelings for every race. But it is ethically necessary to be for the legitimate ? and especially the life-essential or vital ? rights of every race. If one is for or pro the legitimate rights of a race one cannot be against or anti that race in any ethically meaningful sense or definition of the term.
The opponents of racial preservation and independence are proponents of racial intermixture or ?Oneness,? believing (or claiming) that if, as the song says, we would ?all come together as one,? blending or integrating ? or disintegrating ? all the world?s races into one uniform race, it would solve all the world?s problems. But the real problems of humanity ? whether conflict, poverty, hunger, disease, pollution, environmental destruction or overpopulation ? would not be solved by the destruction of human racial diversity and the violation of the rights of the diverse races of humanity to continued life and independence. Only an ideology which sees the existence of human racial diversity and differences, and racial rights and independence, as a problem would think any problem could be solved by such a racially dissolving course, and this of course is the very ?problem? that racial nihilism is seeking to solve by its advocacy of ?Oneness.?
Since for the foreseeable future the full racially destructive effects and consequences of such a course would be suffered primarily ? if not solely ? by the Nordish race, one can conclude that the very existence of the Nordish race is the ?problem? which the dominant racial nihilist elements seek to solve by the promotion of multiracialism, racial intermixture and Oneness. The solution to their ?Nordish problem? is, in effect, a soft form of genocide. The end or goal is the nonexistence, extinction or annihilation ? the reduction to nothing ? of the Nordish race. The means or method is racial replacement and intermixture through the agency of multiracialism. Thus every Nordish country has been obliged to become a multiracial society. If racially incompatible elements are not present they are imported by immigration. If they are already present their numbers are constantly increased to assure the totality of Nordish destruction by a form of genetic overkill. No Nordish population is allowed to escape this fate. To deny entry to racially incompatible non-Nordish immigrants, or fail to assist and encourage such immigration, or exhibit any sign of racial preservationism, is regarded by the dominant racial nihilist culture as immoral, as hatred for ? and an offense to ? all the other races of humanity.
The Racial Compact offers a preservationist alternative that would promote the peaceful coexistence of the diverse races of humanity while protecting their continued existence and independence. When the different races are secure in their own continued existence and preservation, in the possession of their own territory, and in the recognition and protection of their own legitimate rights and interests, they will no longer have a valid reason to feel threatened or endangered, and what is probably the most common cause of human conflict ? the fear and anxiety caused by insecurity ? will be effectively eliminated. The danger posed by racial nihilism and multiracialism to racial existence and preservation, to racial rights and interests, is one of the foremost problems confronting modern humanity. For the Nordish race it is the foremost problem, having caused great destruction, diminishment and loss to its existence, and threatening to end its very existence ? to annihilate it or reduce it to nothing ? if it is not solved.
The Racial Compact would solve this problem, and make the world safe for continued racial existence, independence and diversity. It would be the institutionalization not only of the ethical principles of racial rights, but also of the ethical principles of racial conservation and preservation. It would apply the presumption that the preservation of life is moral and the destruction of life is immoral ? that morality tends to preserve life and immorality tends to be destructive of life ? to race and racial diversity. In terms of conservationist ethics,this would mark a great advance for humanity over its past and present cultures of racial relations. [Note 10]
For the Nordish race, multiracialism ? or a multiracial society ? is a temporary transitional stage during which it is gradually replaced by ? or destroyed by intermixture with ? other races. Multiracialism is inherently destructive of its most vital rights and interests. The condition of reproductive isolation from genetically incompatible elements which it requires for continued existence is denied and violated, as also is its racial freedom and independence, as multiracialism holds it in bondage to the other races sharing the same country. In the long term, the Nordish race cannot be preserved under multiracial conditions which deny it the condition of reproductive isolation it requires for preservation. In the short term, social practices such as racial segregation can provide a partially effective form of reproductive isolation, but in the long term such systems are not sufficiently effective and are thus ultimately ineffective.
Racial preservation requires the prevention of racial intermixture. As racial intermixture is an inevitable consequence of a multiracial society, and can only occur in a multiracial society, and can only be effectively prevented by reproductive isolation, which can only be effectively provided by geographical separation, racial preservation requires the prevention of multiracial conditions by the restoration and perpetual maintenance of geographical separation. Reproductive isolation is the condition required for racial preservation. As a practical matter it requires geographical separation from other races. The Racial Compact would provide a system of total racial separation and independence based on the Golden Rule of reciprocal and mutual respect for the legitimate rights and interests of each and every race.
For the Nordish race a multiracial society is a racial wasteland, a place where its life and existence cannot be continued or preserved. Multiracialism and preservation are incompatible. Racial destruction through intermixture is the unavoidable consequence of multiracialism, and it is futile to attempt to prevent it under multiracial conditions, and misleading to think it can be prevented, or that multiracialism can exist without it. This is the denial and evasion which subverts the search for effective preservationist solutions and alternatives.
Racial preservation requires racial separation. Members of one race should not take offense or be resentful if members of another race seek to be separate from them, as required both for independence (sovereignty, self-determination or racial freedom) and continued existence or preservation. It should not be regarded as a provocation, slight, demeanment, disparagement, insult or criticism of other races, but recognized and respected as a requirement for life and independence. Human racial diversity was fostered by geographic separation and nurtured by the ?many mansions? provided by the broad expanses of the earth for separate human existence and divergent evolution. It can only be preserved by continuing the essential racial existential condition of ?Many Mansions,? of geographic separation and reproductive isolation, each race inhabiting its own mansion or mansions on the earth, thus securing the continued existence of each. This is the ethical principle of ?Many Mansions,? of racial independence and separation, each race secure in the exclusive possession of its own part of the planet, its own territory or homeland, where its continued existence and independence can be assured, safe from the racially destructive effects of intermixture. The diverse races of humanity should share the planet together, but should not share their countries or homelands together. Then each race will be able to truly wish every other race a long life, the opposite wish of racial nihilism. [Note 11]
In preservationist terms, population groups belong to the same race only when they are genetically compatible and can interbreed without negating or significantly altering their unique ensembles of genetic traits or characteristics. It must be assumed that different population groups that share the same territory or country will eventually interbreed or blend together. Therefore, when one population group cannot interbreed with another without significant alteration, loss or diminishment of its unique and distinctive traits, racial preservation requires that the two groups be reproductively isolated from one another by geographic separation. Such separation-isolation should be viewed as a simple requirement for continued racial existence. It does not mean that the different races should be adversaries. Quite the opposite. They can be good neighbors, friends and fellow inhabitants of planet earth, provided they each respect the conditions of separation-isolation required for continued racial existence and development.
There is no perfect solution for the dilemma created by multiracialism, only some solutions that are better than others. The separatist solution offered by the author, or others based on the Racial Compact and the ethical principles of racial rights, is a preservationist alternative to the racial destruction or annihilation sought by racial nihilism, which is the unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. The ultimate or long term consequences of multiracialism ? racial intermixture and the resulting replacement and extinction of the Nordish race ? have long been evaded or denied by its supporters. But more recently, as the dominant position of multiracialism has become more secure, its consequences have been ever more explicitly recognized, welcomed and promoted rather than evaded and denied. Increasingly, the supporters of multiracialism are also openly supporting its eventual consequence of racial destruction by intermixture and replacement, proclaiming its morality and condemning preservationist opposition to it as immoral, making the choices confronting the Nordish race also ever more clear.
For the Nordish race, the choice is between continued existence or extinction. Its continued existence urgently requires the implementation of the only effective preservationist solution to the crisis of multiracialism ? the restoration of the condition of reproductive isolation by geographic separation. Until such a solution is implemented its existence will continue to diminish until the cumulative losses and destruction reduce it to the nothingness sought by racial nihilism. Western culture has rejected as immoral one of the destructive extremes of racial relations ? the racial supremacism that denies and violates the rights of other races. In doing so it overreacted and promoted the opposite destructive extreme ? the racial nihilism that denies and violates all Nordish racial rights and interests, including its vital and legitimate rights to life, control of its own life, and the conditions of existence it requires for life. Unless and until this destructive extreme of racial relations is also rejected as immoral the process of racial destruction it promotes will continue. Its moral rejection requires the development of a new culture, ethic or paradigm of racial relations, a Racial Compact which would promote racial preservation, security and independence through the recognition, protection and promotion of racial rights.
The Racial Compact is an agreement between the diverse races of humanity to recognize and practice the moral principles of racial rights for the common good of all. It is a plan for racial preservation by which the diverse races of humanity can all continue to exist in perpetuity. It is an ethic for the different races to live by, which will enable them all to continue to live. It is a new basis for racial relations, an agreement for coexisting or sharing the earth together in a manner that preserves human racial diversity and safeguards the right of every race to life, independence, self-determination and a secure existence in its own territory in accord with the principle of ?Many Mansions.?
Hopefully, humanity has reached a point in its intellectual, moral and spiritual development where this is possible. The forces of racial destruction, whether knowing or unknowing ? from evasion, denial and ignorance to expediency, deliberate policy and willful intent ? must be overcome. The continued existence of the Nordish race, and the freedom and security of all races, depends upon it. The efforts of this generation can make possible the continuation of racial life for the thousands of generations yet to come. It is to the existence of these future generations ? the life to come ? that the cause of racial preservation is dedicated.
Notes
1. The ?Oneness? goal of eliminating all racial diversity and evolutionary divergence in favor of racial uniformity corresponds with the missionary goal of converting all humanity to one universal religious or political creed and eliminating all religious or political diversity. (The twentieth-century has seen political creeds such as democracy and communism promoted with the same missionary zeal formerly reserved for universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam.)
2. It also refers to the process of intermixture and unification as ?integration,? the joining together of different parts of a whole to make them complete. But this is a misnomer, as the different races do not need to be joined together to be made whole or complete, but quite the opposite. True integration is constructive, not destructive or negating. When two races cannot be joined without negating or destroying the traits of one or both they are not part of the same whole, and the destructive result is racial disintegration rather than integration.
3. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life , (Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 342.
4. Ibid ., p. 351.
5. Similarly, the 98.4% of genes which humans and chimpanzees share in common will continue to exist so long as either humans or chimpanzees continue to exist, and the 30% of DNA which humans and insects share in common will continue to exist as long as either humans or insects continue to exist.
6. According to the extremist logic of the opponents of racial preservation ? who are proponents of racial destruction ? any degree of racial intermixture or ?impurity? means that a race has no right to continued existence but must accept their goal of total intermixture and racial destruction. To the extent that such malreasoning is accepted, they have a clear interest in promoting ill-defined allegations of racial impurity.
7. The racial nihilist and universalist campaign against racism is expressed as an explicit campaign against racial hate, but is actually much more an implicit campaign against racial love ? against the natural, healthy, positive and life-serving emotions and feelings of love by a person for their own race. Such a love is particularist, non-agapic, non-universal, unequal, exclusive, differentiating and discriminating ? loving, preferring and valuing one particular race more than others ? and is therefore defined as hate by the dominant racial nihilist and universalist ideology.
8. As a consequence, it is very common, especially in Europe, for opponents of racial preservationism to attempt to discredit it ? especially with regard to its opposition to immigration by incompatible racial elements ? by associating it with the immoral form of nationalistic racism, Nazism, that committed these violations. Support for alien immigration and other policies which violate the vital rights of the Nordish race are often portrayed as opposition to Nazism. (When the author visited the campus of Uppsala University in Sweden in 1989 he saw posters advertising a rally in support of non-Nordish immigration, and describing such support as ?striking a blow against Nazism.?) Thus, implicitly or explicitly, the vital rights and interests of the Nordish race are wrongly identified with the morally discredited ideology of Nazism and all its negative associations, and the assertion of legitimate Nordish racial rights is denounced as Nazism. As Nazism was opposed by the majority of the Nordish peoples, who certainly did not believe that they were opposing the vital rights and interests of their race, this identification, whether implicit or explicit, is not only factually wrong but unjust. Also, as the immorality of Nazism consisted in its denial and violation of the legitimate rights of other (non-German) races and nations, not in its assertion of the legitimate rights of the German nation, the association of support for legitimate racial and national rights with Nazism ? especially by the opponents of racial rights ? is not only factually incorrect but ethically dishonest and hypocritical.
9. ?Make hate the exception, not the rule,? The Miami Herald , January 8, 1994, p. 27A. Note the author?s identification of racial preservationism ? or intentional racial reproduction ? with hatred, derived from the a priori assumption that racial preservationism must be based on hate for other races rather than love for its own race. This follows logically from her subjectivist assumption that ?white? racial preservationism cannot be motivated internally, from within itself, by love for itself and its existence, but must be motivated externally by something another race ? such as her own ? has done to ?hurt? it and thus cause it to hate. Note the author?s subsequent bewilderment at her inability to identify such a ?hurt,? and her implicit contention that in the absence of such a ?hurt? white racial preservationism (which she equates with ?hatred?) is unjustified.
When Martin Luther King remarked in his celebrated ?I have a dream? speech that a person should be judged not by the color of their skin (a minimalist expression for the thousands of genetic differences involved in race) but by the content of their character, he provided a platitude often used by racial nihilists to oppose racial (and especially Nordish) rights, independence and preservation. He also implied a conflict between race and character, as if one necessarily excluded or was inconsistent with the other, an implication reminiscent of the supposed conflict between physical reality and a ?higher? or superior spiritual reality which should be given precedence, with race belonging to the physical realm and character to the spiritual. But they are each part of what we are, each judged or determined by its own proper terms and standards. To assert that racial judgments or determinations should not be made is the position of racial nihilism, which denies racial rights, racial values, and the love of race which promotes racial preservation.
There is no conflict between race and character, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, and immoral to use character as an argument to justify the violation of the racial right to continued life, existence and preservation, as it is to use claims of a supposed (and perhaps imaginary) ?higher? spiritual reality to promote actions that are destructive of the physical and material reality in which we exist. In fact, one of the primary measures of morality and character should be respect for the rights of others, and this includes respect for the rights of other races, and particularly their right to life. Good character and morality should be consistent with the Golden Rule of live and let live, and therefore inconsistent with the denial or violation of the rights of other races to continued life, preservation and independence.
10. ?Destruction is anathema to conservationists, but the fact remains that most people, lacking knowledge, regard it as perfectly acceptable.? Wilson, op. cit ., p. 320.
11. In a report on ?transracial? adoption broadcast on the Cable News Network (March 31, 1993) which was essentially a call for ?integrated? families, a white adoptive mother of several black children said, ?If integration is a value then families should be integrated.? The reporter, Margaret Lowery, asked, ?How can we share the same planet if we cannot even share the same house?? As the races of humanity do, and always have, shared the same planet together without sharing the same houses, or until recently the same countries, this question bears no logical relationship to reality. So long as the races remained separate they had no problem sharing the planet. Problems only arose, and arise, when races enter or invade or otherwise attempt to share the ?houses? (?mansions? or homelands or living space) of other races, thus violating their rights by denying them the conditions of separation they require for continued existence and independence. Races cannot coexist or share the same planet together if they deny other races the conditions required for their existence. ?We? can only meaningfully and truly share the planet together by recognizing and respecting the right of every race to its own ?house,? homeland or ?mansion.? The question should be, ?How can we continue to share the planet together if we share the same countries, or even the same houses?? The answer is that we cannot, as the sharing of the same planet, or anything else, by different races requires the continued existence of different races, and their continued existence requires that they be reproductively isolated from each other by geographic separation in different countries. ?Integration,? which destroys racial existence and is therefore racial disintegration, is a value only under the racially destructive ethics of racial nihilism, universalism and Oneness. Under the preservationist ethics of the Racial Compact it is racial existence ? the incompatible opposite of ?integration? ? which is a value.[/justify]
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
[justify]After thousands of generations of creative divergent evolution the reality of humanity, of human life and existence, is a great and rich diversity of type and kind. The preservation or continued existence of this diversity requires the reproductive isolation of its particular and distinctive parts or varieties. As a practical matter, reproductive isolation and racial preservation can only be effectively guaranteed by geographic separation, which is also the best guarantee of racial independence.
The unprecedented mass movements of peoples over great distances that has characterized the modern age has placed the historical geographic separation of the races in jeopardy. For the Nordish race, reproductive isolation has already been largely lost. Its restoration requires the adoption of a new culture of human racial relations that recognizes, affirms and promotes racial rights, preservation and independence. This would be a radical departure from the presently dominant culture, which denies racial rights and rejects racial preservation and independence, yet it would be a logical and consistent development or extension of the ethical principles and values of the Western liberal tradition, or of any other ethical tradition based on the Golden Rule of live and let live.
The presently dominant culture of human racial relations is universalism, the ideology that promotes the racial nihilist goal of human ?Oneness? ? the unification of the races into one race through multiracialism and intermixture ? and therefore opposes racial independence and preservation. The ?Oneness? goal is one of human uniformity, the elimination of racial diversity, particularities or differences. The dominance of universalism can be traced back many centuries to the creation of the first multiracial empires. Universalist philosophies and religions provided a justification for the existence of such empires, and a means to hold them together. In fact, there has always been a close connection between imperialism and universalism, and universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam, with their missionary zeal to convert, transform or assimilate other peoples, have often provided the impetus for imperialist endeavors.
In part, the current dominance of universalism and the racial nihilist goal of human ?Oneness? is a legacy of the imperialist mentality. It is also a product of the still active missionary mentality which seeks to transform, convert or remake the world into its own image, whether that image be defined in terms of religion, culture, political ideology or race. [Note 1] The imperialist empire-building and missionary activities of the nineteenth century, which attempted to unify diverse races and cultures into one political and economic system, provided the practical foundation for the development of modern universalism. It is the essence of empire ? of imperialism ? that it subordinates a diverse group of people or races to one unified political or economic order, and denies or rejects their right to independence, control of their own lives, or a separate existence, and this is a central characteristic of the currently dominant form of universalism.
The consequence for the Nordish race ? whose imperialist and missionary efforts to dominate other races and transform them into its own religious, cultural, economic or political image provided the basis for modern universalism ? is that it is now threatened by that universalist ideology with the loss of its own racial existence and independence. That ideology promotes multiracialism, racial nihilism and the goal of ?One-World, One-Race,? to be achieved by a process of racial intermixture that would replace the transitional condition of multiracialism (the means to the end) with one unified mixed race (the end). To facilitate that end it claims that the unification of the diverse races and countries of the world into one race and one global political and economic order ? a ?world without borders? ? is inevitable and progressive, that there are no alternatives, and that resistance is futile and regressive. [Note 2]
In truth there is only one world, but there is more than one race. Our one world is the home of many different races, not just one. It is a world with ?Many Mansions,? many different habitations, with sufficient territory for each race to be secure in the exclusive possession of its own ?mansion,? habitat or homeland. The fact that they exist together on one world does not require, nor make it inevitable or progressive, that they unite into one mixed race. In fact, the course of human development since the beginning of human existence has been predominantly in the direction of evolutionary divergence rather than convergence ? toward greater diversity, variety and differences, not less. It is neither inevitable nor progressive that this creative process of divergence should now be reversed. There are alternatives to the universalist vision of the future, alternatives that would preserve human racial diversity by the restoration and continuation of reproductive isolation rather than destroy it by mixing the diverse races together into one race.
A ?world without borders? is ultimately a world without diversity. Given the fact that different races which share the same territory under conditions of extensive contact interbreed, the preservation of human racial diversity requires reproductive isolation, which as a practical matter ? especially in the long term ? requires the geographic or territorial separation of the races, which requires racial territorial exclusivity, boundaries or borders. Racial preservation requires recognition of the right of every race to exist within secure borders, in its own territory or ?mansion,? exclusive of all genetically incompatible racial elements.
A view of humanity as ?a house with many mansions? would encourage tolerance for the existence of many diverse races, all living on the same planet as they have for many thousands of generations, yet each possessing its own exclusive territory or ?mansion,? and each enjoying the full rights of independence, self-determination and control of its own life, existence and development ? its own country, its own culture, its own religion and its own political and economic system. The ethic of ?Many Mansions? would protect the continued existence on our ?one world? of many different races, cultures, religions and political and economic systems, promoting diversity in all of these areas rather than imposing ?Oneness,? sameness, uniformity or submission to an imperialist or universalist world order or system. It would recognize each race as unique and special, value and appreciate their diversity and differences, and promote their preservation.
The diversity of humanity is often likened to a rainbow. The beauty of a rainbow lies in its many separate and distinct colors. If these different colors are blended together into one mixed color the beauty of the rainbow is lost. So it is with human racial diversity. If the different races are blended together into one mixed race the distinct races of humanity will be diminished and lost, and with them the variety provided by human racial diversity.
Humanity has enjoyed some hard-won ethical progress over the centuries. New ethics have been developed against slavery, imperialism, racial or national supremacism, the violation of human rights and the destruction of the environment. To preserve the diversity of life on earth, including and especially human racial diversity, a new preservationist ethic is needed ??to take all reasonable action to protect every species and race in perpetuity.? [Note 3] Such an ethic would be based on the principle that humanity ??should not knowingly allow any species or race to go extinct.? [Note 4] For humanity, such an ethic would promote an understanding and agreement between the races, a Racial Compact that would affirm the value and importance of each race, recognizing and protecting the right of each race to exist, to live, and to control its own life, free and independent, without animosity or aggression toward other races, but with mutual respect and consideration.
The preservationist ethic of the Racial Compact would promote the coexistence and continued existence of the different races and peoples of humanity. It would permit the different races or nations to continue to be what they are, to be themselves, secure in their continued existence and in the possession of their own homelands. It would let Poland be Poland, Sweden be Sweden, Scotland be Scotland, France be France, Japan be Japan, China be China, India be India, Tunisia be Tunisia, and Nigeria be Nigeria. It would ensure that Holland belonged to the Dutch, England to the English, Norway to the Norwegians, Spain to the Spanish, Vietnam to the Vietnamese, Iran to the Iranians, and Ethiopia to the Ethiopians, and so on, in perpetuity, for all the races and nations of the earth.
If the different races are to coexist with each other, they must first be allowed to exist. Their right to exist, and their right to the conditions they require to exist, must be recognized and respected. The races developed, evolved or were created in different lands, geographically separated and reproductively isolated from each other, and in that condition coexisted on the same planet until recent times, and that is the condition required for the different races ? and especially the Nordish race ? to continue to exist, and therefore to coexist. To coexist they must first exist, and the continued existence of the Nordish race depends on its separation from other races in its own racially exclusive territory or country. In a multiracial society where it was joined with other races it would soon cease to coexist as it would soon cease to exist.
Racial preservation is a matter of special concern for the Nordish race. More than any other race, its independence and very existence is endangered by the currently dominant culture and policies of universalism and multiracialism. No other race is similarly threatened. For that reason racial preservationism is most commonly Nordish preservationism, and opposition to racial preservation is most commonly opposition to Nordish preservation. Given the strongly anti-Nordish bias of the currently dominant ideology and cultural elements, the current culture tends to be strongly opposed to racial preservation in general and Nordish preservation in particular.
The opponents of racial preservation use a variety of arguments and assertions to promote their position. One of these is the oft-repeated claim that little or nothing of value or importance would be endangered or lost through intermixture. To support this claim they commonly minimize, trivialize or belittle the extent, value or importance of racial differences, diversity or variety. For example, they commonly portray racial differences as solely a matter of color, ignoring or denying all other racial differences. Or, in more scientific terms, they argue that since the races of humanity share over 99.5% of their genes (or DNA) in common, racial differences are trivial and of little value or importance, and little will be lost if one or several races (and their unique ensemble of genetic traits and characteristics) ceased to exist. It is true that the 99.5% of genes which all human races share in common is not endangered, and will not be lost or destroyed, by an intermixture of the races, or even by genocide. That 99.5% will continue to exist as long as any human race continues to exist. [Note 5] But it is the .5% or less of genes in which the human races are different that are the source of human racial diversity, variety and differences, and these genes would suffer loss, diminishment or destruction by intermixture. It is the differences that are in need of preservation, not the similarities which all humans share in common. Racial nihilism and universalism regard only the genes and traits which are universal ? which all humans share in common ? as important, valuable and worth preserving. They regard the genes and traits which are not universal ? which differ between the races ? as unimportant, without value, and expendable.
Somewhat similar to the claim that the differences between human races are not sufficient to justify racial preservation, is the claim frequently made by opponents of racial preservation ? sometimes explicitly, but more often implicitly ? that a race must be ?pure? ? or ?special,? ?superior? or ?unique? ? to be worth preserving. But these qualities are either not defined, or are defined so narrowly that they are essentially defined out of existence. Thus in arguing against racial preservationism they commonly assert that there are no ?pure? races, with the implication that a race which is not ?pure? is not worthy of preservation. Again, their definition of ?pure? is generally not given, but it is obviously so narrow that no race existing in reality meets its standard, and as it is not based on ? or related to ? any existing racial reality it must be regarded as arbitrary and capricious. [Note 6]
In concept and motive the assertion that there are no ?pure? races is similar to the more extreme racial nihilist assertion of the racial deconstructionists ? who deny the reality of race ? that different races do not exist. The underlying purpose or motive of both assertions is to deny racial rights ? especially the primary right to life, existence or preservation ? by denying or belittling racial existence. The assertion of racial nonexistence tends to be ineffective as most people can readily see the physical reality of race and racial differences, and easily distinguish one race from another, but the assertion of racial ?impurity? tends to be more effective as most people do not know what a proper or objective standard of racial ?purity? should be, or whether such a standard should determine whether a race is worthy of preservation.
A standard of racial purity so narrow and restricted that it does not exist in any real population cannot be regarded as objective, valid or proper. It is possible to define almost anything out of existence if it is defined by a sufficiently narrow standard, as in this instance. Definitions of race should be based on existing reality, on real existing races, not on misconceptions of racial reality or arbitrary standards that do not exist in any real population. An objectively meaningful measure, standard or definition of race would be based on distinctness and uniqueness. If the identity of a race is clear and distinct, so that it is clearly and distinctly identifiable as itself and nothing else, and its ensemble of genetic traits and characteristics are unique to itself, belonging exclusively to itself and to no other, its racial existence and rights should be recognized. As for the condition of the Nordish race, the usual target of racial nihilist denials of purity, although it has suffered ? and increasingly suffers ? extensive losses due to multiracialism and intermixture, by far the greater part of it still exists with its racial identity fully intact, clear and distinct.
Under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact the right of all races to life, continued existence and preservation would be recognized and protected. These rights would not depend on any requirement for purity, specialness or superiority. All races would be recognized as inherently special, unique, and valuable, worthy of continued life and preservation, and entitled to the full complement of racial rights.
The opponents of racial preservationism also attempt to ethically discredit it by equating it with immoral racism, or emotionally discredit it by claiming it is based on negative emotions or hate. They use reductionist logic to claim that there is only one form of racism, rejecting and denying any difference between the immoral forms of racism that deny and violate racial rights and the moral forms that recognize, assert and protect racial rights. They typically refuse to recognize the existence ? or even the possibility ? of moral racism, even as they refuse to recognize the existence of racial rights.
Emotions and feelings such as hate or love are not in themselves either moral or immoral, right or wrong. Morality is based on behavior and actions, not emotions. Moral behavior toward other races consists of recognizing and respecting their legitimate rights and interests, especially their right to life, independence and their own territory. Immoral behavior toward other races consists of denying, rejecting or violating their legitimate rights and interests, especially those vital rights required for their continued existence.
The equating of love for one?s race and the desire to preserve it with hate for other races can be partly attributed to the agapic concept of love favored by nihilistic ideologies and religions, including the currently dominant ideology of racial nihilism. Agape, or agapic love, is egalitarian and universal, given equally to all without exclusion, preference or discrimination. It does not recognize a love which is exclusive, selective, preferential, discriminating or unequal as love. It regards such an emotion as evil and immoral, as a violation of egalitarian values, as negative rather than positive, and therefore defines it not as love for its object, but as hatred for the others that are not its object. By the tenets of racial nihilism the only love recognized as love is the agapic, equal, universal, non-discriminating, non-particular, all-inclusive and all-embracing love for all humankind as an undifferentiated whole. As a consequence, for a person to express a particular love or preference for their own race is commonly regarded as if it were the moral equivalent of an expression of hate for other races. [Note 7]
The association of racial preservationism with hatred can also be partly attributed to the effects of racial subjectivity, which causes many persons to view their race as the center of existence, not only for itself but for all other races as well. Thus they view their race as the reason and motive for the actions of other races, as the standard and point of reference by which the actions and emotions of all other races are judged, and define all actions solely in relation to their race. Their subjectivity blinds them to the fact that other races have purposes of their own unrelated to any other race, that each race exists of itself, by itself and for itself, not because of, by or for other races, that each race is the center of its own existence and uses itself and its own interests ? not some other race ? as its own point of reference, and that each race has motives and reasons for its actions based on its own separate existence, determined by its pursuit of its own interests and goals unrelated to any other race. Thus they subjectively define any action by another race to preserve its existence or independence not as an action by that race for (or pro) its own interests, but as an action against (or anti) their interests, and assume that hatred for their race rather than love of the other race for itself is the motive for the action.
As a consequence, offense is taken when members of a race want to preserve their racially unique traits and characteristics, which other races do not have, or when they value and love these traits, in which they differ from other races, and regard them as important and worth preserving. (Racial subjectivity is often so extreme that merely to express consciousness of racial identity, or of racial differences, is regarded as being against and violating the rights of other races.) This love and caring for unique and exclusive racial traits, and consequent desire to preserve them by separation from the other races which do not share them, is wrongly equated with hatred or demeanment of the other races. The result of this arbitrary subjectivity is that those who oppose the legitimate, vital and primary rights of another race to continued life, existence, preservation and independence feel morally right in doing so, wrongly believing that the assertion of such rights by the other race is against them rather than for itself.
Members of one race should not take offense if members of another race value and love their distinct and unique racial traits and identity, seek to preserve their race, and desire to be separate from other races as required for both racial preservation and independence. Under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact these sentiments and desires would not be regarded as offensive, insulting, demeaning or threatening to other races, but would be seen as a proper and legitimate expression of racial love and assertion of fundamental racial rights. All living things wish to continue their life, to preserve their existence. This natural wish should not only be tolerated and respected, but treated with the utmost honor and reverence, and it should enjoy the presumption that it is motivated by love of itself and its own life, not hate for others.
In fact, there should be a presumption of morality in favor of preservation, and of racial preservation in particular, and a presumption of immorality with regard to destruction. Similarly, in terms of emotional motivation, there should be a presumption that preservation is motivated by love, benevolence or good-will, and that destruction ? or opposition to preservation ? is motivated by hate, malice or ill-will. But the real issue and choice of morality is between preservation and destruction, between the recognition and protection of racial rights and the denial and destruction of racial rights, not between love and hate. The recognition and protection of racial rights, not subjective emotional motivation, is the objective ethical standard on which a new paradigm or culture of racial relations ? the Racial Compact ? would be based. The recognition and protection of racial rights, whatever its emotional motivation, would be judged as moral, while the denial and violation of racial rights, whether for reasons of love or hate, would be judged as immoral.
Since at the present time, and for the foreseeable future, racial preservationism is especially ? in fact almost uniquely ? a matter of Nordish preservation, as the continued existence of the non-Nordish races is not similarly threatened, the opponents of racial preservation ? who are thus in effect opponents only of Nordish preservation ? often use arguments that are specifically critical of the Nordish race. In particular, the concept of collective guilt is used to claim that the Nordish race is collectively guilty of past wrongs against other races, and therefore has no right to continued life or independence, but should, in effect, be sentenced to the penalty of racial death or extinction. There is a different version of this argument for each race claiming to be a victim of past wrongs by the Nordish race. In what is probably the most common version of these endless recriminations, it is argued, more often implicitly than explicitly, that the German people have no right to life because Nazi (National Socialist) Germany violated the right to life of other peoples, and this argument is then extended to claim that by association the entire Nordish race ? to which most Germans (as well as the English, Scots, Irish, Scandinavians, Dutch and many others, including Nordish-Americans) belong ? is collectively guilty of these violations and is therefore uniquely evil, unworthy of preservation, and has no right to exist, thus justifying its annihilation ? or reduction to nothingness and nonexistence. [Note 8]
From such a perspective it is almost to be expected that reductionist logic would be used to link any expression of Nordish preservationism ? and assertion of vital Nordish rights and interests ? with the immoral forms of racism which deny and violate the rights of other races. Ironically and hypocritically, with such arguments as these the opponents of racial preservation and racial rights are using allegations of past violations of individual and racial rights to justify and excuse the present denial and violation of the vital or life-essential rights of the Nordish race. By contrast, under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact, the doctrine of collective guilt ? which condemns an entire people for the misdeeds of some of its members ? would be rejected as inherently violative of both individual and racial rights, and would not be permitted to justify or excuse the denial or violation of the primary, vital and life-essential rights and interests of any race.
The currently dominant ideology of racial nihilism is so hostile to the vital and life-essential interests of the Nordish race that Nordish reproduction itself is increasingly regarded with disfavor. It is considered offensive when preference is shown for a mate of the same race, and immoral when motivated by a conscious intent or desire to preserve or continue the Nordish race. Reproduction is the very essence of preservation. It is the ultimate preservationist act. The purpose of reproduction is the continuation or preservation of the genetic continuum or race. The opponents of Nordish preservation therefore oppose Nordish reproduction. Since successful reproduction requires that the partners be genetically compatible ? so that the traits of both will be continued, preserved or reproduced in their descendants ? the opponents of Nordish preservation and reproduction are especially opposed to any discrimination or preference by Nordish people in favor of their own race in the selection of reproductive partners. When the right of a race to reproduce is threatened or denied, its reproduction discouraged or condemned as immoral, and the conditions it requires to reproduce and preserve itself are violated, the result is a racial wasteland, where racial life or existence cannot be continued.
The anti-Nordish and anti-preservationist misconceptions and arguments discussed above are part of the currently dominant ideology, and as such are taught to school children from the earliest ages. The quotation below ? from an editorial written by a high school student ? is representative of these teachings, particularly the dual argument that racial preservationism (specifically ?white? preservationism) is motivated by hatred for other races and is inseparable from the immoral forms of racism that deny and violate the rights of other races. (She also repeats the arbitrary assertion ? and statement of racial nihilist factual faith ? that there are no ?pure? races, without defining ?pure? and with the implication that a race which is not ?pure? is not worthy of preservation.)
I was watching a TV talk show recently and the guests were young women whose sole mission in life was to have as many children as they could in order to preserve the white race.
After I got my jaw off the floor, I realized how truly hateful some people are?.
Obviously something has happened in their lives to make these people so hateful?. What I, other blacks like me, Hispanics, Jews, and others ever did to hurt these people is beyond me.
It saddens me to think that there is so much hate that some young white women are actually giving birth in the name of racial preservation. They are so consumed with hate that they fail to realize that there are no pure races. My heart goes out to their children, who through ignorance will undoubtedly carry on the ideas and beliefs of their parents.
Unfortunately, most of us don?t take enough time to consider why the differences in people are so wonderful. Too often we automatically assume that the differences make people somehow wrong or inferior. We should learn to accept one another for what we are and to make judgments solely on the content of a person?s character.
Racism and hate always will exist. But I hope in some way we can bring it down to a bare minimum: Make it the exception, not the rule.
We as young people need to realize that if we all came together as one, many of the troubles that we have today might be gone tomorrow. [Note 9]
The platitudinous expressions of appreciation for the ?wonderful? racial differences of humanity are logically inconsistent with the condemnation of racial preservation, without which this diversity ? or at least the Nordish part of it ? would be lost. If the student editorialist really valued these differences she should support racial preservationism, and recognize that it is based on love, and the consequent desire to preserve that which it loves. To paraphrase her key paragraph in racial preservationist terms, the racism based on hate will always exist, but we can hope to bring it down to a bare minimum ? making the racism based on hate the exception, and the racism based on love the rule.
It should be pointed out that the children of the preservation-motivated women will not only carry on the ideas and beliefs of their parents, but their genes and race as well. Unlike many other members of their race, who have accepted and practice the anti-preservationist teachings of racial nihilism, and have neglected or rejected the primary responsibility of all life to create the next generation of their kind, these women at least will have children, and by doing so will preserve the continuum of generations of racial life of which they are the currently living representatives.
There is an element of logical inconsistency, and perhaps hypocrisy, in the student?s claim that her heart goes out to the children, when she condemns the preservationist motive for their conception as hateful. All living things seek to reproduce or continue their kind, their unique life form, what they themselves are, their genes, their traits, their race. This is the essence of preservationism, and it is the driving reason, purpose and motive for reproduction throughout nature. The ultimate purpose of reproduction is the continuation or preservation of one?s race. This is the foundation of life. It is also the essence ? and perhaps the ultimate natural source ? of the positive emotions called love. There is no better, more moral, proper, natural, life-serving or loving reason for reproduction than the continuation or preservation of one?s genetic line and race. To equate such natural and life-serving positive feelings with hate is to equate the continuation of life itself with hate. To equate such life-serving feelings by members of the Nordish race with hate is to equate the continued life of the Nordish race with hate.
According to the proverb, it is by their fruits (effects, consequences or results) that you will know them (their motives or intent). The fruits of anti-preservationism ? consistent with racial nihilism ? are the denial, rejection and violation of racial rights and, ultimately, racial destruction. As to motives, although anti-preservationists claim to be motivated by friendship, benevolence and love, the destructive effects of their policies are more consistent with the emotions of malice and hate. Like the proverbial wolf in sheep?s clothing, racial nihilism has long cloaked its racially destructive values and goals in the words of love. But love should support the well-being, preservation and continued existence of that which it loves, not its destruction. What the members of every race require ? and have a right to expect ? is respect for their racial right to continued life, preservation and independence, not a destructive and harmful ?love? that denies and violates their rights and opposes their independence and continued existence.
The culture of racial nihilism teaches that it is wrong to hate other races. It also teaches that it is wrong to love one?s own race ? although not in such terms, as it does not recognize a love which is given unequally to one particular race as love, but as the equivalent of hate for other races. In practice, the explicit racial nihilist campaign against racial hate is much more an implicit campaign against racial love, or to be more accurate ? given the anti-Nordish double standard currently operative in racial matters ? a campaign against Nordish racial love. The dominant racial nihilist elements, advocates of racial intermixture and ?Oneness,? and opponents of racial preservation, know that racial love, and the consequent desire to save and preserve that which is loved, is both the primary motive for racial preservationism and the primary obstacle to the goal of Nordish annihilation ? the reduction of the Nordish race to nothingness. To defeat racial preservationism they must first weaken, suppress, inhibit or discredit racial love. Their method is to deconstruct racial love, to define it out of existence by equating it with hate.
By contrast, the culture of the Racial Compact would teach that racial love is a positive, healthy and life-serving ? and perhaps life-essential ? emotion. But much more important than their different teachings about emotions, the two cultures would differ in their moral teachings, for whereas the current racial nihilist culture teaches that the denial, rejection and violation of racial rights is moral, and the recognition, assertion and promotion of racial rights is immoral, the Racial Compact would teach the opposite. The Racial Compact would be based on objective ethics rather than subjective emotions, on mutual and reciprocal recognition, respect and protection for racial rights rather than arbitrary assertions of love or accusations of hate. Being for (recognizing and supporting) the rights of a certain race is ethically much more important and meaningful than one?s emotional feelings for that race. It is not ethically necessary to have the same or equal emotional feelings for every race, or even to have positive emotional feelings for every race. But it is ethically necessary to be for the legitimate ? and especially the life-essential or vital ? rights of every race. If one is for or pro the legitimate rights of a race one cannot be against or anti that race in any ethically meaningful sense or definition of the term.
The opponents of racial preservation and independence are proponents of racial intermixture or ?Oneness,? believing (or claiming) that if, as the song says, we would ?all come together as one,? blending or integrating ? or disintegrating ? all the world?s races into one uniform race, it would solve all the world?s problems. But the real problems of humanity ? whether conflict, poverty, hunger, disease, pollution, environmental destruction or overpopulation ? would not be solved by the destruction of human racial diversity and the violation of the rights of the diverse races of humanity to continued life and independence. Only an ideology which sees the existence of human racial diversity and differences, and racial rights and independence, as a problem would think any problem could be solved by such a racially dissolving course, and this of course is the very ?problem? that racial nihilism is seeking to solve by its advocacy of ?Oneness.?
Since for the foreseeable future the full racially destructive effects and consequences of such a course would be suffered primarily ? if not solely ? by the Nordish race, one can conclude that the very existence of the Nordish race is the ?problem? which the dominant racial nihilist elements seek to solve by the promotion of multiracialism, racial intermixture and Oneness. The solution to their ?Nordish problem? is, in effect, a soft form of genocide. The end or goal is the nonexistence, extinction or annihilation ? the reduction to nothing ? of the Nordish race. The means or method is racial replacement and intermixture through the agency of multiracialism. Thus every Nordish country has been obliged to become a multiracial society. If racially incompatible elements are not present they are imported by immigration. If they are already present their numbers are constantly increased to assure the totality of Nordish destruction by a form of genetic overkill. No Nordish population is allowed to escape this fate. To deny entry to racially incompatible non-Nordish immigrants, or fail to assist and encourage such immigration, or exhibit any sign of racial preservationism, is regarded by the dominant racial nihilist culture as immoral, as hatred for ? and an offense to ? all the other races of humanity.
The Racial Compact offers a preservationist alternative that would promote the peaceful coexistence of the diverse races of humanity while protecting their continued existence and independence. When the different races are secure in their own continued existence and preservation, in the possession of their own territory, and in the recognition and protection of their own legitimate rights and interests, they will no longer have a valid reason to feel threatened or endangered, and what is probably the most common cause of human conflict ? the fear and anxiety caused by insecurity ? will be effectively eliminated. The danger posed by racial nihilism and multiracialism to racial existence and preservation, to racial rights and interests, is one of the foremost problems confronting modern humanity. For the Nordish race it is the foremost problem, having caused great destruction, diminishment and loss to its existence, and threatening to end its very existence ? to annihilate it or reduce it to nothing ? if it is not solved.
The Racial Compact would solve this problem, and make the world safe for continued racial existence, independence and diversity. It would be the institutionalization not only of the ethical principles of racial rights, but also of the ethical principles of racial conservation and preservation. It would apply the presumption that the preservation of life is moral and the destruction of life is immoral ? that morality tends to preserve life and immorality tends to be destructive of life ? to race and racial diversity. In terms of conservationist ethics,this would mark a great advance for humanity over its past and present cultures of racial relations. [Note 10]
For the Nordish race, multiracialism ? or a multiracial society ? is a temporary transitional stage during which it is gradually replaced by ? or destroyed by intermixture with ? other races. Multiracialism is inherently destructive of its most vital rights and interests. The condition of reproductive isolation from genetically incompatible elements which it requires for continued existence is denied and violated, as also is its racial freedom and independence, as multiracialism holds it in bondage to the other races sharing the same country. In the long term, the Nordish race cannot be preserved under multiracial conditions which deny it the condition of reproductive isolation it requires for preservation. In the short term, social practices such as racial segregation can provide a partially effective form of reproductive isolation, but in the long term such systems are not sufficiently effective and are thus ultimately ineffective.
Racial preservation requires the prevention of racial intermixture. As racial intermixture is an inevitable consequence of a multiracial society, and can only occur in a multiracial society, and can only be effectively prevented by reproductive isolation, which can only be effectively provided by geographical separation, racial preservation requires the prevention of multiracial conditions by the restoration and perpetual maintenance of geographical separation. Reproductive isolation is the condition required for racial preservation. As a practical matter it requires geographical separation from other races. The Racial Compact would provide a system of total racial separation and independence based on the Golden Rule of reciprocal and mutual respect for the legitimate rights and interests of each and every race.
For the Nordish race a multiracial society is a racial wasteland, a place where its life and existence cannot be continued or preserved. Multiracialism and preservation are incompatible. Racial destruction through intermixture is the unavoidable consequence of multiracialism, and it is futile to attempt to prevent it under multiracial conditions, and misleading to think it can be prevented, or that multiracialism can exist without it. This is the denial and evasion which subverts the search for effective preservationist solutions and alternatives.
Racial preservation requires racial separation. Members of one race should not take offense or be resentful if members of another race seek to be separate from them, as required both for independence (sovereignty, self-determination or racial freedom) and continued existence or preservation. It should not be regarded as a provocation, slight, demeanment, disparagement, insult or criticism of other races, but recognized and respected as a requirement for life and independence. Human racial diversity was fostered by geographic separation and nurtured by the ?many mansions? provided by the broad expanses of the earth for separate human existence and divergent evolution. It can only be preserved by continuing the essential racial existential condition of ?Many Mansions,? of geographic separation and reproductive isolation, each race inhabiting its own mansion or mansions on the earth, thus securing the continued existence of each. This is the ethical principle of ?Many Mansions,? of racial independence and separation, each race secure in the exclusive possession of its own part of the planet, its own territory or homeland, where its continued existence and independence can be assured, safe from the racially destructive effects of intermixture. The diverse races of humanity should share the planet together, but should not share their countries or homelands together. Then each race will be able to truly wish every other race a long life, the opposite wish of racial nihilism. [Note 11]
In preservationist terms, population groups belong to the same race only when they are genetically compatible and can interbreed without negating or significantly altering their unique ensembles of genetic traits or characteristics. It must be assumed that different population groups that share the same territory or country will eventually interbreed or blend together. Therefore, when one population group cannot interbreed with another without significant alteration, loss or diminishment of its unique and distinctive traits, racial preservation requires that the two groups be reproductively isolated from one another by geographic separation. Such separation-isolation should be viewed as a simple requirement for continued racial existence. It does not mean that the different races should be adversaries. Quite the opposite. They can be good neighbors, friends and fellow inhabitants of planet earth, provided they each respect the conditions of separation-isolation required for continued racial existence and development.
There is no perfect solution for the dilemma created by multiracialism, only some solutions that are better than others. The separatist solution offered by the author, or others based on the Racial Compact and the ethical principles of racial rights, is a preservationist alternative to the racial destruction or annihilation sought by racial nihilism, which is the unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. The ultimate or long term consequences of multiracialism ? racial intermixture and the resulting replacement and extinction of the Nordish race ? have long been evaded or denied by its supporters. But more recently, as the dominant position of multiracialism has become more secure, its consequences have been ever more explicitly recognized, welcomed and promoted rather than evaded and denied. Increasingly, the supporters of multiracialism are also openly supporting its eventual consequence of racial destruction by intermixture and replacement, proclaiming its morality and condemning preservationist opposition to it as immoral, making the choices confronting the Nordish race also ever more clear.
For the Nordish race, the choice is between continued existence or extinction. Its continued existence urgently requires the implementation of the only effective preservationist solution to the crisis of multiracialism ? the restoration of the condition of reproductive isolation by geographic separation. Until such a solution is implemented its existence will continue to diminish until the cumulative losses and destruction reduce it to the nothingness sought by racial nihilism. Western culture has rejected as immoral one of the destructive extremes of racial relations ? the racial supremacism that denies and violates the rights of other races. In doing so it overreacted and promoted the opposite destructive extreme ? the racial nihilism that denies and violates all Nordish racial rights and interests, including its vital and legitimate rights to life, control of its own life, and the conditions of existence it requires for life. Unless and until this destructive extreme of racial relations is also rejected as immoral the process of racial destruction it promotes will continue. Its moral rejection requires the development of a new culture, ethic or paradigm of racial relations, a Racial Compact which would promote racial preservation, security and independence through the recognition, protection and promotion of racial rights.
The Racial Compact is an agreement between the diverse races of humanity to recognize and practice the moral principles of racial rights for the common good of all. It is a plan for racial preservation by which the diverse races of humanity can all continue to exist in perpetuity. It is an ethic for the different races to live by, which will enable them all to continue to live. It is a new basis for racial relations, an agreement for coexisting or sharing the earth together in a manner that preserves human racial diversity and safeguards the right of every race to life, independence, self-determination and a secure existence in its own territory in accord with the principle of ?Many Mansions.?
Hopefully, humanity has reached a point in its intellectual, moral and spiritual development where this is possible. The forces of racial destruction, whether knowing or unknowing ? from evasion, denial and ignorance to expediency, deliberate policy and willful intent ? must be overcome. The continued existence of the Nordish race, and the freedom and security of all races, depends upon it. The efforts of this generation can make possible the continuation of racial life for the thousands of generations yet to come. It is to the existence of these future generations ? the life to come ? that the cause of racial preservation is dedicated.
Notes
1. The ?Oneness? goal of eliminating all racial diversity and evolutionary divergence in favor of racial uniformity corresponds with the missionary goal of converting all humanity to one universal religious or political creed and eliminating all religious or political diversity. (The twentieth-century has seen political creeds such as democracy and communism promoted with the same missionary zeal formerly reserved for universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam.)
2. It also refers to the process of intermixture and unification as ?integration,? the joining together of different parts of a whole to make them complete. But this is a misnomer, as the different races do not need to be joined together to be made whole or complete, but quite the opposite. True integration is constructive, not destructive or negating. When two races cannot be joined without negating or destroying the traits of one or both they are not part of the same whole, and the destructive result is racial disintegration rather than integration.
3. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life , (Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 342.
4. Ibid ., p. 351.
5. Similarly, the 98.4% of genes which humans and chimpanzees share in common will continue to exist so long as either humans or chimpanzees continue to exist, and the 30% of DNA which humans and insects share in common will continue to exist as long as either humans or insects continue to exist.
6. According to the extremist logic of the opponents of racial preservation ? who are proponents of racial destruction ? any degree of racial intermixture or ?impurity? means that a race has no right to continued existence but must accept their goal of total intermixture and racial destruction. To the extent that such malreasoning is accepted, they have a clear interest in promoting ill-defined allegations of racial impurity.
7. The racial nihilist and universalist campaign against racism is expressed as an explicit campaign against racial hate, but is actually much more an implicit campaign against racial love ? against the natural, healthy, positive and life-serving emotions and feelings of love by a person for their own race. Such a love is particularist, non-agapic, non-universal, unequal, exclusive, differentiating and discriminating ? loving, preferring and valuing one particular race more than others ? and is therefore defined as hate by the dominant racial nihilist and universalist ideology.
8. As a consequence, it is very common, especially in Europe, for opponents of racial preservationism to attempt to discredit it ? especially with regard to its opposition to immigration by incompatible racial elements ? by associating it with the immoral form of nationalistic racism, Nazism, that committed these violations. Support for alien immigration and other policies which violate the vital rights of the Nordish race are often portrayed as opposition to Nazism. (When the author visited the campus of Uppsala University in Sweden in 1989 he saw posters advertising a rally in support of non-Nordish immigration, and describing such support as ?striking a blow against Nazism.?) Thus, implicitly or explicitly, the vital rights and interests of the Nordish race are wrongly identified with the morally discredited ideology of Nazism and all its negative associations, and the assertion of legitimate Nordish racial rights is denounced as Nazism. As Nazism was opposed by the majority of the Nordish peoples, who certainly did not believe that they were opposing the vital rights and interests of their race, this identification, whether implicit or explicit, is not only factually wrong but unjust. Also, as the immorality of Nazism consisted in its denial and violation of the legitimate rights of other (non-German) races and nations, not in its assertion of the legitimate rights of the German nation, the association of support for legitimate racial and national rights with Nazism ? especially by the opponents of racial rights ? is not only factually incorrect but ethically dishonest and hypocritical.
9. ?Make hate the exception, not the rule,? The Miami Herald , January 8, 1994, p. 27A. Note the author?s identification of racial preservationism ? or intentional racial reproduction ? with hatred, derived from the a priori assumption that racial preservationism must be based on hate for other races rather than love for its own race. This follows logically from her subjectivist assumption that ?white? racial preservationism cannot be motivated internally, from within itself, by love for itself and its existence, but must be motivated externally by something another race ? such as her own ? has done to ?hurt? it and thus cause it to hate. Note the author?s subsequent bewilderment at her inability to identify such a ?hurt,? and her implicit contention that in the absence of such a ?hurt? white racial preservationism (which she equates with ?hatred?) is unjustified.
When Martin Luther King remarked in his celebrated ?I have a dream? speech that a person should be judged not by the color of their skin (a minimalist expression for the thousands of genetic differences involved in race) but by the content of their character, he provided a platitude often used by racial nihilists to oppose racial (and especially Nordish) rights, independence and preservation. He also implied a conflict between race and character, as if one necessarily excluded or was inconsistent with the other, an implication reminiscent of the supposed conflict between physical reality and a ?higher? or superior spiritual reality which should be given precedence, with race belonging to the physical realm and character to the spiritual. But they are each part of what we are, each judged or determined by its own proper terms and standards. To assert that racial judgments or determinations should not be made is the position of racial nihilism, which denies racial rights, racial values, and the love of race which promotes racial preservation.
There is no conflict between race and character, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, and immoral to use character as an argument to justify the violation of the racial right to continued life, existence and preservation, as it is to use claims of a supposed (and perhaps imaginary) ?higher? spiritual reality to promote actions that are destructive of the physical and material reality in which we exist. In fact, one of the primary measures of morality and character should be respect for the rights of others, and this includes respect for the rights of other races, and particularly their right to life. Good character and morality should be consistent with the Golden Rule of live and let live, and therefore inconsistent with the denial or violation of the rights of other races to continued life, preservation and independence.
10. ?Destruction is anathema to conservationists, but the fact remains that most people, lacking knowledge, regard it as perfectly acceptable.? Wilson, op. cit ., p. 320.
11. In a report on ?transracial? adoption broadcast on the Cable News Network (March 31, 1993) which was essentially a call for ?integrated? families, a white adoptive mother of several black children said, ?If integration is a value then families should be integrated.? The reporter, Margaret Lowery, asked, ?How can we share the same planet if we cannot even share the same house?? As the races of humanity do, and always have, shared the same planet together without sharing the same houses, or until recently the same countries, this question bears no logical relationship to reality. So long as the races remained separate they had no problem sharing the planet. Problems only arose, and arise, when races enter or invade or otherwise attempt to share the ?houses? (?mansions? or homelands or living space) of other races, thus violating their rights by denying them the conditions of separation they require for continued existence and independence. Races cannot coexist or share the same planet together if they deny other races the conditions required for their existence. ?We? can only meaningfully and truly share the planet together by recognizing and respecting the right of every race to its own ?house,? homeland or ?mansion.? The question should be, ?How can we continue to share the planet together if we share the same countries, or even the same houses?? The answer is that we cannot, as the sharing of the same planet, or anything else, by different races requires the continued existence of different races, and their continued existence requires that they be reproductively isolated from each other by geographic separation in different countries. ?Integration,? which destroys racial existence and is therefore racial disintegration, is a value only under the racially destructive ethics of racial nihilism, universalism and Oneness. Under the preservationist ethics of the Racial Compact it is racial existence ? the incompatible opposite of ?integration? ? which is a value.[/justify]
[center]Racial Partition for Racial Preservation
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
[justify]A racial partition of the United States for the purpose of racial preservation and independence would involve the creation of separate, independent and sovereign racial nations in accordance with the principles of racial rights, racial security and the Racial Compact. A just partition would take into consideration the relative historical role of each racial group as well as their current position, and a practical partition would seek to create compact racial nations with geographical integrity and the shortest possible borders for their area. Persons of mixed racial ancestry would be classified according to their visible racial traits, characteristics and identity (or phenotype) and assigned to the most appropriate racial nation. Racially-mixed families would be classified and assigned according to the racial identity or phenotype of the children. Many different plans for partition are possible. The author offers the following proposal as one possibility for consideration.[/justify]
[justify]For the purpose of geographic partition for racial preservation and independence, the population of the United States could be divided into eight racial groupings, as listed below:
1. A Nordish (Northern European) centered racial grouping consisting of the Nordish-American population and the ?near Nordish? racial elements ? i.e., those most similar and closely related to, and therefore most easily assimilated by, the Nordish population. These include the Alpine, Dinaric and Ladogan populations of central and eastern European origin. Persons of southern European origin (Spain, Portugal, Italy and the Balkans) who are of Nordish racial type would also be eligible for inclusion in this grouping. These racial elements can be regarded as assimilable by the Nordish-American population within the existing proportions. This grouping comprised 86% of the U.S. population in 1880, 77.3% in 1970, and 65.5% in 1994.
2. A Congoid (Sub-Saharan African) grouping consisting of all members of the Congoid race (including all persons of obvious partial Congoid ancestry except the mixed Caribbean peoples) in North America, and all those in Europe who cannot be practically or humanely repatriated to their own ancestral homelands. This group comprised 11.1% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 12.1% in 1994.
3. A Latin Amerindian racial grouping consisting of the Mexican, Central and South American Indian and Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and Caucasian) population. This group, the majority of the U.S. ?Hispanic? population, comprised 2.5% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 8.8% in 1994.
4. A North Amerindian group consisting of the native North American Indian population. This group comprised .4% of the U.S. population in 1970 and .8% in 1994.
5. An East Asian racial grouping consisting of those members of the Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian races in North America, and all those in Europe who cannot be practically or humanely repatriated to their own ancestral homelands. This group comprised 1% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 2.7% in 1994.
6. A Mediterranid-Armenid racial grouping which would include the Southern European and other European racial elements not included with the Nordish centered group, together with the Armenid racial elements. This grouping comprised 7% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 6.9% in 1994.
7. A North African and West Asian racial grouping that would include the Pakistani and Asian Indian (Indic and Dravidic), Irano-Afgan, Turanid (Turkic), Orientalid (Arabic) and Saharid-Mediterranid populations of North African and West Asian origin in North America, as well as those in Europe who cannot be practically or humanely repatriated to their own ancestral homelands. This grouping comprised .1% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 1.8% in 1994.
8. A grouping of mostly ?Hispanic? Caribbean peoples of mixed Congoid-Caucasian ancestry who are distinct from the African-American Congoid population. This grouping would include most Puerto Ricans and Dominicans as well as many Cubans. These elements comprised about .7% of the mainland U.S. population in 1970 and 1.4% in 1994.
As illustrated by the above map, an independent nation for the Congoid racial group could be formed out of the area of the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas north of the Colorado river, west of the Mississippi river, and south of the Arkansas river. It would include the cities of Little Rock, Shreveport, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Galveston, Austin and Amarillo. Its territory would be about 257,823 square miles (larger than France, which has an area of 213,009 square miles, or Kenya, which has an area of 224,081 square miles).
An independent nation for the ?Latin? or ?Hispanic? Amerindian and Mestizo racial group could be formed from the territory of Texas south of the Colorado river, and New Mexico south of the line of 35 degrees north latitude. It would include the cities of San Antonio, Corpus Christi, El Paso and Alamogordo. Its area would total about 198,901 square miles (larger than Spain, which has an area of 195,988 square miles).
An independent nation for the North American Amerindian population could be created out of the states of Arizona and New Mexico north of the line of 35 degrees north latitude and east of the Little Colorado and Colorado rivers. It would include the cities of Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Its territory would be about 66,798 square miles.
An independent nation for the East Asian population could be formed from San Diego, Orange, Riverside and Imperial counties in California and Yuma county in Arizona. Its area would be 21,961 square miles (larger than Taiwan, which has 13,814 square miles) and would include the cities of San Diego, Anaheim, Palm Springs and Riverside.
The Mediterranid-Armenid grouping could be formed into two independent nations. One could consist of Florida south of the line of 29 degrees latitude and north of Collier and Broward counties, with an area of about 21,900 square miles (larger by half than the Netherlands, which has 15,770 square miles). It would include the cities of Palm Beach, Tampa, Sarasota and Orlando. The other could consist of San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties in California, Clark county in Nevada, and all of Arizona except for Yuma county and the territory which is part of the native Amerindian nation, with an area of about 126,162 square miles (larger than Italy, which has 116,311 square miles). It would include the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Las Vegas, Flagstaff, Winslow, Phoenix and Tucson. The total combined area of both nations would be about 138,211 square miles.
An independent nation for the West Asian and North African grouping could be formed from Monterey, San Benito, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties in California. Its area would be 28,307 square miles (again, as in the preceding paragraph, about the same size as the Netherlands and Belgium added together) and would include the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield.
An independent nation for the Caribbean peoples of mixed Congoid-Caucasian ancestry could be formed from Broward, Collier, Dade and Monroe counties in Florida north of Long Key. Its area would be about 6,160 square miles, almost twice the size of Puerto Rico, which has 3,435 square miles. It would include the cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Naples.
The Hawaiian islands to the west of Oahu (Kauai, etc.) could be reserved for the native Pacific Islanders. Oahu and the islands to the east would belong to the Nordish nation, as the ?crossroads of the Pacific? providing a strategically vital link between the Nordish countries of North America and those of Australia and New Zealand.
The remaining territory of the United States would be an independent nation for the Nordish centered racial group. Its population of about 168 million (based on 1994 U.S. population figures) would be about 86.9% Nordish (146 million) and 13.1% Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan (22 million), plus whatever number of eligible ?assimilated? Mediterranids would choose to be a part of it.
The land area of the 48 contiguous states is 2,962,031 square miles. The partition proposal detailed above would allocate 2,234,573 square miles, or 75.4% of this area, to the Nordish centered racial grouping, which comprised 77.3% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 65.5% in 1994 (or about 168 million people out of a total population of 258 million). It would allocate 727,548 square miles, or 24.6% of the area of the 48 contiguous states, to the other racial groups, who in 1994 totaled 90 million or 34.5% of the population, but in 1970 comprised only 22.7% of the population. Thus, this proposal would grant 75.4% of the area of the 48 contiguous states to the racial group that was 77.3% of the population in 1970, and 24.6% of the area to the groups that totaled 22.7% of the population in 1970.
All of the independent non-Nordish nations resulting from the racial partition would be situated along the southern periphery of the United States. As the southern periphery already borders a non-Nordish country and region (Mexico and the Caribbean) this would minimize the length of borders between the Nordish and non-Nordish races. None of the territory allotted to the non-Nordish nations belonged to the United States before 1803. To prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapons or production facilities located in non-Nordish areas would be moved to new sites within the Nordish area. Prisoners and other institutionalized persons would go with their race. With the exception of indigenous peoples, non-Nordish racial elements in the other Nordish countries of Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be encouraged to repatriate to their own racial homelands. Otherwise they could join other members of their race in the appropriate successor state as given above.[/justify]
by
Richard McCulloch[/center]
[justify]A racial partition of the United States for the purpose of racial preservation and independence would involve the creation of separate, independent and sovereign racial nations in accordance with the principles of racial rights, racial security and the Racial Compact. A just partition would take into consideration the relative historical role of each racial group as well as their current position, and a practical partition would seek to create compact racial nations with geographical integrity and the shortest possible borders for their area. Persons of mixed racial ancestry would be classified according to their visible racial traits, characteristics and identity (or phenotype) and assigned to the most appropriate racial nation. Racially-mixed families would be classified and assigned according to the racial identity or phenotype of the children. Many different plans for partition are possible. The author offers the following proposal as one possibility for consideration.[/justify]
[justify]For the purpose of geographic partition for racial preservation and independence, the population of the United States could be divided into eight racial groupings, as listed below:
1. A Nordish (Northern European) centered racial grouping consisting of the Nordish-American population and the ?near Nordish? racial elements ? i.e., those most similar and closely related to, and therefore most easily assimilated by, the Nordish population. These include the Alpine, Dinaric and Ladogan populations of central and eastern European origin. Persons of southern European origin (Spain, Portugal, Italy and the Balkans) who are of Nordish racial type would also be eligible for inclusion in this grouping. These racial elements can be regarded as assimilable by the Nordish-American population within the existing proportions. This grouping comprised 86% of the U.S. population in 1880, 77.3% in 1970, and 65.5% in 1994.
2. A Congoid (Sub-Saharan African) grouping consisting of all members of the Congoid race (including all persons of obvious partial Congoid ancestry except the mixed Caribbean peoples) in North America, and all those in Europe who cannot be practically or humanely repatriated to their own ancestral homelands. This group comprised 11.1% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 12.1% in 1994.
3. A Latin Amerindian racial grouping consisting of the Mexican, Central and South American Indian and Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and Caucasian) population. This group, the majority of the U.S. ?Hispanic? population, comprised 2.5% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 8.8% in 1994.
4. A North Amerindian group consisting of the native North American Indian population. This group comprised .4% of the U.S. population in 1970 and .8% in 1994.
5. An East Asian racial grouping consisting of those members of the Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian races in North America, and all those in Europe who cannot be practically or humanely repatriated to their own ancestral homelands. This group comprised 1% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 2.7% in 1994.
6. A Mediterranid-Armenid racial grouping which would include the Southern European and other European racial elements not included with the Nordish centered group, together with the Armenid racial elements. This grouping comprised 7% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 6.9% in 1994.
7. A North African and West Asian racial grouping that would include the Pakistani and Asian Indian (Indic and Dravidic), Irano-Afgan, Turanid (Turkic), Orientalid (Arabic) and Saharid-Mediterranid populations of North African and West Asian origin in North America, as well as those in Europe who cannot be practically or humanely repatriated to their own ancestral homelands. This grouping comprised .1% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 1.8% in 1994.
8. A grouping of mostly ?Hispanic? Caribbean peoples of mixed Congoid-Caucasian ancestry who are distinct from the African-American Congoid population. This grouping would include most Puerto Ricans and Dominicans as well as many Cubans. These elements comprised about .7% of the mainland U.S. population in 1970 and 1.4% in 1994.
As illustrated by the above map, an independent nation for the Congoid racial group could be formed out of the area of the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas north of the Colorado river, west of the Mississippi river, and south of the Arkansas river. It would include the cities of Little Rock, Shreveport, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Galveston, Austin and Amarillo. Its territory would be about 257,823 square miles (larger than France, which has an area of 213,009 square miles, or Kenya, which has an area of 224,081 square miles).
An independent nation for the ?Latin? or ?Hispanic? Amerindian and Mestizo racial group could be formed from the territory of Texas south of the Colorado river, and New Mexico south of the line of 35 degrees north latitude. It would include the cities of San Antonio, Corpus Christi, El Paso and Alamogordo. Its area would total about 198,901 square miles (larger than Spain, which has an area of 195,988 square miles).
An independent nation for the North American Amerindian population could be created out of the states of Arizona and New Mexico north of the line of 35 degrees north latitude and east of the Little Colorado and Colorado rivers. It would include the cities of Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Its territory would be about 66,798 square miles.
An independent nation for the East Asian population could be formed from San Diego, Orange, Riverside and Imperial counties in California and Yuma county in Arizona. Its area would be 21,961 square miles (larger than Taiwan, which has 13,814 square miles) and would include the cities of San Diego, Anaheim, Palm Springs and Riverside.
The Mediterranid-Armenid grouping could be formed into two independent nations. One could consist of Florida south of the line of 29 degrees latitude and north of Collier and Broward counties, with an area of about 21,900 square miles (larger by half than the Netherlands, which has 15,770 square miles). It would include the cities of Palm Beach, Tampa, Sarasota and Orlando. The other could consist of San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties in California, Clark county in Nevada, and all of Arizona except for Yuma county and the territory which is part of the native Amerindian nation, with an area of about 126,162 square miles (larger than Italy, which has 116,311 square miles). It would include the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Las Vegas, Flagstaff, Winslow, Phoenix and Tucson. The total combined area of both nations would be about 138,211 square miles.
An independent nation for the West Asian and North African grouping could be formed from Monterey, San Benito, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties in California. Its area would be 28,307 square miles (again, as in the preceding paragraph, about the same size as the Netherlands and Belgium added together) and would include the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield.
An independent nation for the Caribbean peoples of mixed Congoid-Caucasian ancestry could be formed from Broward, Collier, Dade and Monroe counties in Florida north of Long Key. Its area would be about 6,160 square miles, almost twice the size of Puerto Rico, which has 3,435 square miles. It would include the cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Naples.
The Hawaiian islands to the west of Oahu (Kauai, etc.) could be reserved for the native Pacific Islanders. Oahu and the islands to the east would belong to the Nordish nation, as the ?crossroads of the Pacific? providing a strategically vital link between the Nordish countries of North America and those of Australia and New Zealand.
The remaining territory of the United States would be an independent nation for the Nordish centered racial group. Its population of about 168 million (based on 1994 U.S. population figures) would be about 86.9% Nordish (146 million) and 13.1% Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan (22 million), plus whatever number of eligible ?assimilated? Mediterranids would choose to be a part of it.
The land area of the 48 contiguous states is 2,962,031 square miles. The partition proposal detailed above would allocate 2,234,573 square miles, or 75.4% of this area, to the Nordish centered racial grouping, which comprised 77.3% of the U.S. population in 1970 and 65.5% in 1994 (or about 168 million people out of a total population of 258 million). It would allocate 727,548 square miles, or 24.6% of the area of the 48 contiguous states, to the other racial groups, who in 1994 totaled 90 million or 34.5% of the population, but in 1970 comprised only 22.7% of the population. Thus, this proposal would grant 75.4% of the area of the 48 contiguous states to the racial group that was 77.3% of the population in 1970, and 24.6% of the area to the groups that totaled 22.7% of the population in 1970.
All of the independent non-Nordish nations resulting from the racial partition would be situated along the southern periphery of the United States. As the southern periphery already borders a non-Nordish country and region (Mexico and the Caribbean) this would minimize the length of borders between the Nordish and non-Nordish races. None of the territory allotted to the non-Nordish nations belonged to the United States before 1803. To prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapons or production facilities located in non-Nordish areas would be moved to new sites within the Nordish area. Prisoners and other institutionalized persons would go with their race. With the exception of indigenous peoples, non-Nordish racial elements in the other Nordish countries of Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be encouraged to repatriate to their own racial homelands. Otherwise they could join other members of their race in the appropriate successor state as given above.[/justify]
[center]An Interview with Richard McCulloch
Interview
In October, 1998 Richard McCulloch was interviewed over the internet by three European correspondents.[/center]
[justify]Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Here are our questions. Feel free to digress as far as you like, and to leave any question you
don?t like unanswered. If you have any additional information we
haven?t specifically asked for, feel free to state it as well.
1. SOME PERSONAL QUESTIONS
==========================
1.1) Can you tell us something about yourself, and where your life-long
interest in the Nordish people comes from? What place has racial
consciousness taken in your life through the years? In other words, how
did you develop your way of thinking and your ability to express this
way of thinking in the great way you do?
1.1 Answer: I wish I knew, but perhaps this degree of self-awareness is denied to us. I can say that it is an irreducible part of what I am, at the very core of my being and identity, as far back as I can remember. I spend a great deal of time thinking about these matters, and with time my thoughts have been refined and my ability to express them improved.
1.2) We are, and other readers might be, curious about your own ethnic
background. Obviously, you are Nordish, but to which branches of the
Nordish race do you trace back your ancestry?
1.2 Answer: Like many Nordish-Americans, my ancestry derives from several of the peoples of northwestern Europe. My two grandfathers? families were old-stock American. My McCulloch ancestors were what we call Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scots, emigrating from the Edinburgh area to Ulster in Northern Ireland in the 1600s, and after 1717 emigrating from there to western Virginia, ending up in 1792 in western Pennsylvania, where they intermarried with many other old-stock American lines of varied Nordish origin (Boyd, Craig, Earhart, etc.). My Dutch, Swedish and Huguenot ancestors (van der Goes, van Nes, van der Vliet, van Arsdalen, Claesen, Anderson, Latourette, etc.) settled in New Netherlands (New York) in the 1630s, moving on in community groups to New Jersey in the 1670s and Illinois in 1836. My two grandmothers? families arrived more recently ? my German grandmother?s family emigrated from Berlin to Detroit in the early 1890s shortly before she was born, and my Norwegian grandmother?s family emigrated from a small town near Trøndheim in 1911 when she was 8 years old, settling in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
1.3) What study did you do? What is the relation of this study to your
racial philosophy?
1.3 Answer: My college major was history, with anthropology my second area of study. This reflected my interests from an early age. The subject matter in my college classes was often almost a review for me of subjects I had already studied. Both areas of study fostered my racial awareness and a wider perspective. My parents purchased a set of The World Book Encyclopedia in 1959, around the time of my 10th birthday, and I remember reading the section on race soon after this. I watched many television documentaries that were informative about recent history. I remember reading H.G. Wells? An Outline of History in 1961-62 when I was 12 or 13 years old, and being struck by a passage in which the author stated that humanity, after thousands of generations of divergence, was apparently changing course in the direction of recoalescence, and realizing the consequences of this development. From my readings in anthropology I learned that if two distinct peoples were found inhabiting the same territory it was assumed that one or both of the peoples was a relatively recent arrival, and that they had not been living together for long, as populations that had lived together for a long time were invariably blended together by intermixture into one population where the distinctions between the ancestral peoples were gradually eliminated. Obviously, awareness of this anthropological principle made the consequences of multiracialization very clear to me, and I began to express my concerns on this matter to my friends and family members while still in my teens. But I was not very effective. Indeed, through my college years I felt rather isolated, not knowing anyone else who shared my racial views (the only ?racist? organizations I knew of were those of the KKK and neo-Nazi variety, whose racial programs were supremacist rather than preservationist), until one day in 1973, while I was a graduate student, that I discovered The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson in a downtown bookstore, and discovered there were others with whom I could connect who were addressing the race issue in a morally and intellectually respectable manner. Robertson?s example inspired me to begin writing about race.
1.4) What interests do you have? We know for instance that you are
interested in the exploration of the solar system ? and beyond. We got
the impression that you have a love for Science Fiction books and
movies.
1.4 Answer: I think my early interest in history went hand in hand with my early interest in Science Fiction, as good, credible Science Fiction seemed almost like an imaginative continuation or projection of the past and present into the future, an extension of history. Some of my earliest reading in both history and Science Fiction was in the form of comic books (I wish I still had them). In adulthood my reading of Science Fiction has decreased, but this has been partially offset by the greatly increased quantity of television and motion picture Science Fiction. From my perspective as a Nordish racial preservationist, there is one particular criticism I have of this genre. By portraying the Nordish race as still existing (apparently in full undiminished form) after several centuries of multiracialism it helps foster the common misconception (indeed, the fatal fallacy) that the Nordish race can continue to exist, even without diminishment, under multiracial conditions. The various Star Trek series as well as Babylon 5 (which reminds me of Tolkien?s ?Lord of the Rings? trilogy in its epic story line) are examples of this. One exception is Arthur Clarke?s Imperial Earth, which I read circa 1970, which is set several centuries in the future when the various white racial types no longer exist due to intermixture. Of course, Clarke mentions this fact almost casually and does not treat it as being of any significance. It was, however, significant to me. I did not finish the book. Another criticism of the Star Trek series is its use of the name ?Ferengi? for the most unattractive, dishonorable and ignoble of its alien races. ?Ferengi? is of course the Islamic World?s name for the Franks, which they used to refer to all Western Europeans. I assume that the people in charge of Star Trek development knew this, and it can be taken as an anti-Nordish insult that reveals their lack of regard for the Nordish race.
The apocalyptic theme that is common to many SciFi films ? from alien invasions and infiltration to ?body snatching? (replacing humans, especially persons in authority, with alien impostors) and meteors ? is strangely analogous to the situation now threatening the Nordish race. Our race is threatened with destruction. Its continued existence is at stake, much as the existence of humanity or the earth is at stake in these films. One particularly apt analogy is to the ?Borg Collective? in Star Trek. We too are threatened with assimilation into the collective (the non-Nordish mass of humanity), and told that our assimilation is inevitable and resistance is futile. Of course, when the humans in these films become aware of their danger they do everything in their power to combat it (Capt. Picard answered the Borg with a resounding ?No!?), as we hope our race will also when it is aware. To seek and welcome the destruction would move the plot into the ?Twilight Zone? genre. At the moment our position is more like the humans in the alien infiltration or ?body snatcher? films, with only a few of us aware of what is happening, and desperately trying to inform our disbelieving brethren.
2. SOME CLARIFICATIONS WANTED
=============================
2.1) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you give a four-fold classification of the Race; there are
4 types: dark, middle, light and ultra-Nordic.
In TNQ [The Nordish Quest], and on your web site you give a much more elaborate system,
which describes the Nordish race as a center with concentric circles
around it, and various subtypes within these circles. Can we assume that
the classification in TIAD should be considered as a sliding scale from
the most outer Nordic types to the most inner, or should we consider it to
be outdated/overruled by the new classification?
2.1 Answer: Consider the dark-through-ultra Nordic classification scheme overruled by the new scheme. The racial boundaries between Nordish (Northern European) and non-Nordish are the same in both classifications. The change is strictly internal within the Nordish group, classifying its various component elements in a more accurate manner. I am sorry to say that until 1985, in spite of all my searching through major university libraries, I had never found a book on race that went much beyond Ripley?s old classification of Europeans into Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans. Usually the only addition was the East Baltic type. Even John Baker?s otherwise excellent book Race, which appeared in 1974, is deficient in this regard. In 1985 I obtained a copy of Carleton Coon?s 1939 work The Races of Europe, which was written as a college text on the subject, and although I have points of disagreement with it, it is by far the most definitive work on the subject with which I am familiar, and represents a line of scholarship that has been neglected and almost forgotten over the last half century. The scheme in The Nordish Quest and my web site can be considered as a slightly modified and updated version of his classification system, synthesized with Baker and others.
2.2) Can you give us any sources / further reading advises on the racial
classifications of Human- and Northernkind, and the racial composition
of the European nations?
2.2 Answer: Unfortunately, the study of the races of humanity has been in disfavor over the last half century, and any serious attempt to study it in an objective manner will likely result in the scholar being branded a racist, probably the most feared epithet in the modern Western world (although not outside the West) and certainly the most feared in the ?politically correct? groves of academia. I have heard that the best work in this area over the last generation has been done in Hungary, but I do not know of any specifics. Other than my own work the best material I am familiar with is that of Baker and Coon mentioned in the previous answer. I am sorry to say that I find much of the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his group to be misleading in its interpretation of the genetic data, which our present culture effectively prevents from being challenged by alternative interpretations.
2.3) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you write that minimizing the interference of the state with
society would be the best way to preserve and improve the race, and that
interference of the state ? i.e. state-capitalism, or socialism ? is a
political-economic system that is far more likely to slow down or
reverse the divergent evolution of the human races. However, in DOA [Destiny of Angels] you
mention there sometimes is a discrepancy between ?internal natural
wealth? and ?external material wealth?, which can lead to the union
between the material wealthy and the natural wealthy- and, through a
process of intermixing, to the loss of inheritable beauty.
But, this selling of racial beauty ? because this is what you
essentially describe ? is in fact a liberal-capitalist process. Should a
moderate form of state interference not be desired to limit these
processes, and make sure that those rich in natural wealth but poor in
material wealth, should prosper, and those poor in natural wealth should
be stimulated not to procreate?
2.3 Answer: The above section in Destiny of Angels refers to interracial matings rather than to matings within the Nordish race, and especially to the mating of men of various non-Nordish Caucasian racial types to Nordish women who are attracted to their material wealth and social standing. In a monoracial society this problem would not exist.
To maintain a generally positive evolutionary trend it is of course necessary for those of higher quality to reproduce at a higher rate than those of lower quality, but I prefer positive eugenics to negative eugenics, measures to encourage those of higher quality to have more children rather than measures aimed at discouraging the reproduction of those of lower quality. At the present, considering the below replacement level reproductive rate of our race for the last quarter century, what we need is a pro-natalist movement to encourage and promote a general increase in reproduction across all classes. Our problem is not so much that the lower quality elements are having too many children, as their rate is also low, but that our race in general is having too few children, especially those of higher quality. Government should play some role in promoting a pro-natalist environment (and in monitoring and reporting demographic trends), as should all other cultural and social institutions, especially education to increase awareness of the importance of reproductive decisions, but I do not really trust its wisdom to manage the reproduction of the race as much as I trust the wisdom of millions of individual couples. The latter may be far from perfect, but I cannot help believing that the former would be so much worse.
3. RACIST PHILOSOPHY VS. RACIAL NIHILISM
========================================
We?ll now confront you with some of the questions people ask racists.
They are not our questions; we just would like to know how you would
reply to them as they represent some of the common misunderstandings
about racism and the ignorance that is forced upon people by the
dominant altruist-egalitarian ideology.
3.1) ?What does a person?s race matter? Isn?t it much more important
that some one behaves good and means well? Bad people come in all
colors, and so do good people.?
3.1 Answer: This is a common racial nihilist objection to racial preservationism, but this one is easy as I have already answered it. Character and race are two different things, as I wrote in the footnotes of ?Many Mansions:?
?When Martin Luther King remarked in his celebrated ?I have a dream? speech that a person should be judged not by the color of their skin (a minimalist expression for the thousands of genetic differences involved in race) but by the content of their character, he provided a platitude often used by racial nihilists to oppose racial (and especially Nordish) rights, independence and preservation. He also implied a conflict between race and character, as if one necessarily excluded or was inconsistent with the other, an implication reminiscent of the supposed conflict between physical reality and a ?higher? or superior spiritual reality which should be given precedence, with race belonging to the physical realm and character to the spiritual. But they are each part of what we are, each judged or determined by its own proper terms and standards. To assert that racial judgments or determinations should not be made is the position of racial nihilism, which denies racial rights, racial values, and the love of race which promotes racial preservation.
?There is no conflict between race and character, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, and immoral to use character as an argument to justify the violation of the racial right to continued life, existence and preservation, as it is to use claims of a supposed (and perhaps imaginary) ?higher? spiritual reality to promote actions that are destructive of the physical and material reality in which we exist. In fact, one of the primary measures of morality and character should be respect for the rights of others, and this includes respect for the rights of other races, and particularly their right to life. Good character and morality should be consistent with the Golden Rule of live and let live, and therefore inconsistent with the denial or violation of the rights of other races to continued life, preservation and independence.?
In our campaign to secure the preservation and independence of our race, and indeed these same rights for all races, we are the protagonists and our opponents, including those who make such assertions and objections (disguised as questions) as above, are the antagonists. Many of these assertions and objections are nonsensical, logically inconsistent and even incoherent, defying basic assumptions of logic and reason, and thus frustratingly difficult to answer. If the person making these antagonistic assertions is non-Nordish, then one can assume that he is aggressively promoting what he sees as his own racial interests contrary to the most vital rights and interests of the Nordish race. If the person is Nordish one can assume that he is hostile to the most basic interests of his own race, in accordance with the ethics and values of racial nihilism. They have been taught that this is a morally superior position and that all else is intolerably evil. In addition to the quote above, I would answer such assertions essentially as follows:
?To say something matters is to say that it is important and has value. To say something does not matter is to say it is of no importance or value. To say something is the only thing that matters is to say that all else is without importance or value. I act on the presumption that everything that exits ? every part of Creation ? matters, that it has importance and value, and that it is both improper and nihilistic to presume otherwise. This importance and value can be regarded as objective, based on its position and role in Creation, or subjective, based on the sentiments of those who love it, by which standard anything that matters or is important to anyone, that is loved or valued by anyone, is regarded as valuable and important. The continued existence of the Nordish race may not matter to you [addressing the antagonist opponent of Nordish preservation] but it matters to me. You may not value, care for, or love the Nordish race, but I do. You may not consider its existence to matter, to be important, but I do. I know that the ideology of multiracialism says that it is morally wrong to love or value one?s race (especially if one is Nordish), to care for it, regard it as important, or desire its continued existence, well-being and independence, but I consider this ideology ? which you apparently support ? as immoral and destructive, and in the present context particularly destructive of my race. I think there should be a moral presumption in favor of preservation and against destruction, and thus in favor of the conditions that preserve and against the conditions that destroy. By this presumption it is multiracialism that is immoral and my philosophy of racial preservationism that is moral.?
I would like to see every person in a prominent or influential position asked if they love, value and care for the Nordish race, if they consider its existence to matter or be important, if they favor its preservation and support its most vital and legitimate rights and interests, its continued existence and independence. These are questions they have never been asked, and have never had to answer. They would prefer not to, so as not to prematurely alert the Nordish population before it is too late for the destructive course they have set to be reversed. Unlike the antagonist questioner above, they are much more discrete, and much less honest. Therefore, the above question is not likely to be publicly asked of a prominent member of the power structure. Not yet. We typically encounter it at a much more basic level, with little or no audience. I think the extent to which you answer it should depend on the audience. The antagonist questioner is probably not worth the effort (you need to assess this on an individual basis) but you may have an audience that includes people who are worth the effort. Your response should then be made for their sake.
3.2) ?Why do you care if colored-eyed, blond people would disappear?
That will happen after you are dead anyway. Why bother? Things change;
that?s the way things normally go.?
3.2 Answer: The reference to colored-eyed, blond people is an evasive way of referring to the Nordish race, minimizing or trivializing its many unique traits and characteristics by arbitrarily restricting reference to only one or two traits (unless they are merely responding to your own use of these traits as a reason or justification for Nordish preservation, which is why if you use such an argument you should make it clear that you are talking about the preservation of a race, not just some of its traits). People who use such language should be obliged to clarify what they are referring to, and thus admit that they are referring to the Nordish race, not just to certain traits associated with it. So they are really saying no one should care if the Nordish race disappears ? i.e., becomes extinct through replacement and intermixture ? that its existence is not worthy of continuation. Where does the nihilistic reasoning behind this question end? Why should one care about preservation or conservation, about the continued existence of something that exists, that is a part of nature and the universe, whether a rain forest, a class of animals, a race of humanity, or the planet earth itself? The answer, ultimately, is that we value it and consider it important to us for some reason, and if it is an important part of our personal lives the probable answer is that we love it. Do not be afraid or ashamed to say that you love your race and that this is the source of your motivation. In fact, this should be the emphasis of your argument. Your love for your race should be affirmed whenever the subject of its preservation is debated. You can tell such people that you are sorry they do not think the Nordish race is worthy of continued existence, sorry that they do not care about its survival, but that you do because you love it and consider it worth saving.
Regarding the issue of racial preservation, the above question is a very non-committal, even cowardly, form of expression of those unwilling to state their own position. They should be confronted with the necessity of stating their position, of what they prefer or want if given the choice between Nordish preservation or destruction. They should be obliged to answer that question. If they say that, if the choice was theirs to make, they would prefer continued Nordish existence, that is one thing; if they say they would choose Nordish nonexistence, that is quite another thing. You could then turn the tables on them and ask them why, pointing out the general moral presumption in favor of preservation over destruction. Why do they favor Nordish extinction? What is their motive? What possible justification could there be for desiring the disappearance or nonexistence of a human race?
When telling someone that the Nordish race is moving toward extinction I have often heard the comment ?We won?t live to see it? or ?We?ll be dead by then.? This is often a sign of fatalistic resignation, of people who see no way out, no viable alternative, and have been convinced that there is nothing they can do to change our course and therefore accept it as inevitable, adapting to live with this knowledge by accepting it, and telling themselves that what will be lost is of little value and not cause for grief or concern. They do not really want this to happen, but unless they can see a credible alternative they are likely to resent any call to resist it as futile and disturbing. If they say they want the Nordish race to be preserved, then present your alternative ? one that is morally and intellectually acceptable, even preferable, to the present course. If they say they want the Nordish race to be destroyed (usually they are not so honest, and evade the question) there is really very little purpose in continuing the conversation, and certainly almost no hope of converting this person to Nordish preservationism. It might be interesting to ask them if they would care if certain other races were to disappear, if there is any race they wish preserved. If they say no then you have a pure racial nihilist. If they would preserve other races but not the Nordish race then you have unmasked a specifically anti-Nordish strain of racial nihilism, and, if you have an audience, you can probably do no better than to lay it bare, expose it for what it is and describe your alternative. Say that the planet is big enough for all the races of humanity to exist on, as they have for the last 40,000-plus years. No race need disappear. This change they say is normal (and infer is inevitable) ? the disappearance of the Nordish race ? is not necessary, and certainly not normal. There is nothing normal about it. In fact it is completely abnormal. The normality of the last 40,000 years is for the races to each inhabit their own part of the planet, and to be secure in their continued existence in their own homelands. It is the recent abnormal violation of this normality, with other races moving into the Nordish parts of the planet, the Nordish homelands, which is now threatening the Nordish race with destruction. If this violation of normality is corrected, and each race is again secure in its own parts of the planet, all the races of humanity can continue to exist and share the earth together for uncounted millennia to come, and none need disappear.
My first encounter with explicit racial nihilism occurred in my senior year of high school (1967) in my American Institutions social studies class. The teacher, Mr. Schelter, began to preach racial intermixture as the solution to the race problem. I raised my hand and objected that intermixture would cause the extinction of the white race (I used the term ?white? in those days). He replied ?So? What?s so special about the white race?? I was caught by surprise by this nihilistic reply and was not prepared to answer it. Until then I had naively assumed that no responsible or respectable person would knowingly advocate the destruction of my race, or any other race. I assumed that people who supported the conditions and practices that cause racial destruction did so because they were unaware of the consequences, not because they actually desired Nordish destruction. I still think that this is true of the great majority of our race who support multiracialism. Certainly the true consequences are not acknowledged by prominent leaders of the multiracialist establishment, but are evaded or denied. If the power structure behaves in this manner it can be assumed that they are afraid they would lose at least the consensus of public support for their policies if people were generally aware of their racially destructive consequences. Thus establishment leaders do not publicly make the kind of nihilistic remark as the person in this question. At least not yet. And that is itself cause for hope.
3.3) ?Why do you praise this so-called Nordish beauty? There are lot?s
of ugly white people, and there are beautiful non-whites too, so your
esthetic argument is invalid.?
3.3 Answer: The praise of Nordish beauty is, of course, only relevant to those who appreciate it. As a reason or justification for Nordish preservation it is only effective with those who regard Nordish beauty as valuable and important and worth preserving. It is ineffective with those who regard Nordish beauty as being without value or importance. In the end, we will only preserve that which we love, and if the Nordish race is preserved it will be by those who love it, including those who love its beauty. In general, you should not have to justify Nordish preservation on the basis of its beauty (the ?esthetic argument?) or intelligence, as the right of a race to exist should be an absolute principle of morality and not be dependent on its qualities, yet its beauty ? based on appropriate examples (usually well-known celebrities, although your use of them as examples should not imply that they support the preservation of their race, or any of its other interests, as many, if not most, successful celebrities in the current cultural milieu will probably disappoint you in this regard) ? should certainly be mentioned at every opportunity as a reason why it should be valued and loved, and should make clear to any sensible person why its beauty is not interchangeable with, or replaceable by, the beauty of any other race.
When Mr. Schelter asked me what was so special about the white race that it deserved to exist (see response to previous question) he was playing the justification game, the ancient philosophical challenge to justify one?s existence, or the existence of one?s people, on the grounds that one is superior or special, and therefore worthy to exist, by some external measure. But the only measure that counts is internal, it comes from within us. It is we who make something valuable, meaningful, important or special by regarding it so. All value and meaning is determined and bestowed by us. (We are now told that the existence of the Nordish race has no meaning, value or importance, and that it is wrong, immoral and ?racist? for us to think otherwise.) I often think of the justification game as the ?Schelter trap,? the false belief that many fall into that the preservation of the Nordish race must be justified by assertions that it is superior to other races, or conversely by claims that other races are inferior, and that without such superiority it does not deserve to exist. This logical trap assumes that superiority is required to be worthy of existence. Ultimately, the right of our race to exist does not depend on it being superior to any other race in any way, whether in beauty, intelligence, morality or creativity, but on the very fact of its existence and the moral presumption in favor of preserving that which exists, and on the fact that there are many millions of people who love and value it and want its continued existence, whose values and wishes should be treated with full consideration and respect. It is they who give its existence value and meaning and it is by their will that it has the right to exist.
If the person denying the basic rights of the Nordish race to preservation and independence is a member of a non-Nordish race, who is offended that you regard traits which he does not share as valuable and important, angered that you love and hold dear things that are outside of him and of which he is not a part, and insulted that you do not want your race to join with his, become one with it and become what it is, but want it to remain separate and distinct from his, you should tell him that you respect the right of his race to existence and independence in its own homelands, that you would not be offended by his love for his race and its existence, and that you reasonably expect the same consideration from him. Also, you should inform him that the mutual recognition of the right of each race to exist is the essential basis for trust and good will in relations between races, that without such recognition it is better to have no relations at all, and that if he does not respect the most vital and legitimate rights and interests of your race it is you who has the just cause for anger, not him.[/justify]
Interview
In October, 1998 Richard McCulloch was interviewed over the internet by three European correspondents.[/center]
[justify]Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Here are our questions. Feel free to digress as far as you like, and to leave any question you
don?t like unanswered. If you have any additional information we
haven?t specifically asked for, feel free to state it as well.
1. SOME PERSONAL QUESTIONS
==========================
1.1) Can you tell us something about yourself, and where your life-long
interest in the Nordish people comes from? What place has racial
consciousness taken in your life through the years? In other words, how
did you develop your way of thinking and your ability to express this
way of thinking in the great way you do?
1.1 Answer: I wish I knew, but perhaps this degree of self-awareness is denied to us. I can say that it is an irreducible part of what I am, at the very core of my being and identity, as far back as I can remember. I spend a great deal of time thinking about these matters, and with time my thoughts have been refined and my ability to express them improved.
1.2) We are, and other readers might be, curious about your own ethnic
background. Obviously, you are Nordish, but to which branches of the
Nordish race do you trace back your ancestry?
1.2 Answer: Like many Nordish-Americans, my ancestry derives from several of the peoples of northwestern Europe. My two grandfathers? families were old-stock American. My McCulloch ancestors were what we call Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scots, emigrating from the Edinburgh area to Ulster in Northern Ireland in the 1600s, and after 1717 emigrating from there to western Virginia, ending up in 1792 in western Pennsylvania, where they intermarried with many other old-stock American lines of varied Nordish origin (Boyd, Craig, Earhart, etc.). My Dutch, Swedish and Huguenot ancestors (van der Goes, van Nes, van der Vliet, van Arsdalen, Claesen, Anderson, Latourette, etc.) settled in New Netherlands (New York) in the 1630s, moving on in community groups to New Jersey in the 1670s and Illinois in 1836. My two grandmothers? families arrived more recently ? my German grandmother?s family emigrated from Berlin to Detroit in the early 1890s shortly before she was born, and my Norwegian grandmother?s family emigrated from a small town near Trøndheim in 1911 when she was 8 years old, settling in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
1.3) What study did you do? What is the relation of this study to your
racial philosophy?
1.3 Answer: My college major was history, with anthropology my second area of study. This reflected my interests from an early age. The subject matter in my college classes was often almost a review for me of subjects I had already studied. Both areas of study fostered my racial awareness and a wider perspective. My parents purchased a set of The World Book Encyclopedia in 1959, around the time of my 10th birthday, and I remember reading the section on race soon after this. I watched many television documentaries that were informative about recent history. I remember reading H.G. Wells? An Outline of History in 1961-62 when I was 12 or 13 years old, and being struck by a passage in which the author stated that humanity, after thousands of generations of divergence, was apparently changing course in the direction of recoalescence, and realizing the consequences of this development. From my readings in anthropology I learned that if two distinct peoples were found inhabiting the same territory it was assumed that one or both of the peoples was a relatively recent arrival, and that they had not been living together for long, as populations that had lived together for a long time were invariably blended together by intermixture into one population where the distinctions between the ancestral peoples were gradually eliminated. Obviously, awareness of this anthropological principle made the consequences of multiracialization very clear to me, and I began to express my concerns on this matter to my friends and family members while still in my teens. But I was not very effective. Indeed, through my college years I felt rather isolated, not knowing anyone else who shared my racial views (the only ?racist? organizations I knew of were those of the KKK and neo-Nazi variety, whose racial programs were supremacist rather than preservationist), until one day in 1973, while I was a graduate student, that I discovered The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson in a downtown bookstore, and discovered there were others with whom I could connect who were addressing the race issue in a morally and intellectually respectable manner. Robertson?s example inspired me to begin writing about race.
1.4) What interests do you have? We know for instance that you are
interested in the exploration of the solar system ? and beyond. We got
the impression that you have a love for Science Fiction books and
movies.
1.4 Answer: I think my early interest in history went hand in hand with my early interest in Science Fiction, as good, credible Science Fiction seemed almost like an imaginative continuation or projection of the past and present into the future, an extension of history. Some of my earliest reading in both history and Science Fiction was in the form of comic books (I wish I still had them). In adulthood my reading of Science Fiction has decreased, but this has been partially offset by the greatly increased quantity of television and motion picture Science Fiction. From my perspective as a Nordish racial preservationist, there is one particular criticism I have of this genre. By portraying the Nordish race as still existing (apparently in full undiminished form) after several centuries of multiracialism it helps foster the common misconception (indeed, the fatal fallacy) that the Nordish race can continue to exist, even without diminishment, under multiracial conditions. The various Star Trek series as well as Babylon 5 (which reminds me of Tolkien?s ?Lord of the Rings? trilogy in its epic story line) are examples of this. One exception is Arthur Clarke?s Imperial Earth, which I read circa 1970, which is set several centuries in the future when the various white racial types no longer exist due to intermixture. Of course, Clarke mentions this fact almost casually and does not treat it as being of any significance. It was, however, significant to me. I did not finish the book. Another criticism of the Star Trek series is its use of the name ?Ferengi? for the most unattractive, dishonorable and ignoble of its alien races. ?Ferengi? is of course the Islamic World?s name for the Franks, which they used to refer to all Western Europeans. I assume that the people in charge of Star Trek development knew this, and it can be taken as an anti-Nordish insult that reveals their lack of regard for the Nordish race.
The apocalyptic theme that is common to many SciFi films ? from alien invasions and infiltration to ?body snatching? (replacing humans, especially persons in authority, with alien impostors) and meteors ? is strangely analogous to the situation now threatening the Nordish race. Our race is threatened with destruction. Its continued existence is at stake, much as the existence of humanity or the earth is at stake in these films. One particularly apt analogy is to the ?Borg Collective? in Star Trek. We too are threatened with assimilation into the collective (the non-Nordish mass of humanity), and told that our assimilation is inevitable and resistance is futile. Of course, when the humans in these films become aware of their danger they do everything in their power to combat it (Capt. Picard answered the Borg with a resounding ?No!?), as we hope our race will also when it is aware. To seek and welcome the destruction would move the plot into the ?Twilight Zone? genre. At the moment our position is more like the humans in the alien infiltration or ?body snatcher? films, with only a few of us aware of what is happening, and desperately trying to inform our disbelieving brethren.
2. SOME CLARIFICATIONS WANTED
=============================
2.1) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you give a four-fold classification of the Race; there are
4 types: dark, middle, light and ultra-Nordic.
In TNQ [The Nordish Quest], and on your web site you give a much more elaborate system,
which describes the Nordish race as a center with concentric circles
around it, and various subtypes within these circles. Can we assume that
the classification in TIAD should be considered as a sliding scale from
the most outer Nordic types to the most inner, or should we consider it to
be outdated/overruled by the new classification?
2.1 Answer: Consider the dark-through-ultra Nordic classification scheme overruled by the new scheme. The racial boundaries between Nordish (Northern European) and non-Nordish are the same in both classifications. The change is strictly internal within the Nordish group, classifying its various component elements in a more accurate manner. I am sorry to say that until 1985, in spite of all my searching through major university libraries, I had never found a book on race that went much beyond Ripley?s old classification of Europeans into Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans. Usually the only addition was the East Baltic type. Even John Baker?s otherwise excellent book Race, which appeared in 1974, is deficient in this regard. In 1985 I obtained a copy of Carleton Coon?s 1939 work The Races of Europe, which was written as a college text on the subject, and although I have points of disagreement with it, it is by far the most definitive work on the subject with which I am familiar, and represents a line of scholarship that has been neglected and almost forgotten over the last half century. The scheme in The Nordish Quest and my web site can be considered as a slightly modified and updated version of his classification system, synthesized with Baker and others.
2.2) Can you give us any sources / further reading advises on the racial
classifications of Human- and Northernkind, and the racial composition
of the European nations?
2.2 Answer: Unfortunately, the study of the races of humanity has been in disfavor over the last half century, and any serious attempt to study it in an objective manner will likely result in the scholar being branded a racist, probably the most feared epithet in the modern Western world (although not outside the West) and certainly the most feared in the ?politically correct? groves of academia. I have heard that the best work in this area over the last generation has been done in Hungary, but I do not know of any specifics. Other than my own work the best material I am familiar with is that of Baker and Coon mentioned in the previous answer. I am sorry to say that I find much of the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his group to be misleading in its interpretation of the genetic data, which our present culture effectively prevents from being challenged by alternative interpretations.
2.3) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you write that minimizing the interference of the state with
society would be the best way to preserve and improve the race, and that
interference of the state ? i.e. state-capitalism, or socialism ? is a
political-economic system that is far more likely to slow down or
reverse the divergent evolution of the human races. However, in DOA [Destiny of Angels] you
mention there sometimes is a discrepancy between ?internal natural
wealth? and ?external material wealth?, which can lead to the union
between the material wealthy and the natural wealthy- and, through a
process of intermixing, to the loss of inheritable beauty.
But, this selling of racial beauty ? because this is what you
essentially describe ? is in fact a liberal-capitalist process. Should a
moderate form of state interference not be desired to limit these
processes, and make sure that those rich in natural wealth but poor in
material wealth, should prosper, and those poor in natural wealth should
be stimulated not to procreate?
2.3 Answer: The above section in Destiny of Angels refers to interracial matings rather than to matings within the Nordish race, and especially to the mating of men of various non-Nordish Caucasian racial types to Nordish women who are attracted to their material wealth and social standing. In a monoracial society this problem would not exist.
To maintain a generally positive evolutionary trend it is of course necessary for those of higher quality to reproduce at a higher rate than those of lower quality, but I prefer positive eugenics to negative eugenics, measures to encourage those of higher quality to have more children rather than measures aimed at discouraging the reproduction of those of lower quality. At the present, considering the below replacement level reproductive rate of our race for the last quarter century, what we need is a pro-natalist movement to encourage and promote a general increase in reproduction across all classes. Our problem is not so much that the lower quality elements are having too many children, as their rate is also low, but that our race in general is having too few children, especially those of higher quality. Government should play some role in promoting a pro-natalist environment (and in monitoring and reporting demographic trends), as should all other cultural and social institutions, especially education to increase awareness of the importance of reproductive decisions, but I do not really trust its wisdom to manage the reproduction of the race as much as I trust the wisdom of millions of individual couples. The latter may be far from perfect, but I cannot help believing that the former would be so much worse.
3. RACIST PHILOSOPHY VS. RACIAL NIHILISM
========================================
We?ll now confront you with some of the questions people ask racists.
They are not our questions; we just would like to know how you would
reply to them as they represent some of the common misunderstandings
about racism and the ignorance that is forced upon people by the
dominant altruist-egalitarian ideology.
3.1) ?What does a person?s race matter? Isn?t it much more important
that some one behaves good and means well? Bad people come in all
colors, and so do good people.?
3.1 Answer: This is a common racial nihilist objection to racial preservationism, but this one is easy as I have already answered it. Character and race are two different things, as I wrote in the footnotes of ?Many Mansions:?
?When Martin Luther King remarked in his celebrated ?I have a dream? speech that a person should be judged not by the color of their skin (a minimalist expression for the thousands of genetic differences involved in race) but by the content of their character, he provided a platitude often used by racial nihilists to oppose racial (and especially Nordish) rights, independence and preservation. He also implied a conflict between race and character, as if one necessarily excluded or was inconsistent with the other, an implication reminiscent of the supposed conflict between physical reality and a ?higher? or superior spiritual reality which should be given precedence, with race belonging to the physical realm and character to the spiritual. But they are each part of what we are, each judged or determined by its own proper terms and standards. To assert that racial judgments or determinations should not be made is the position of racial nihilism, which denies racial rights, racial values, and the love of race which promotes racial preservation.
?There is no conflict between race and character, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, and immoral to use character as an argument to justify the violation of the racial right to continued life, existence and preservation, as it is to use claims of a supposed (and perhaps imaginary) ?higher? spiritual reality to promote actions that are destructive of the physical and material reality in which we exist. In fact, one of the primary measures of morality and character should be respect for the rights of others, and this includes respect for the rights of other races, and particularly their right to life. Good character and morality should be consistent with the Golden Rule of live and let live, and therefore inconsistent with the denial or violation of the rights of other races to continued life, preservation and independence.?
In our campaign to secure the preservation and independence of our race, and indeed these same rights for all races, we are the protagonists and our opponents, including those who make such assertions and objections (disguised as questions) as above, are the antagonists. Many of these assertions and objections are nonsensical, logically inconsistent and even incoherent, defying basic assumptions of logic and reason, and thus frustratingly difficult to answer. If the person making these antagonistic assertions is non-Nordish, then one can assume that he is aggressively promoting what he sees as his own racial interests contrary to the most vital rights and interests of the Nordish race. If the person is Nordish one can assume that he is hostile to the most basic interests of his own race, in accordance with the ethics and values of racial nihilism. They have been taught that this is a morally superior position and that all else is intolerably evil. In addition to the quote above, I would answer such assertions essentially as follows:
?To say something matters is to say that it is important and has value. To say something does not matter is to say it is of no importance or value. To say something is the only thing that matters is to say that all else is without importance or value. I act on the presumption that everything that exits ? every part of Creation ? matters, that it has importance and value, and that it is both improper and nihilistic to presume otherwise. This importance and value can be regarded as objective, based on its position and role in Creation, or subjective, based on the sentiments of those who love it, by which standard anything that matters or is important to anyone, that is loved or valued by anyone, is regarded as valuable and important. The continued existence of the Nordish race may not matter to you [addressing the antagonist opponent of Nordish preservation] but it matters to me. You may not value, care for, or love the Nordish race, but I do. You may not consider its existence to matter, to be important, but I do. I know that the ideology of multiracialism says that it is morally wrong to love or value one?s race (especially if one is Nordish), to care for it, regard it as important, or desire its continued existence, well-being and independence, but I consider this ideology ? which you apparently support ? as immoral and destructive, and in the present context particularly destructive of my race. I think there should be a moral presumption in favor of preservation and against destruction, and thus in favor of the conditions that preserve and against the conditions that destroy. By this presumption it is multiracialism that is immoral and my philosophy of racial preservationism that is moral.?
I would like to see every person in a prominent or influential position asked if they love, value and care for the Nordish race, if they consider its existence to matter or be important, if they favor its preservation and support its most vital and legitimate rights and interests, its continued existence and independence. These are questions they have never been asked, and have never had to answer. They would prefer not to, so as not to prematurely alert the Nordish population before it is too late for the destructive course they have set to be reversed. Unlike the antagonist questioner above, they are much more discrete, and much less honest. Therefore, the above question is not likely to be publicly asked of a prominent member of the power structure. Not yet. We typically encounter it at a much more basic level, with little or no audience. I think the extent to which you answer it should depend on the audience. The antagonist questioner is probably not worth the effort (you need to assess this on an individual basis) but you may have an audience that includes people who are worth the effort. Your response should then be made for their sake.
3.2) ?Why do you care if colored-eyed, blond people would disappear?
That will happen after you are dead anyway. Why bother? Things change;
that?s the way things normally go.?
3.2 Answer: The reference to colored-eyed, blond people is an evasive way of referring to the Nordish race, minimizing or trivializing its many unique traits and characteristics by arbitrarily restricting reference to only one or two traits (unless they are merely responding to your own use of these traits as a reason or justification for Nordish preservation, which is why if you use such an argument you should make it clear that you are talking about the preservation of a race, not just some of its traits). People who use such language should be obliged to clarify what they are referring to, and thus admit that they are referring to the Nordish race, not just to certain traits associated with it. So they are really saying no one should care if the Nordish race disappears ? i.e., becomes extinct through replacement and intermixture ? that its existence is not worthy of continuation. Where does the nihilistic reasoning behind this question end? Why should one care about preservation or conservation, about the continued existence of something that exists, that is a part of nature and the universe, whether a rain forest, a class of animals, a race of humanity, or the planet earth itself? The answer, ultimately, is that we value it and consider it important to us for some reason, and if it is an important part of our personal lives the probable answer is that we love it. Do not be afraid or ashamed to say that you love your race and that this is the source of your motivation. In fact, this should be the emphasis of your argument. Your love for your race should be affirmed whenever the subject of its preservation is debated. You can tell such people that you are sorry they do not think the Nordish race is worthy of continued existence, sorry that they do not care about its survival, but that you do because you love it and consider it worth saving.
Regarding the issue of racial preservation, the above question is a very non-committal, even cowardly, form of expression of those unwilling to state their own position. They should be confronted with the necessity of stating their position, of what they prefer or want if given the choice between Nordish preservation or destruction. They should be obliged to answer that question. If they say that, if the choice was theirs to make, they would prefer continued Nordish existence, that is one thing; if they say they would choose Nordish nonexistence, that is quite another thing. You could then turn the tables on them and ask them why, pointing out the general moral presumption in favor of preservation over destruction. Why do they favor Nordish extinction? What is their motive? What possible justification could there be for desiring the disappearance or nonexistence of a human race?
When telling someone that the Nordish race is moving toward extinction I have often heard the comment ?We won?t live to see it? or ?We?ll be dead by then.? This is often a sign of fatalistic resignation, of people who see no way out, no viable alternative, and have been convinced that there is nothing they can do to change our course and therefore accept it as inevitable, adapting to live with this knowledge by accepting it, and telling themselves that what will be lost is of little value and not cause for grief or concern. They do not really want this to happen, but unless they can see a credible alternative they are likely to resent any call to resist it as futile and disturbing. If they say they want the Nordish race to be preserved, then present your alternative ? one that is morally and intellectually acceptable, even preferable, to the present course. If they say they want the Nordish race to be destroyed (usually they are not so honest, and evade the question) there is really very little purpose in continuing the conversation, and certainly almost no hope of converting this person to Nordish preservationism. It might be interesting to ask them if they would care if certain other races were to disappear, if there is any race they wish preserved. If they say no then you have a pure racial nihilist. If they would preserve other races but not the Nordish race then you have unmasked a specifically anti-Nordish strain of racial nihilism, and, if you have an audience, you can probably do no better than to lay it bare, expose it for what it is and describe your alternative. Say that the planet is big enough for all the races of humanity to exist on, as they have for the last 40,000-plus years. No race need disappear. This change they say is normal (and infer is inevitable) ? the disappearance of the Nordish race ? is not necessary, and certainly not normal. There is nothing normal about it. In fact it is completely abnormal. The normality of the last 40,000 years is for the races to each inhabit their own part of the planet, and to be secure in their continued existence in their own homelands. It is the recent abnormal violation of this normality, with other races moving into the Nordish parts of the planet, the Nordish homelands, which is now threatening the Nordish race with destruction. If this violation of normality is corrected, and each race is again secure in its own parts of the planet, all the races of humanity can continue to exist and share the earth together for uncounted millennia to come, and none need disappear.
My first encounter with explicit racial nihilism occurred in my senior year of high school (1967) in my American Institutions social studies class. The teacher, Mr. Schelter, began to preach racial intermixture as the solution to the race problem. I raised my hand and objected that intermixture would cause the extinction of the white race (I used the term ?white? in those days). He replied ?So? What?s so special about the white race?? I was caught by surprise by this nihilistic reply and was not prepared to answer it. Until then I had naively assumed that no responsible or respectable person would knowingly advocate the destruction of my race, or any other race. I assumed that people who supported the conditions and practices that cause racial destruction did so because they were unaware of the consequences, not because they actually desired Nordish destruction. I still think that this is true of the great majority of our race who support multiracialism. Certainly the true consequences are not acknowledged by prominent leaders of the multiracialist establishment, but are evaded or denied. If the power structure behaves in this manner it can be assumed that they are afraid they would lose at least the consensus of public support for their policies if people were generally aware of their racially destructive consequences. Thus establishment leaders do not publicly make the kind of nihilistic remark as the person in this question. At least not yet. And that is itself cause for hope.
3.3) ?Why do you praise this so-called Nordish beauty? There are lot?s
of ugly white people, and there are beautiful non-whites too, so your
esthetic argument is invalid.?
3.3 Answer: The praise of Nordish beauty is, of course, only relevant to those who appreciate it. As a reason or justification for Nordish preservation it is only effective with those who regard Nordish beauty as valuable and important and worth preserving. It is ineffective with those who regard Nordish beauty as being without value or importance. In the end, we will only preserve that which we love, and if the Nordish race is preserved it will be by those who love it, including those who love its beauty. In general, you should not have to justify Nordish preservation on the basis of its beauty (the ?esthetic argument?) or intelligence, as the right of a race to exist should be an absolute principle of morality and not be dependent on its qualities, yet its beauty ? based on appropriate examples (usually well-known celebrities, although your use of them as examples should not imply that they support the preservation of their race, or any of its other interests, as many, if not most, successful celebrities in the current cultural milieu will probably disappoint you in this regard) ? should certainly be mentioned at every opportunity as a reason why it should be valued and loved, and should make clear to any sensible person why its beauty is not interchangeable with, or replaceable by, the beauty of any other race.
When Mr. Schelter asked me what was so special about the white race that it deserved to exist (see response to previous question) he was playing the justification game, the ancient philosophical challenge to justify one?s existence, or the existence of one?s people, on the grounds that one is superior or special, and therefore worthy to exist, by some external measure. But the only measure that counts is internal, it comes from within us. It is we who make something valuable, meaningful, important or special by regarding it so. All value and meaning is determined and bestowed by us. (We are now told that the existence of the Nordish race has no meaning, value or importance, and that it is wrong, immoral and ?racist? for us to think otherwise.) I often think of the justification game as the ?Schelter trap,? the false belief that many fall into that the preservation of the Nordish race must be justified by assertions that it is superior to other races, or conversely by claims that other races are inferior, and that without such superiority it does not deserve to exist. This logical trap assumes that superiority is required to be worthy of existence. Ultimately, the right of our race to exist does not depend on it being superior to any other race in any way, whether in beauty, intelligence, morality or creativity, but on the very fact of its existence and the moral presumption in favor of preserving that which exists, and on the fact that there are many millions of people who love and value it and want its continued existence, whose values and wishes should be treated with full consideration and respect. It is they who give its existence value and meaning and it is by their will that it has the right to exist.
If the person denying the basic rights of the Nordish race to preservation and independence is a member of a non-Nordish race, who is offended that you regard traits which he does not share as valuable and important, angered that you love and hold dear things that are outside of him and of which he is not a part, and insulted that you do not want your race to join with his, become one with it and become what it is, but want it to remain separate and distinct from his, you should tell him that you respect the right of his race to existence and independence in its own homelands, that you would not be offended by his love for his race and its existence, and that you reasonably expect the same consideration from him. Also, you should inform him that the mutual recognition of the right of each race to exist is the essential basis for trust and good will in relations between races, that without such recognition it is better to have no relations at all, and that if he does not respect the most vital and legitimate rights and interests of your race it is you who has the just cause for anger, not him.[/justify]
[justify]3.4) ?Isn?t it a fact that in the Middle Ages the Arab world was more
powerful, more advanced and more scientific than the Western world?
Doesn?t this make your assumption of the Nordish Race as the ?Race of
Creators? invalid??
3.4 Answer: This question is not really relevant to the issue of racial preservation, and if it is asked it is probably because the questioner assumes, rightly or wrongly, that you are justifying your call for Nordish preservation on the assertion that it is the ?Race of Creators.? You should not let your expressions of praise for your race, lauding its virtues, beauty and achievements, however legitimate and well-deserved, be mistaken as your justification for its preservation, which would imply that you believe the right of a race to exist is dependent on such considerations.
That said, and addressing the question on its merits, and as not relevant to the issue of racial preservation, Lawrence Brown, in his 1963 book The Might of the West, answers it very well. Empirical science was a unique creation of the Western World, beginning in the Middle Ages with those thinkers, such as Roger Bacon, who laid its metaphysical foundations. Arab physics was what Brown calls ?the physics of magic,? of the alchemist looking for the philosopher?s stone or other magical powers, and its influence on the West in this area was harmful. As for power, certainly by the beginnings of the Crusades it was the West that was on the strategic offensive, exercising the dominant role, and the Arab world that was on the defensive, in which they were ultimately successful as the West refocused its energies on its internal struggles. When one looks at the science and engineering and technology that characterizes the modern world it is all essentially a creation of the West, adopted by the other peoples of humanity. Even with the diffusion of Western knowledge among the very capable peoples of northeast Asia, most notably Japan, the primary creation of new technology still occurs in the West, with the other peoples engaging in secondary creation, the further development or refinement of technology the West started. While the proportionate role of the Nordish race in the Classical world is more difficult to determine, certainly since the Middle Ages the Nordish race has clearly been the dominant racial element in the development of the West.
3.5) ?Even if there would be differences in development, in intelligence
etc., what would they matter? Isn?t this race mixing, this global coming
together part of our destiny? It would make a better world?
3.5 Answer: Destiny? Destiny is not preordained or determined by some external force. It is determined by us, by our choice, for which we are responsible. This question is another example of the attempt to portray the destruction of the Nordish race as inevitable, as something beyond our control caused by some external power, and thus evading the responsibility of our own actions and choices, which are the true determining force of the future. A better world? Why is one mixed race better for the world than the many distinct races that now exist and have existed on this world for tens of thousands of years? Specifically, why would the world be better without the existence of the Nordish race? Is not the planet big enough for all of its children, a house of many mansions? It has been for tens of thousands of years. Why should we change this? And make no mistake, if it does change it is humans and their actions that change it. It is a matter of human action, of human choice and decision, not of destiny or anything else outside of us. We can choose between the continued existence of the different races or their blending into one mixed race. In actual practice rather than theory, for the foreseeable future this is really a choice between the continued existence of the Nordish race in its homelands or its replacement by a hybridized African-Asian-European population in which the European element will be genetically submerged (and therefore effectively extinct or destroyed), while the non-European races will continue to exist in their own homelands.
3.6) ?You and your believers have lost so many battles during the last
50 years that the war must be practically lost. Your enemy, the
proponents of multiculturalism, enjoys an almost total dominance. The
race mixing and the assimilation process has gone so far that a reversal
of this development would cause far more pain and discomfort than what
the northern peoples, who have grown very comfortable lately, could
endure. So why do you bother? What makes you think you can change the
world and in such a drastic manner too??
3.6 Answer: Drastic? The extinction of the Nordish race would be a far more drastic change of the world than the restoration of the normal condition of racial separation. What makes the proponents of Nordish extinction think they can do this, or should do this? This seems to be another version of the claim of inevitability, that resistance is futile. Of course, if people can be made to believe this is true then it is likely to become the truth, as they will lose the will to resist.
As far as the war being practically lost, the fact is that we have not yet begun to fight. There has thus far been no significant Nordish opposition to multiracialism and the forces of racial destruction it has set in motion. This is because, so far, most Nordish people are still ignorant of what is at stake, still do not realize or understand what is happening, are still unaware of the consequences of multiracialist policies. Sometimes when you mention these consequences you hear the racial nihilist responses and questions listed here, but much more often you see and hear expressions of disbelief and incomprehension. Even many intelligent and thoughtful people, even supposed experts on the race problem, cannot understand or comprehend the fact that racial preservation requires reproductive isolation from other races, which requires racial separation. They do not understand what any competent anthropologist should know (and our antagonist questioners know) ? that races sharing the same territory will eventually mix together into one race. No prominent scholar, political leader, journalist or media figure will admit to such knowledge or acknowledge this fact in public. Not yet. Nor have they in the past. When the governments of the Nordish countries began their policies of multiracialization they did not publicly declare that the ultimate consequence would be the destruction and replacement of the Nordish peoples in their homelands. If the political, economic and cultural establishment leaders who promoted this policy were aware of its consequences, which any competent anthropologist could have told them if they lacked the wit to see for themselves, they certainly did not publicly acknowledge it. Instead, there has been a long record of dissimulation, disinformation, evasion and obfuscation on this matter, a practice that has been so effective that they have never been publicly challenged or questioned on it, so they have not even had to bother to deny it.
The battle for the preservation of the Nordish race has not yet begun, and it will not truly begin until the Nordish people are fully enlightened and informed about what has happened, is happening, and what will happen on the present course, until they are completely aware of their situation, including the fact that it is not inevitable, and that there are alternatives they can choose other than those given them by the multiracialist establishment. Without awareness of all the alternatives and their consequences, without all the relevant information and knowledge, they cannot make an informed choice or decision, and thus far they have not been informed, but have been controlled in a state of ignorance. If the questioner thinks the battle for Nordish preservation is already lost, then challenge him to share this belief publicly, to declare it in a public forum (if the editor will let him) or put it in writing and sign his name to it. If he does it will only help us to overcome the disbelief and incomprehension we most typically encounter in our efforts to make our people more aware. Of course, if he is a person of no prominence (as is typical of those who publicly acknowledge and support the consequences of multiracialism) his words will have little influence. The fact that the prominent and important people who promote multiracialism do not publicly say or admit what this questioner does is our best assurance that we have not yet lost, that our race can still be saved from the destruction they have planned for it if the Nordish people become aware of the situation and the possible alternatives, and that they know this, and fear it, and this is the reason for their silence, evasion and denials.
What kind of pain and discomfort does the questioner mean? Physical pain and discomfort from movements of population to restore the normal and natural condition of racial separation and reproductive isolation required for racial preservation? Tens of millions of people move great distances around this planet every year without physical pain or discomfort. In fact, many millions do it for pleasure. We call them tourists. Modern transportation technology has reduced the discomfort of travel or movement to the point where it is almost solely a matter of attitude. Emotional pain and discomfort? We should of course do everything within reason to minimize this. But this sounds like a claim that it is already too late to save the Nordish race, that the process of multiracialization has already gone too far, so we should give up and accept its destruction and replacement. This is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the multiracialists, and more than a little hypocritical, that after minimizing the effects of multiracialism for so many years as a harmless exercise in humanitarianism they should now exaggerate its effects as the reason to claim that the destruction of the Nordish race must now be accepted as irreversible. Of course, the process has not yet gone too far to be reversed. The Nordish race still exists in essentially full and undiminished form. But time is not on our side. Every year the situation worsens and the extent of racial harm and loss increases. So the questioner?s remarks should be taken as reason why we must not delay or fail in our efforts, or before too long his words will be true.
4. REALIZING RACIST [i.e., Racial Preservationist] PHILOSOPHY ? TOWARDS PANNORDICA
===================================================
These questions are about how your philosophy can be realized.
4.1) Do you think Ethnostates are a realistic option? In what time? What
are the requirements to set the process of constructing these states in
motion?
4.1 Answer: If by ethnostates you mean the separation of the races into their own independent countries or nation-states, you are referring to the condition required for racial preservation and independence. If they are not a realistic option then racial preservation and independence is not a realistic option. Abraham Lincoln said that no matter how difficult the task, where there is a will there is a way. Certainly it is realistic. As far as the physical capability is concerned, it is very realistic. The races can be separated at least as easily as they were brought together. The question is solely one of human will. If we want and desire ethnostates, if this is our will, then we will have them. The requirement to set the process of constructing them in motion is to let people know they are possible, that they are an alternative, and that they are necessary for racial preservation, thus creating a general will, a consensus of purpose, within our race to realize them.
4.2) Do you think the non-Nordic immigrants in the ancient Nordic
Racelands (i.e. Europe) can be persuaded to leave in peace? What are the
requirements to set this process in motion? What help should we, of
course from a pragmatic point of view, offer them? How large is the
chance it would result in violent conflicts (like Bosnia)?
4.2 Answer: I think the response of the non-Nordish peoples in the Nordish countries to Nordish preservationism will depend in part on their recognition of its moral correctness, and in part on the extent of support the preservationist movement enjoys within the Nordish race itself. The stronger the support within the Nordish race for preservationism the greater the degree of recognition and acceptance it is likely to be given by the non-Nordish peoples. If it achieves majority support within the Nordish race its legitimacy as the expression of the Nordish will would be undeniable and the moral credibility of multiracialism, and the supposed consensus that supports it, would be destroyed. Our hopes for a peaceful resolution of this problem will depend on respecting the legitimate rights and interests of the other races, treating them fairly, providing them with a situation in which their vital rights and interests are not threatened, and by making it clear that preservationist separation is supported by the resolute will of the Nordish race, from which it will not deviate. As we educate members of our own race regarding the reasons for separation, that it is imperative for racial preservation, we will also hopefully educate many members of the other races. If they can be made to understand our motive or reason for seeking separation from them is not to cause them harm, but to secure our continued existence, our most vital and legitimate right and interest, and that this is morally right and proper, and that we have good will toward them, mean them no harm but wish them well, and respect their legitimate rights and interests, certainly some, and hopefully many, among them will do what is right and give us their support. We should do everything within reason to maximize support and minimize opposition, by reducing the reasons or justifications for resistance, not only within our own race, but among the other races also. Certainly the more support we have from the other races in this undertaking the easier it will be, and the better will be the relations between the races afterwards.
4.3) At the beginning of DOA [Destiny of Angels] you state that deterrence without a real
capability to withstand hostile aggression from outside is not enough to
secure the interests of the Race. What if the Racial Golden Rule is not
accepted by all other races, or if it is accepted only by Northerners?
If one or more races are not content with having the wealth supply from
the North cut off and begin to rearm and express hostility towards the
North and thereby acquire a capability to strike through the defensive
measures of the North, how would the North respond to such a threat, or
potential threat?
4.3 Answer: It would of course be better if the principles of racial relations expressed by the Racial Compact and the Racial Golden Rule were implemented multilaterally rather than unilaterally, but we should be prepared to implement them unilaterally for the protection of our own interests if necessary. Recognition of the right of each race to exist is the necessary basis for trust and good will in the relations between races. Any race which refused to recognize, and act in accordance with, this right should not be permitted to prevent or interfere with the achievement of our goal of racial preservation and independence. If the Nordish race can achieve its independence united and with its strength intact, it should be capable of defending itself against external threats.
4.4) Are there any organizations today that come close to your
philosophy? Which organizations are closest? Have you been able to exert
any influence to change and broaden the mindset of any organizations or
other political forces?
4.5 Answer: I do not know of any existing organization that approaches my philosophy. I presume such an organization remains to be created. Most existing racialist organizations, and those who belong to them, have an existing mindset which is difficult to change. The problem is that this mindset is often a part of our problem, as it is a mindset that does not appeal to the great majority of our race, but rather alienates and repels most of the high quality people, as well as the masses of more ordinary people, we must attract if we are to gain the broad popular support we need to save our race. Often their goals and methods are such that they do not openly acknowledge them as they would instantly alienate all but the most fanatical supporters. This shapes their strategic outlook, causing them to accept as conventional wisdom the assumption that conditions for our race will have to get much worse before they are likely to attract a wide degree of support, as people would have to be terribly desperate or enraged to accept their program. This makes them dependent on external events, on something outside themselves and beyond their control, on something that will make large numbers of our race terribly desperate, on something that will probably never happen or happen only when it is too late, when the situation of the Nordish race has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer capable of saving itself. This tends to engender a passive rather than active stance, as they assume there is little they can do until hoped for external events change the situation. They do not consider changing their program, the alternative they offer, to make it an alternative people can accept now, under present conditions, as preferable to the present multiracialist course. To use a metaphor, the patient will have to be very sick indeed before he will accept the medicine they offer as a cure. If they offered a medicine that was palatable they would not meet such resistance from the patient, and might be able to save him before he dies.
4.5) The organization which, according to some, is the most progressive
and forceful today, is the National Alliance. How do you regard them?
How do you regard Dr. William Pierce and his strategic outlook? The
chapter Right and Wrong Racism from TRC [The Racial Compact] can certainly not be used to
describe the Alliance?s outlook on racial relations.
4.5 Answer: I cannot claim to speak for Dr. Pierce, so I would not presume to attribute ideas to him that I have not seen explicitly expressed in his writing. Regarding his strategic outlook, he is one of those who have expressed the conventional racialist wisdom (as noted in my response to the previous question) that conditions will have to get much worse before he expects his movement to gather wide support. If his cure is similar to the course he describes in his novel The Turner Diaries conditions would have to get very bad indeed, perhaps even as bad as he imagines in his novel, before many would be willing to support it. I for one certainly hope that the situation of our race never comes to such desperate straits, where such extreme and desperate measures are taken by such desperate men and women.
4.6) What are the major weaknesses of those organizations and forces
opposed to the currently dominant multiculturalist power structure?
4.6 Answer: I think my responses to the previous two questions provide part of the answer for this question as well, but I will elaborate. One common weakness or flaw I find in many organizations is that they do not adequately recognize the primary problem ? that the issue is nothing less than racial survival, that the continued existence of our race is at stake ? and this causes them to greatly understate the severity of our problem and the measures necessary to correct it. These organizations either evade or deny the reality of this problem ? in which they essentially echo the multiracialist power structure itself ? or they belittle it as not likely to be of serious concern for the foreseeable future. They therefore concentrate their attentions on the lesser or secondary problems of multiracialism, which can theoretically be solved by means other than separation. Obviously, as they do not recognize the primary problem confronting the Nordish race from multiracialism, but effectively ignore it, they do not propose an alternative that would provide a solution to it. As far as racial preservationism is concerned, they do not address the issue and have no message to offer. They are still in the dark, still unaware, still clueless, about what is happening to their race. They cannot see that the issue is nothing less than the continued existence of their race. In this they are similar to the majority of their race as a whole, and it might help wake them to the real situation if they were introduced to some of the people who ask the kind of nihilist questions I answered above in section 3.
A subset of this type of organization is one that claims to support racial preservation, and even says its advocates separation, but proposes as a solution an alternative that is inadequate, where the races are either not separated geographically into their own countries and governments, but only by voluntary social arrangements, or where only a survivalist fraction of the race is separated into a small homeland while the great majority of the race is left to perish from the consequences of multiracialism. Such proposals are perhaps hampered by an effort to conform to individualist libertarian sensibilities, but they are inadequate to achieve racial preservation and independence, and represent another attempt to evade the true extent of the problem.
Another type of organization, which the multiracialist power structure typically claims represents the only form of racial thought, which all racialist thinkers supposedly adhere to regardless of what they might say to the contrary, is that of the supremacist or even genocidal variety. This type does not recognize or respect the rights or interests of other races. It may recognize the seriousness of the situation, but does not recognize the fact that racial preservation does not require measures that cause harm to other races, and that it therefore certainly cannot be used to justify such harm. The measures they advocate are typically violent and harsh, and not necessary for preservationist purposes, and thus apparently motivated by and serving some other purpose. They often identify themselves with ?Nazism? (National Socialism), a nationalist political movement that violated the rights of other nations and races, and whose actions were in no way related to the legitimate goals of racial preservation. Such organizations are now commonly called ?hate groups,? and this term often has some validity when applied to them. The multiracialists claim that all racialist thought, even advocacy of racial preservation and racial rights, really belongs to this category, as they refuse to recognize the possible existence of alternative forms of racialism that are morally and intellectually credible and capable of attracting broad popular support. Unfortunately, they have been very successful at this, and are actually assisted by the activities of these racialist organizations and their members, who are widely perceived as the only representatives of racialist thought and action, but who in fact only do their race a great disservice, and the multiracialists a great service, by alienating the great majority of their race from pro-racial values. Most people know of nothing else, so the multiracialists are able to claim that these groups represent the only alternative to their policies, and equate any resistance or opposition to, or disagreement with, their policies with support for the policies of these groups. Thus the slightest expression of opposition to the multiracialist program can cause the speaker to be associated with Nazism and its crimes. Under such a blackout of racial information, where people know of no alternative to multiracialism and its consequences other than the quasi-Nazi groups, it is common for those who are most determined to oppose multiracialism to join these groups. We need to provide another alternative, another choice, a constructive course of action for those who want to save the Nordish race.
I would summarize by saying that the racial activist organizations I know of either have not adopted a comprehensive preservationist philosophy that outlines an adequate preservationist alternative, or they have not adopted one that is in accord with the moral sensibilities and values of the majority of our race, which is required to attract the broad popular support needed if we are to have any realistic chance of saving our race from the destructive effects of multiracialism.
4.7) Are there any non-Nordish / non-White countries or organizations
you know off that could be expected to welcome the philosophy of The
Racial Compact? For instance, Japan, or the Nation of Islam?
4.7 Answer: Most of the non-European peoples of the world already follow policies that are in their racial interest, although they might not express these policies in a formal racialist philosophy. I suspect many Japanese would broadly agree with the principles of the Racial Compact. The Nation of Islam talks about racial separation and independence but I do not know how firm their support for this would be if really given a choice. That choice would separate the true Black Nationalists from those who are only jiving.
5. THE PROMOTION OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY
===================================
5.1) In your books you express your philosophical outlook, but can you
say something about your strategical outlook? How shall we win the
hearts and minds of the Nordish people, how should the message be conveyed and
how can we find and reach out to the right people?
5.1 Answer: We need to reach people with our message by whatever means we can think of and whatever means are available. I started with books and magazine articles, both of very limited distribution. Now the internet is available so I am on-line, and I hope it will prove a great medium of communication for our cause. With sufficient people to do the work, pamphlets and leaflets are also a useful tool. We should use every means that we can. But first we must have the right message, or all our efforts will be futile and ineffective.
Our efforts should be ultimately geared toward political action. Election campaigns are great educational tools. Our mission is to convince our people to vote for the salvation, the continued existence, the preservation and independence, of their race. Thus simply stated, this seems like it should be a ?no-brainer,? absurdly simple, yet in our current near ?Twilight Zone? type of situation it is perilously difficult, so much so that many say it is already too late. To achieve this mission we must first establish our moral and intellectual credibility and integrity in the minds of the electorate. We must make them aware both of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism, the present course, and the preservationist alternative that we offer, which we should describe in as much detail as is reasonably possible. This will define our position, which we must do for ourselves or we can be sure our opponents ? masters of disinformation ? will be happy to do it for us, much to our disfavor. Our position might displease many people, especially at first when they have not yet thought through the alternatives, but it will be much more favorable to us than the position the opposition will try to ascribe to us. We should promote the Charter of Racial Rights, making it clear that our movement respects and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all the other races and means them no harm, that we are against the legitimate rights of no race, that we want the same consideration from other races for our legitimate rights, that we do not want those who think otherwise to be part of our movement, and that any who behave otherwise will be excluded. We must make it clear that we condemn acts of illegal violence and terrorism, and that such acts do not promote the preservationist cause.
We should gain control of the issues by making our issue the defining issue that must be addressed and answered by every politician and public figure, compelling them to state their position on the question of Nordish racial preservation and independence, permitting no evasion or denial, no place for them to hide from the issue any longer. Those anti-Nordish racial nihilists of lesser prominence who have antagonized us with their explicit calls for the extinction of our race will then prove to be a source of embarrassment for their more prominent co-nihilists, as their careless language will come back to haunt them and undermine their efforts to deny the consequences of the course they have set us on. Eventually, when a sufficient level of situational awareness is achieved by the public, the position of the multiracialist power structure will be morally and intellectually discredited, and its consensus of general support will dissolve. That, at least, is what I would like to see happen. There is a saying that if you build a church the people will come to fill it. We must build a movement on a good foundation, on the right message, a comprehensive philosophy of racial relations, and then hope that the right people, good people, will come to fill it.
5.2) How many copies of your books have been printed and sold?
5.2 Answer: Not nearly enough! Books are very expensive, especially for someone like myself who has limited resources. They are also difficult to distribute, especially if you cannot afford to advertise. Although I am a dedicated bibliophile, and nothing can replace the tangible physical experience of a book, the internet is much cheaper, and if we use it well, it will hopefully enable us to break through the distribution barriers faced by books.
5.3) What kind of, and how many, responses to your books do you get?
5.3 Answer: One difference between the internet and books ? the responses I get from book readers is nearly always very positive, while the responses to my website are divided fairly evenly between pro and con. Some of the con responses are very interesting and informative in revealing the opposition thought processes, others are from ?flamers? who are often so hostile they cannot express their argument in a rational or civil manner. Some responses are ?off the wall? and quite eccentric, but this applies to some of the book readers as well.
5.4) Thus far, none of us know of your work being especially featured by
racial preservationist organizations ? it could be and should be much
wider known! How is the dissemination of your writings and philosophy
going and what strata seem most susceptible?
5.4 Answer: The seeds are being sown, and some are bearing fruit, but it is a painfully slow process with very limited resources. Generally, the most susceptible strata consists of highly intelligent and aware people who share one essential trait in common ? the continued existence and well-being of their race is important to them. They are those who love their race and care about its future, which is what one would expect. But thus far only a tiny fraction of even that strata has any awareness of my philosophy.
5.5) What kind of assistance would you most warmly welcome? What do you
think could cause a major breakthrough of this philosophy in important
segments?
5.5 Answer: All kinds of assistance would be welcome, all contributions gladly accepted. We need all the resources we can get, without forgetting that what we are really after is people, and that all other resources are merely a means to reach and hopefully get more people. It all boils down to a matter of people, of people supporting with their contributions, time, effort and votes the continued existence of their race. Every person we get to support our cause is a breakthrough. A major breakthrough would involve getting the support of a major person, a person of important standing who would attract publicity and create legitimacy. For me personally the ultimate assistance would be acquiring the means to devote all my time to the preservationist cause rather than spending most of my time having to work for a living. We will not really have a movement until it can afford to support a group of dedicated full-time activists and spokespeople.
5.6) The Charter of Racial Rights that you designed seems like it could
be promoted very well in our contemporary society (as the way it is
shaped ? a declaration of human rights ? is something the altruist
egalitarian, anti-Nordish forces within western civilization, are not
trained to deal with immediately, although we can be sure that at one
point they?ll come up with some counteroffensive). But what strategy do you
think would be best to promote it? Could it be sent to certain
institutions, and/or organizations, and/or individuals (and of course
which institutions / organizations / individuals) ?
5.6 Answer: It was designed to stand alone and be easily understood by most people, appealing to their most basic sense of what is fair and good. It can be nailed to a door like Luther?s theses, stuck on a wall, passed out to passersby, read aloud at a meeting, mailed to just about anyone, or posted on a website. It would be interesting to see how the multiracialists might attempt to counter it, but that does not worry me. I am much more concerned that they will ignore it, that the culture will ignore it, and not enough people will learn of it to create a critical mass sufficient to have an effect. That is their most likely means of countering it.
6. THE NEAR FUTURE
==================
6.1) Are you, apart from the additional articles on your web site,
working on anything specific now? A new book maybe? Is there one
planned?
6.1 Answer: A book is a major project in terms of both time and other resources, and most critically of all, of ideas. I do not have a book in the works at this time, but I am developing some ideas for new articles, which I will put on my website.
Richard McCulloch
October 30, 1998[/justify]
powerful, more advanced and more scientific than the Western world?
Doesn?t this make your assumption of the Nordish Race as the ?Race of
Creators? invalid??
3.4 Answer: This question is not really relevant to the issue of racial preservation, and if it is asked it is probably because the questioner assumes, rightly or wrongly, that you are justifying your call for Nordish preservation on the assertion that it is the ?Race of Creators.? You should not let your expressions of praise for your race, lauding its virtues, beauty and achievements, however legitimate and well-deserved, be mistaken as your justification for its preservation, which would imply that you believe the right of a race to exist is dependent on such considerations.
That said, and addressing the question on its merits, and as not relevant to the issue of racial preservation, Lawrence Brown, in his 1963 book The Might of the West, answers it very well. Empirical science was a unique creation of the Western World, beginning in the Middle Ages with those thinkers, such as Roger Bacon, who laid its metaphysical foundations. Arab physics was what Brown calls ?the physics of magic,? of the alchemist looking for the philosopher?s stone or other magical powers, and its influence on the West in this area was harmful. As for power, certainly by the beginnings of the Crusades it was the West that was on the strategic offensive, exercising the dominant role, and the Arab world that was on the defensive, in which they were ultimately successful as the West refocused its energies on its internal struggles. When one looks at the science and engineering and technology that characterizes the modern world it is all essentially a creation of the West, adopted by the other peoples of humanity. Even with the diffusion of Western knowledge among the very capable peoples of northeast Asia, most notably Japan, the primary creation of new technology still occurs in the West, with the other peoples engaging in secondary creation, the further development or refinement of technology the West started. While the proportionate role of the Nordish race in the Classical world is more difficult to determine, certainly since the Middle Ages the Nordish race has clearly been the dominant racial element in the development of the West.
3.5) ?Even if there would be differences in development, in intelligence
etc., what would they matter? Isn?t this race mixing, this global coming
together part of our destiny? It would make a better world?
3.5 Answer: Destiny? Destiny is not preordained or determined by some external force. It is determined by us, by our choice, for which we are responsible. This question is another example of the attempt to portray the destruction of the Nordish race as inevitable, as something beyond our control caused by some external power, and thus evading the responsibility of our own actions and choices, which are the true determining force of the future. A better world? Why is one mixed race better for the world than the many distinct races that now exist and have existed on this world for tens of thousands of years? Specifically, why would the world be better without the existence of the Nordish race? Is not the planet big enough for all of its children, a house of many mansions? It has been for tens of thousands of years. Why should we change this? And make no mistake, if it does change it is humans and their actions that change it. It is a matter of human action, of human choice and decision, not of destiny or anything else outside of us. We can choose between the continued existence of the different races or their blending into one mixed race. In actual practice rather than theory, for the foreseeable future this is really a choice between the continued existence of the Nordish race in its homelands or its replacement by a hybridized African-Asian-European population in which the European element will be genetically submerged (and therefore effectively extinct or destroyed), while the non-European races will continue to exist in their own homelands.
3.6) ?You and your believers have lost so many battles during the last
50 years that the war must be practically lost. Your enemy, the
proponents of multiculturalism, enjoys an almost total dominance. The
race mixing and the assimilation process has gone so far that a reversal
of this development would cause far more pain and discomfort than what
the northern peoples, who have grown very comfortable lately, could
endure. So why do you bother? What makes you think you can change the
world and in such a drastic manner too??
3.6 Answer: Drastic? The extinction of the Nordish race would be a far more drastic change of the world than the restoration of the normal condition of racial separation. What makes the proponents of Nordish extinction think they can do this, or should do this? This seems to be another version of the claim of inevitability, that resistance is futile. Of course, if people can be made to believe this is true then it is likely to become the truth, as they will lose the will to resist.
As far as the war being practically lost, the fact is that we have not yet begun to fight. There has thus far been no significant Nordish opposition to multiracialism and the forces of racial destruction it has set in motion. This is because, so far, most Nordish people are still ignorant of what is at stake, still do not realize or understand what is happening, are still unaware of the consequences of multiracialist policies. Sometimes when you mention these consequences you hear the racial nihilist responses and questions listed here, but much more often you see and hear expressions of disbelief and incomprehension. Even many intelligent and thoughtful people, even supposed experts on the race problem, cannot understand or comprehend the fact that racial preservation requires reproductive isolation from other races, which requires racial separation. They do not understand what any competent anthropologist should know (and our antagonist questioners know) ? that races sharing the same territory will eventually mix together into one race. No prominent scholar, political leader, journalist or media figure will admit to such knowledge or acknowledge this fact in public. Not yet. Nor have they in the past. When the governments of the Nordish countries began their policies of multiracialization they did not publicly declare that the ultimate consequence would be the destruction and replacement of the Nordish peoples in their homelands. If the political, economic and cultural establishment leaders who promoted this policy were aware of its consequences, which any competent anthropologist could have told them if they lacked the wit to see for themselves, they certainly did not publicly acknowledge it. Instead, there has been a long record of dissimulation, disinformation, evasion and obfuscation on this matter, a practice that has been so effective that they have never been publicly challenged or questioned on it, so they have not even had to bother to deny it.
The battle for the preservation of the Nordish race has not yet begun, and it will not truly begin until the Nordish people are fully enlightened and informed about what has happened, is happening, and what will happen on the present course, until they are completely aware of their situation, including the fact that it is not inevitable, and that there are alternatives they can choose other than those given them by the multiracialist establishment. Without awareness of all the alternatives and their consequences, without all the relevant information and knowledge, they cannot make an informed choice or decision, and thus far they have not been informed, but have been controlled in a state of ignorance. If the questioner thinks the battle for Nordish preservation is already lost, then challenge him to share this belief publicly, to declare it in a public forum (if the editor will let him) or put it in writing and sign his name to it. If he does it will only help us to overcome the disbelief and incomprehension we most typically encounter in our efforts to make our people more aware. Of course, if he is a person of no prominence (as is typical of those who publicly acknowledge and support the consequences of multiracialism) his words will have little influence. The fact that the prominent and important people who promote multiracialism do not publicly say or admit what this questioner does is our best assurance that we have not yet lost, that our race can still be saved from the destruction they have planned for it if the Nordish people become aware of the situation and the possible alternatives, and that they know this, and fear it, and this is the reason for their silence, evasion and denials.
What kind of pain and discomfort does the questioner mean? Physical pain and discomfort from movements of population to restore the normal and natural condition of racial separation and reproductive isolation required for racial preservation? Tens of millions of people move great distances around this planet every year without physical pain or discomfort. In fact, many millions do it for pleasure. We call them tourists. Modern transportation technology has reduced the discomfort of travel or movement to the point where it is almost solely a matter of attitude. Emotional pain and discomfort? We should of course do everything within reason to minimize this. But this sounds like a claim that it is already too late to save the Nordish race, that the process of multiracialization has already gone too far, so we should give up and accept its destruction and replacement. This is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the multiracialists, and more than a little hypocritical, that after minimizing the effects of multiracialism for so many years as a harmless exercise in humanitarianism they should now exaggerate its effects as the reason to claim that the destruction of the Nordish race must now be accepted as irreversible. Of course, the process has not yet gone too far to be reversed. The Nordish race still exists in essentially full and undiminished form. But time is not on our side. Every year the situation worsens and the extent of racial harm and loss increases. So the questioner?s remarks should be taken as reason why we must not delay or fail in our efforts, or before too long his words will be true.
4. REALIZING RACIST [i.e., Racial Preservationist] PHILOSOPHY ? TOWARDS PANNORDICA
===================================================
These questions are about how your philosophy can be realized.
4.1) Do you think Ethnostates are a realistic option? In what time? What
are the requirements to set the process of constructing these states in
motion?
4.1 Answer: If by ethnostates you mean the separation of the races into their own independent countries or nation-states, you are referring to the condition required for racial preservation and independence. If they are not a realistic option then racial preservation and independence is not a realistic option. Abraham Lincoln said that no matter how difficult the task, where there is a will there is a way. Certainly it is realistic. As far as the physical capability is concerned, it is very realistic. The races can be separated at least as easily as they were brought together. The question is solely one of human will. If we want and desire ethnostates, if this is our will, then we will have them. The requirement to set the process of constructing them in motion is to let people know they are possible, that they are an alternative, and that they are necessary for racial preservation, thus creating a general will, a consensus of purpose, within our race to realize them.
4.2) Do you think the non-Nordic immigrants in the ancient Nordic
Racelands (i.e. Europe) can be persuaded to leave in peace? What are the
requirements to set this process in motion? What help should we, of
course from a pragmatic point of view, offer them? How large is the
chance it would result in violent conflicts (like Bosnia)?
4.2 Answer: I think the response of the non-Nordish peoples in the Nordish countries to Nordish preservationism will depend in part on their recognition of its moral correctness, and in part on the extent of support the preservationist movement enjoys within the Nordish race itself. The stronger the support within the Nordish race for preservationism the greater the degree of recognition and acceptance it is likely to be given by the non-Nordish peoples. If it achieves majority support within the Nordish race its legitimacy as the expression of the Nordish will would be undeniable and the moral credibility of multiracialism, and the supposed consensus that supports it, would be destroyed. Our hopes for a peaceful resolution of this problem will depend on respecting the legitimate rights and interests of the other races, treating them fairly, providing them with a situation in which their vital rights and interests are not threatened, and by making it clear that preservationist separation is supported by the resolute will of the Nordish race, from which it will not deviate. As we educate members of our own race regarding the reasons for separation, that it is imperative for racial preservation, we will also hopefully educate many members of the other races. If they can be made to understand our motive or reason for seeking separation from them is not to cause them harm, but to secure our continued existence, our most vital and legitimate right and interest, and that this is morally right and proper, and that we have good will toward them, mean them no harm but wish them well, and respect their legitimate rights and interests, certainly some, and hopefully many, among them will do what is right and give us their support. We should do everything within reason to maximize support and minimize opposition, by reducing the reasons or justifications for resistance, not only within our own race, but among the other races also. Certainly the more support we have from the other races in this undertaking the easier it will be, and the better will be the relations between the races afterwards.
4.3) At the beginning of DOA [Destiny of Angels] you state that deterrence without a real
capability to withstand hostile aggression from outside is not enough to
secure the interests of the Race. What if the Racial Golden Rule is not
accepted by all other races, or if it is accepted only by Northerners?
If one or more races are not content with having the wealth supply from
the North cut off and begin to rearm and express hostility towards the
North and thereby acquire a capability to strike through the defensive
measures of the North, how would the North respond to such a threat, or
potential threat?
4.3 Answer: It would of course be better if the principles of racial relations expressed by the Racial Compact and the Racial Golden Rule were implemented multilaterally rather than unilaterally, but we should be prepared to implement them unilaterally for the protection of our own interests if necessary. Recognition of the right of each race to exist is the necessary basis for trust and good will in the relations between races. Any race which refused to recognize, and act in accordance with, this right should not be permitted to prevent or interfere with the achievement of our goal of racial preservation and independence. If the Nordish race can achieve its independence united and with its strength intact, it should be capable of defending itself against external threats.
4.4) Are there any organizations today that come close to your
philosophy? Which organizations are closest? Have you been able to exert
any influence to change and broaden the mindset of any organizations or
other political forces?
4.5 Answer: I do not know of any existing organization that approaches my philosophy. I presume such an organization remains to be created. Most existing racialist organizations, and those who belong to them, have an existing mindset which is difficult to change. The problem is that this mindset is often a part of our problem, as it is a mindset that does not appeal to the great majority of our race, but rather alienates and repels most of the high quality people, as well as the masses of more ordinary people, we must attract if we are to gain the broad popular support we need to save our race. Often their goals and methods are such that they do not openly acknowledge them as they would instantly alienate all but the most fanatical supporters. This shapes their strategic outlook, causing them to accept as conventional wisdom the assumption that conditions for our race will have to get much worse before they are likely to attract a wide degree of support, as people would have to be terribly desperate or enraged to accept their program. This makes them dependent on external events, on something outside themselves and beyond their control, on something that will make large numbers of our race terribly desperate, on something that will probably never happen or happen only when it is too late, when the situation of the Nordish race has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer capable of saving itself. This tends to engender a passive rather than active stance, as they assume there is little they can do until hoped for external events change the situation. They do not consider changing their program, the alternative they offer, to make it an alternative people can accept now, under present conditions, as preferable to the present multiracialist course. To use a metaphor, the patient will have to be very sick indeed before he will accept the medicine they offer as a cure. If they offered a medicine that was palatable they would not meet such resistance from the patient, and might be able to save him before he dies.
4.5) The organization which, according to some, is the most progressive
and forceful today, is the National Alliance. How do you regard them?
How do you regard Dr. William Pierce and his strategic outlook? The
chapter Right and Wrong Racism from TRC [The Racial Compact] can certainly not be used to
describe the Alliance?s outlook on racial relations.
4.5 Answer: I cannot claim to speak for Dr. Pierce, so I would not presume to attribute ideas to him that I have not seen explicitly expressed in his writing. Regarding his strategic outlook, he is one of those who have expressed the conventional racialist wisdom (as noted in my response to the previous question) that conditions will have to get much worse before he expects his movement to gather wide support. If his cure is similar to the course he describes in his novel The Turner Diaries conditions would have to get very bad indeed, perhaps even as bad as he imagines in his novel, before many would be willing to support it. I for one certainly hope that the situation of our race never comes to such desperate straits, where such extreme and desperate measures are taken by such desperate men and women.
4.6) What are the major weaknesses of those organizations and forces
opposed to the currently dominant multiculturalist power structure?
4.6 Answer: I think my responses to the previous two questions provide part of the answer for this question as well, but I will elaborate. One common weakness or flaw I find in many organizations is that they do not adequately recognize the primary problem ? that the issue is nothing less than racial survival, that the continued existence of our race is at stake ? and this causes them to greatly understate the severity of our problem and the measures necessary to correct it. These organizations either evade or deny the reality of this problem ? in which they essentially echo the multiracialist power structure itself ? or they belittle it as not likely to be of serious concern for the foreseeable future. They therefore concentrate their attentions on the lesser or secondary problems of multiracialism, which can theoretically be solved by means other than separation. Obviously, as they do not recognize the primary problem confronting the Nordish race from multiracialism, but effectively ignore it, they do not propose an alternative that would provide a solution to it. As far as racial preservationism is concerned, they do not address the issue and have no message to offer. They are still in the dark, still unaware, still clueless, about what is happening to their race. They cannot see that the issue is nothing less than the continued existence of their race. In this they are similar to the majority of their race as a whole, and it might help wake them to the real situation if they were introduced to some of the people who ask the kind of nihilist questions I answered above in section 3.
A subset of this type of organization is one that claims to support racial preservation, and even says its advocates separation, but proposes as a solution an alternative that is inadequate, where the races are either not separated geographically into their own countries and governments, but only by voluntary social arrangements, or where only a survivalist fraction of the race is separated into a small homeland while the great majority of the race is left to perish from the consequences of multiracialism. Such proposals are perhaps hampered by an effort to conform to individualist libertarian sensibilities, but they are inadequate to achieve racial preservation and independence, and represent another attempt to evade the true extent of the problem.
Another type of organization, which the multiracialist power structure typically claims represents the only form of racial thought, which all racialist thinkers supposedly adhere to regardless of what they might say to the contrary, is that of the supremacist or even genocidal variety. This type does not recognize or respect the rights or interests of other races. It may recognize the seriousness of the situation, but does not recognize the fact that racial preservation does not require measures that cause harm to other races, and that it therefore certainly cannot be used to justify such harm. The measures they advocate are typically violent and harsh, and not necessary for preservationist purposes, and thus apparently motivated by and serving some other purpose. They often identify themselves with ?Nazism? (National Socialism), a nationalist political movement that violated the rights of other nations and races, and whose actions were in no way related to the legitimate goals of racial preservation. Such organizations are now commonly called ?hate groups,? and this term often has some validity when applied to them. The multiracialists claim that all racialist thought, even advocacy of racial preservation and racial rights, really belongs to this category, as they refuse to recognize the possible existence of alternative forms of racialism that are morally and intellectually credible and capable of attracting broad popular support. Unfortunately, they have been very successful at this, and are actually assisted by the activities of these racialist organizations and their members, who are widely perceived as the only representatives of racialist thought and action, but who in fact only do their race a great disservice, and the multiracialists a great service, by alienating the great majority of their race from pro-racial values. Most people know of nothing else, so the multiracialists are able to claim that these groups represent the only alternative to their policies, and equate any resistance or opposition to, or disagreement with, their policies with support for the policies of these groups. Thus the slightest expression of opposition to the multiracialist program can cause the speaker to be associated with Nazism and its crimes. Under such a blackout of racial information, where people know of no alternative to multiracialism and its consequences other than the quasi-Nazi groups, it is common for those who are most determined to oppose multiracialism to join these groups. We need to provide another alternative, another choice, a constructive course of action for those who want to save the Nordish race.
I would summarize by saying that the racial activist organizations I know of either have not adopted a comprehensive preservationist philosophy that outlines an adequate preservationist alternative, or they have not adopted one that is in accord with the moral sensibilities and values of the majority of our race, which is required to attract the broad popular support needed if we are to have any realistic chance of saving our race from the destructive effects of multiracialism.
4.7) Are there any non-Nordish / non-White countries or organizations
you know off that could be expected to welcome the philosophy of The
Racial Compact? For instance, Japan, or the Nation of Islam?
4.7 Answer: Most of the non-European peoples of the world already follow policies that are in their racial interest, although they might not express these policies in a formal racialist philosophy. I suspect many Japanese would broadly agree with the principles of the Racial Compact. The Nation of Islam talks about racial separation and independence but I do not know how firm their support for this would be if really given a choice. That choice would separate the true Black Nationalists from those who are only jiving.
5. THE PROMOTION OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY
===================================
5.1) In your books you express your philosophical outlook, but can you
say something about your strategical outlook? How shall we win the
hearts and minds of the Nordish people, how should the message be conveyed and
how can we find and reach out to the right people?
5.1 Answer: We need to reach people with our message by whatever means we can think of and whatever means are available. I started with books and magazine articles, both of very limited distribution. Now the internet is available so I am on-line, and I hope it will prove a great medium of communication for our cause. With sufficient people to do the work, pamphlets and leaflets are also a useful tool. We should use every means that we can. But first we must have the right message, or all our efforts will be futile and ineffective.
Our efforts should be ultimately geared toward political action. Election campaigns are great educational tools. Our mission is to convince our people to vote for the salvation, the continued existence, the preservation and independence, of their race. Thus simply stated, this seems like it should be a ?no-brainer,? absurdly simple, yet in our current near ?Twilight Zone? type of situation it is perilously difficult, so much so that many say it is already too late. To achieve this mission we must first establish our moral and intellectual credibility and integrity in the minds of the electorate. We must make them aware both of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism, the present course, and the preservationist alternative that we offer, which we should describe in as much detail as is reasonably possible. This will define our position, which we must do for ourselves or we can be sure our opponents ? masters of disinformation ? will be happy to do it for us, much to our disfavor. Our position might displease many people, especially at first when they have not yet thought through the alternatives, but it will be much more favorable to us than the position the opposition will try to ascribe to us. We should promote the Charter of Racial Rights, making it clear that our movement respects and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all the other races and means them no harm, that we are against the legitimate rights of no race, that we want the same consideration from other races for our legitimate rights, that we do not want those who think otherwise to be part of our movement, and that any who behave otherwise will be excluded. We must make it clear that we condemn acts of illegal violence and terrorism, and that such acts do not promote the preservationist cause.
We should gain control of the issues by making our issue the defining issue that must be addressed and answered by every politician and public figure, compelling them to state their position on the question of Nordish racial preservation and independence, permitting no evasion or denial, no place for them to hide from the issue any longer. Those anti-Nordish racial nihilists of lesser prominence who have antagonized us with their explicit calls for the extinction of our race will then prove to be a source of embarrassment for their more prominent co-nihilists, as their careless language will come back to haunt them and undermine their efforts to deny the consequences of the course they have set us on. Eventually, when a sufficient level of situational awareness is achieved by the public, the position of the multiracialist power structure will be morally and intellectually discredited, and its consensus of general support will dissolve. That, at least, is what I would like to see happen. There is a saying that if you build a church the people will come to fill it. We must build a movement on a good foundation, on the right message, a comprehensive philosophy of racial relations, and then hope that the right people, good people, will come to fill it.
5.2) How many copies of your books have been printed and sold?
5.2 Answer: Not nearly enough! Books are very expensive, especially for someone like myself who has limited resources. They are also difficult to distribute, especially if you cannot afford to advertise. Although I am a dedicated bibliophile, and nothing can replace the tangible physical experience of a book, the internet is much cheaper, and if we use it well, it will hopefully enable us to break through the distribution barriers faced by books.
5.3) What kind of, and how many, responses to your books do you get?
5.3 Answer: One difference between the internet and books ? the responses I get from book readers is nearly always very positive, while the responses to my website are divided fairly evenly between pro and con. Some of the con responses are very interesting and informative in revealing the opposition thought processes, others are from ?flamers? who are often so hostile they cannot express their argument in a rational or civil manner. Some responses are ?off the wall? and quite eccentric, but this applies to some of the book readers as well.
5.4) Thus far, none of us know of your work being especially featured by
racial preservationist organizations ? it could be and should be much
wider known! How is the dissemination of your writings and philosophy
going and what strata seem most susceptible?
5.4 Answer: The seeds are being sown, and some are bearing fruit, but it is a painfully slow process with very limited resources. Generally, the most susceptible strata consists of highly intelligent and aware people who share one essential trait in common ? the continued existence and well-being of their race is important to them. They are those who love their race and care about its future, which is what one would expect. But thus far only a tiny fraction of even that strata has any awareness of my philosophy.
5.5) What kind of assistance would you most warmly welcome? What do you
think could cause a major breakthrough of this philosophy in important
segments?
5.5 Answer: All kinds of assistance would be welcome, all contributions gladly accepted. We need all the resources we can get, without forgetting that what we are really after is people, and that all other resources are merely a means to reach and hopefully get more people. It all boils down to a matter of people, of people supporting with their contributions, time, effort and votes the continued existence of their race. Every person we get to support our cause is a breakthrough. A major breakthrough would involve getting the support of a major person, a person of important standing who would attract publicity and create legitimacy. For me personally the ultimate assistance would be acquiring the means to devote all my time to the preservationist cause rather than spending most of my time having to work for a living. We will not really have a movement until it can afford to support a group of dedicated full-time activists and spokespeople.
5.6) The Charter of Racial Rights that you designed seems like it could
be promoted very well in our contemporary society (as the way it is
shaped ? a declaration of human rights ? is something the altruist
egalitarian, anti-Nordish forces within western civilization, are not
trained to deal with immediately, although we can be sure that at one
point they?ll come up with some counteroffensive). But what strategy do you
think would be best to promote it? Could it be sent to certain
institutions, and/or organizations, and/or individuals (and of course
which institutions / organizations / individuals) ?
5.6 Answer: It was designed to stand alone and be easily understood by most people, appealing to their most basic sense of what is fair and good. It can be nailed to a door like Luther?s theses, stuck on a wall, passed out to passersby, read aloud at a meeting, mailed to just about anyone, or posted on a website. It would be interesting to see how the multiracialists might attempt to counter it, but that does not worry me. I am much more concerned that they will ignore it, that the culture will ignore it, and not enough people will learn of it to create a critical mass sufficient to have an effect. That is their most likely means of countering it.
6. THE NEAR FUTURE
==================
6.1) Are you, apart from the additional articles on your web site,
working on anything specific now? A new book maybe? Is there one
planned?
6.1 Answer: A book is a major project in terms of both time and other resources, and most critically of all, of ideas. I do not have a book in the works at this time, but I am developing some ideas for new articles, which I will put on my website.
Richard McCulloch
October 30, 1998[/justify]
[center]Reality of Race
The Reality of Race Discussion and commentary regarding the claims by racial deconstructionists that the races of humanity are not real
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:49:34 -0400
From: ?D.B.? in U.S.A.[/center]
[justify]In a correspondence dated June 27, 1990, professor Philip M. Peek (chairman,
anthropology department Drew University) responded to questions I had
concerning phenotypic similarities/differences concerning Nordics and
Mediterraneans. He replied ?Since the advent of molecular biology (and its
offshoot, ?molecular anthropology?), however, few human biologists base
racial classifications on any criteria that cannot be shown to be genotypic.
Many, such as Ashley Montagu and Frank Livingston, have abandoned all
biotaxic classifications of hominids below the species level. They therefore
deny the validity of the very concept of race as biological (rather than a
cultural) reality.? So? are we in the minority here?
__________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:08:50 -0400
From: ?A. P.? in South Africa
Undoubtedly we are in the minority, but it depends more on political than
scientific reasons. Today it is ?politically correct? to deny the importance
or the existence of human races, and, as prof. Philippe Rushton states,
every effort is made to deconstruct its very concept. Of course it?s not the
first time in history that ideology influences and hinders science. As for
the genetic studies, they are by far too incomplete and limited to
substitute for traditional physical anthropology, despite the claims of the
current cultural elites.
A.P.
______________________________________________________
Richard McCulloch?s reply and commentary,
To the above remarks by Professor Peep I would add the following excerpts from a newspaper article entitled ?Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep,? by Robert Boyd in the Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996; p. 14A):
WASHINGTON ? Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups. Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents?.?Race has no basic biological reality,? said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist?.Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. ?In the social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is not,? said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to contradict common sense. ?The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no such thing as race,? said C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. ?The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves intellectuals.?
The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. ?Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology?have completely revamped the traditional notions,? said Solomon Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed that humans could be sorted into a few?inherited racial types?.As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if they believe in the existence of separate biological races?.As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race?.[T]he revised concept of race?reflects recent scientific work with DNA?.?We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level,? said a Yale geneticist, Kenneth Kidd?.[which]?support the concept that you can?t draw boundaries around races.?
This is really a matter of semantics, a word game of political correctness. The motive can be easily understood. The ideology of racial nihilism, which always minimized the importance or value of race and racial differences, is now dominant enough to attempt to deny the very reality of race, as it seeks the destruction of race. The dominant elements in academia and the culture do not want race to exist so they deny its existence as scientifically invalid, engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief regarding the claims that ?there is no such thing as race,? as if they can wish race into nonexistence by pretending it does not exist. They claim that race is only a cultural or political ?construct,? an arbitrary creation of society that people believe exists only because they are taught to believe it exists, and that if people were not taught about race they would be unaware of it and it would be deconstructed, ceasing to exist. But since race actually is objectively real, a fact that people can see for themselves without any need to be taught, then its deconstruction actually requires that they be taught that it is not real, and does not really exist, in spite of what they see to the contrary. The role of supposed ?experts,? possessors of superior and secret knowledge to whom ordinary people must defer, is central to this process, as described in Hans Christian Andersen?s classic tale of The Emperor?s New Clothes.
It is noteworthy that a valid definition of race is given in the above article, i.e., ?races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents.? This is not typical of racial deconstructionists. More commonly they neglect to give a valid definition of race even as they attempt to define race out of existence. Without a definition there is no point or standard of reference from which to judge the merits of their claims. Often race is confused with species, and wrongly defined as essentially the same as a species (i.e., as including all populations fully capable of interbreeding), and as there is only one human species and therefore different human species do not exist, if race is defined similarly then there is only one human race and different races cannot exist. But a race is not a species, and should not be defined the same as a species. It is a subdivision of a species, or subspecies, created by the divergent evolution of isolated populations of a species in the same process that eventually produces new species. I offer three dictionary definitions that represent the mainstream of pre-1990s opinion so the reader can judge whether the populations they define are real or not.
1.) ?Any of the ?biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by [features of physical appearance]. ? Webster?s New World Dictionary (1966)
2.) ?[A] group of persons connected by common descent, blood, or heredity?.characterized by a more or less unique combination of physical traits which are transmitted in descent.? The American College Dictionary (1969)
3.) ?A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.? Reader?s Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary (1987)
Next in order is a review of the definition of race offered in the above article, by which definition the reality of race is denied, i.e., ?races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents.? What part of this is not real?
Are the races not ?distinct,? e.g., can one not distinguish one race from another? Can one not easily distinguish indigenous Northern European, Central African or Northeast Asian individuals and populations from each other? I think the answer to this is obvious. Of course, these are probably the three most distinct racial types, representing the specialized extremes of a tripolar human racial typology. The main problem with racial typology is that there are so many different types, so much diversity, to be classified and typed, depending on how specific (and accurate) you want to be. The other races tend to be more generalized and not so physically distinct as these three, yet even a slight degree of familiarity with almost any race normally enables one to readily distinguish it from any other, and certainly the members of any race usually have no difficulty distinguishing themselves from any other race. Exceptions may exist, but they are rare and not the rule, and if anything only tend to prove the rule. A population that cannot be distinguished from other populations by its physical or racial traits should not be classified as a separate race. There are also many hybrid individuals and populations, the result of racial intermixture, that cannot be properly classified as belonging to any one race. But because they cannot be classified as belonging to any one particular race does not mean that races do not exist, only that these individuals or populations should be classified as being a hybrid or mixed blend of two or more races.
Are the races not ?created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents,? i.e., are not racial traits genetically determined and genetically transmitted from parents to their offspring? Again, I think the answer is obvious, and is as true for races as it is for any taxonomic or biological category. The most ordinary observation confirms that racial traits are clearly transmitted from generation to generation, from parents to their offspring, and are solely determined by this transmission, and not by any external or environmental influence. (Marxist dislike of this fact caused the Soviet Union to promote the contrary theory of ?Lysenkoism,? which held that traits acquired from the environment could be inherited by subsequent generations, and which may be enjoying an implicit revival among Neo-Marxist racial nihilists in the West.) This was known long before there was any knowledge of genes, and therefore any accurate knowledge of the actual means of transmission. We now know that genes are the means of transmission of all physical traits, including racial traits, from the structure of the brain to the features of the face and the pigmentation and texture of the epidermis. If these traits are not genetically transmitted then how are they transmitted? I don?t know of any other credible explanation for the observed transmission of racial traits from parents to their offspring other than the genetic one, and I doubt that any anthropologist or biologist is explicitly offering one.
Are the races not ?biological categories,? i.e., are they not biological entities, and is their existence not a biological phenomenon? One more time, the answer is obvious. Genes are a biological phenomenon, a part of biology, and probably the most fundamental part. If different races are ?created by differences in the genes? then they are biological categories. Specifically, they are a category below the category of species. Also, races are a product of the biological process of evolution. They were created by the same process of divergent evolution ? the branching of life into different forms that occurs when populations are isolated from each other, usually due to geographic separation ? that created all the biological diversity, or biodiversity, of life on earth. Races are part of that biological diversity. Races are a necessary part of biological evolution. They are the first step in the differentiation or divergence of life into distinctly different forms, the means by which different species are created. They are the stage of evolution a diverging or differentiating population must go through as it develops into separate species. If there were no races there would be no divergent evolution and differentiation of life into separate species.
What did Kenneth Kidd mean when he said, ?you can?t draw boundaries around races,? with the inference that this means races are not real? This sounds like a reference to the fact that the different races of humanity can and do interbreed, that there are no biological or genetic boundaries separating them from intermixture with other races, and hybrid populations or ?clines? of intermediate, racially mixed type do exist. But that is why they are defined as races and not as different species, which are separated by biological or genetic boundaries which make them unable to interbreed and produce hybrid populations. Races do not have to be incapable of interbreeding with other races to be considered genetically and biologically real or distinct. If they were they would be classified as species, not races. The fact that hybrid populations or clines exist means that the different populations of humanity are different races, not different species. The matter of clines has been too much abused by those who seek to use them to deny the existence of different races. The existence of clines proves that all humans are part of the same species, not part of the same race. Indeed, one would expect clines to exist within a species consisting of different races. Also, the existence of clines actually implies the existence of races, as how could there be clines of intermediate types between races if there were no races?
Or, alternatively, perhaps Kidd?s remark is a reference to the fact that because of hybridization or intermixture there are no clear dividing lines or boundaries between the races, but instead a continuum of individuals and populations forming a gradient or cline of gradually changing racial type between the races, so choosing a single point on this continuum of intermediate racial types as a boundary or dividing line between the distinct races at the two ends of the continuum must be somewhat arbitrary, as the types that are located on each side of the dividing line will be more similar, and more closely related, to the type next to them on the other side of the dividing line than they are to the distinct type at the far end of their side of the line. But the existence of a cline or continuous range of intermediate or hybridized racial types between two distinct races does not mean that there is no distinct difference between the two races at the polar ends of the racial continuum. As with any continuum of type, or space or time, the two ends of the continuum are the most distinct from each other, while any two intermediate points on the continuum are less distinct from each other. To suggest that the absence of clear boundary points along a continuum (which is a defining characteristic of a continuum) is evidence that the distinct ends of the continuum do not really exist, and cannot be clearly distinguished from each other, is the product of either simplistic thinking or semantic obfuscation. The solution to this apparent dilemma is to ?step out of the box? constructed by false logic and recognize that it is arbitrary to insist on dividing a continuum of gradually changing types into just two parts, when three or more parts ? the two distinct parts and one or more intermediate parts ? would be a more accurate description of reality. The logical error; or intellectual dishonesty, is only compounded when this arbitrarily imposed inaccuracy is then used as an argument to deny the reality ? the existence ? of the distinct races at the ends of the continuum.
The different races, like species, are biological and genetic entities. Their distinguishing traits are genetic traits, meaning that they are genetically determined and genetically transmitted or passed through the generations, by inherited genes, from the parents to the children, from one generation to another, and thus, despite the denials in the Miami Herald article, obviously ?created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents.? Thus racial traits are genetic traits, and genetic traits are biological traits. Thus race is genetically and biologically based or determined, and thus genetically and biologically real. This is obvious for everyone to see, so obvious that no so-called scientist or expert can credibly or believably deny it, and why denials elicit disbelief by those still in possession of common sense, and are accepted only by those who engage in a ?willing suspension of disbelief? in order to conform to the dictates of ?political correctness.? Leonard Lieberman?s survey of belief, mentioned in the Miami Herald article, is an obvious tool for inculcating and enforcing political correctness or ideological conformity of belief.
Those who claim race is not real cannot see the forest for the trees. They concentrate on the building blocks and cannot see the building. Thus they make statements such as ?all blood is red? or the same color, or all people have the same organs inside, or we are all the same under the skin, etc. (although racial appearance is determined by bone, cartilage and muscle as well as skin, hair and eyes) to make the point that racial differences are not important, as only the building blocks or components are important, not their arrangement or what they form. A physicist I knew in college liked to say that at the sub-atomic level of neutrons, electrons and protons all matter is essentially indistinguishable, and at that level a non-specialist could not determine the difference between a human or a piece of rock, and he was right. Thus anthropologists now adhere to the politically correct racial nihilist dogma of racial denial by stating that at the molecular level of DNA or genes the different races are essentially indistinguishable, and only a specialist could hope to do so. But our senses do not operate at the molecular level, or at the level of our various internal organs, but at the level of the complete being they form, not at the micro level of the component parts (or building blocks) but at the macro level of their completed arrangement or construction. It is this complete construction that those who seek to deconstruct race deny is real, on the grounds that the differences seen in the complete or macro form in which our senses operate cannot be seen by a non-specialist at the micro level of its component parts. The Nordish race is as real as all the individual members who comprise it, who form its existence. They are the Nordish race, and the undeniable reality of their existence is also the undeniable reality of its existence.
This brings us to the important subject of the criteria for racial classification. In order of importance, they are:
1.) Phenotype: the subject?s physical appearance, especially facial features and other obvious physical racial markers. This is the means used by people from time immemorial to identify and define race. Different people, based on their study, awareness, experience and aptitude, have different degrees of ability in this area, yet nearly all people of normal ability can easily distinguish between the primary racial types, and most can also distinguish between the subtypes with which they are most familiar (e.g., Englishmen can usually distinguish between a number of the more common English subtypes). The ability to make these distinctions is to some extent unconscious, seeming somewhat unscientific, subjective and almost intuitive, yet it is an inherent human ability constantly used to identify many common things which are familiar to us, and was used for racial identification long before anyone attempted to construct scientific criteria for this purpose.
2.) Anthropometrics: the subject?s measurements and the indices derived therefrom. This requires some simple measuring tools and expertise in their use, but the results can be cross-checked and verified to a significant degree by the unaided but experienced eye. Carleton Coon, like many classical physical anthropologists of the first half of the 20th century, belonged to what could be called the anthropometric school. Unfortunately, when anthropometrics are given priority over phenotype in classification the result can be a subject classified as something which they don?t really look like. Thus Coon?s reference to exotic Nordic types, from places far removed from the Nordic centers, who conform to the Nordic anthropometric indices but really don?t ?look? Nordic in appearance. When there is an inconsistency between phenotypic and anthropometric classification the phenotypic appearance should generally be given priority. The fact is that a person?s physical appearance or phenotype involves much more than is measured by all the different anthropometric indices. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of subtle, genetically determined things we notice almost unconsciously about a person?s face that are not measured by any of the anthropometric indices of facial features, and this is also true of other areas of the body. This makes phenotype a much more accurate and comprehensive method of racial classification than all the anthropometric measurements yet devised. Anthropometrics originally began more as the measurement and study of the differences between the known European subraces than as a method for classifying or reclassifying them, and I believe it was improper to elevate it to the primary means of racial classification with precedence over phenotype. Anthropometrics should be seen as an aid to assist in phenotypic classification in difficult cases, perhaps casting the deciding vote in case of a phenotypic impasse, rather than as something that replaces or takes precedence over it.
3. Genetics: This measurement of molecular phenomena is based on something that is effectively invisible and unknown to the human senses. It is subject to the most abuse as the layman has no means of independently evaluating, verifying or checking the claims made by the supposed expert geneticist, as to do so would require extensive laboratory facilities and equipment, samples, and specialized scientific expertise. As a result, the claims are essentially taken on faith or trust in the competence and honesty of the experts, and can be easily misinterpreted, selectively reported or even falsified. Therefore genetic measurements should be regarded with suspicion when they are inconsistent with more visible means of classification. Also, geneticists do not yet really know what specific genes are involved in the determination of those traits which constitute the racial phenotype, so their measurements do not really involve those genes which are actually racially determinative but arbitrarily selected genes that determine genetic traits that are often really racially neutral (e.g., blood factors, etc.) and are present in all races, basing their measurements on the different frequencies of these genes in different populations.
Since the particular genetic traits that the geneticists measure are present in all human populations and races, varying only in frequency, and they have not yet identified the specific genes responsible for the inherited traits that distinguish the different races and are thus unique to a particular race, genetics is thus far only of very limited and questionable value as a means of racial classification. (Although forensic scientists can now fairly accurately identify a subject?s racial ancestry from DNA samples.) To base a system of racial classification on it, as is perhaps most famously done by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators, can lead to some gross inaccuracies. For example, Cavalli-Sforza?s widely reproduced chart of genetic distances between populations (?The History and Geography of Human Genes,? page 78, Figure 2.3.2.B) groups the Japanese, Koreans and Mongols in a common category with Europeans while grouping the south Chinese in a different category with Polynesians, etc., indicating greater genetic distance between Japanese and southern Chinese than between Japanese and Europeans. Simply put, the particular genetic traits he uses for racial classification are more similar in Northeast Asians and Europeans than they are in Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians. This result should have set off alarm bells, clearly discrediting these genetic traits as irrelevant for the purpose of racial classification, but the genetic anthropologists persist in their use. Given this logical, or illogical, paradigm, is it any wonder that the genetic anthropologists come to the conclusion that the different races don?t really exist, because they don?t really exist in the particular genes they use for their studies?
We have not yet found the specific genes that determine race and racial differences, yet we know the traits that differentiate the races are real and are genetically determined, inherited from the parents and earlier ancestors, and from this readily observable and consistent fact we logically (and scientifically) deduce the existence of those genes. It is scientific arrogance, and very arbitrary, illogical and unscientific, to claim ? as the genetic anthropologists referred to by Prof. Peek do about race ? that something does not exist, is not scientifically valid, and is not real until science can fully understand and explain it, or in his words, that racial classifications cannot be based ?on any criteria that cannot be shown to be genotypic.? What is the standard for ?shown?? It is obvious to the most normal observation that the physical traits or criteria that are popularly used for racial classification or identification, with virtually error-free accuracy, are consistently and predictably inherited from the parents and passed through the generations. The only possible logical deduction is that these inherited traits are genetically transmitted, and that they are genotypic, even if they cannot yet be ?shown to be genotypic? in the sense of being identified, observed in action and fully understood and explained at the genetic level. Such an extreme standard or requirement for scientific acceptance is arbitrary and illogical. Scientific explanations for most common and easily observable phenomena are very recent, yet those phenomena ? those facts of nature and reality ? existed and were no less real before they had a scientific explanation, and were accepted as real by science, regardless of whether their underlying existence was proved or their nature understood. Things exist and are real independent of our scientific understanding of them, otherwise nothing would have existed until quite recently. Science is the study of reality, not the creator of reality.
Attempts to minimize or trivialize race and racial differences as meaningless and unimportant ? or even nonexistent ? on the grounds that the races share 99.9% of their genetic code or genome in common sound impressive until put in perspective with regard to the degree of human genetic similarity with other life forms. For example, we share 20-30% of our genetic code in common with yeast and bacteria, 80% in common with birds, 90% in common with non-primate mammals (e.g., cows, horses, pigs, cats, dogs, raccoons, etc.), and 98.6% in common with chimpanzees. Seen in this perspective a .1% genetic difference actually looms large as a degree of difference that is very meaningful and important.
The active or functional part of the human genome or genetic code consists of about 22,000 genes (2007 estimates) containing about 87 million ?genetic letters,? or nucleotide base pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid), of the total of about 2.9 billion base pairs in the complete human genome, or an average of about 4,000 genetic base pairs or ?letters? per gene. The races of the human species share 99.9% of their 2.9 billion genetic base pairs in common, with genetic differences in .1% of the base pairs, a proportion which represents about 2.9 million genetic differences in the genome, or 87,000 genetic differences in the genes, or an average of four differences in genetic base pairs per gene. A single difference in the genetic base pairs or coding of a gene can significantly alter its effect, so a .1% difference in the genetic code could theoretically change the effect of virtually every gene in the genome. Seen in this perspective, as in the perspective in the preceding paragraph, a .1% genetic difference actually looms large as a degree of difference that is very meaningful and important.
The common argument that there is a greater degree of genetic variation within a race than between races is so misleading as to be suspect of deliberate deception. First, those who use this argument (frequently citing Luigi Cavalli-Sforza et. al. as their authority) often fail to state that the genetic difference between races they are referring to is in the racial average of the given traits. Thus what they should be saying is that the difference between the average in the given genetic traits between two races is less than the degree of variation in those traits within each race. Of course, to a thoughtful person this should be obvious, as it is logically impossible for there to be less variation in a given trait in two races than in one race. But leaving out the fact that they are comparing the full extremes of variation in a genetic trait within one race with the difference between the averages of that trait in two races is like leaving out the fact that one is comparing apples and oranges, and that such a comparision is not really very meaningful. Second, and most important, the genetic traits they use for these comparisons are not among those that are racially definitive and determinative, the traits on which racial identity is based and that are unique to each race, but among those that are not racially definitive or determining, that are racially neutral, and thus not really racially meaningful. The same argument could be used in a comparison of humans with chimpanzees, as the degree of difference between the average of humans and chimpanzees in the genetic traits they share in common is less than the degree of difference or variation in those traits within the human or chimpanzee species. It is the genetic traits that the human races do not share in common that determine the differences between them, just as it is the genetic traits that humans and chimpanzees do not share in common that determine the differences between them, and these are the only traits that are meaningful or important when discussing the differences between races and species.
At the risk of being repetitive, I?d like to add something I wrote on this subject to another correspondent. A political analysis is necessary because the ultimate motive for denying the reality of race is itself purely political in origin, not scientific.
The claim that races don?t really exist, ludicrous and absurd as it is, is being encountered with increasing frequency, and is central to the cause of racial preservation, so we have to take it seriously and expose it for what it is: an exercise in thought control to impose an incredible falsehood as politically correct orthodox dogma to which all must conform or suffer condemnation and reprisal [cf. Lieberman's survey of belief cited in the Miami Herald article above]. The purpose can only be to eradicate every vestigial trace of European racial consciousness and awareness. Thus a person of European racial type can?t love or care for their race, or have any loyalty or positive feelings or emotions towards it, as these feelings are based on racial consciousness which the dominant culture condemns as politically incorrect, and even pathologizes as mental illness. This tactic is ineffective on persons with a high degree of intellectual and moral autonomy, but people of less independent thought ? who depend upon the opinions of experts for their own opinions, yet characteristically and perversely regard themselves as superior to the independent thinkers ? are easy to control.
Personally, I trust what I can see with my own eyes over any claim to the contrary. I was well aware of primary racial differences before the age of eight, even though they weren?t discussed in my home and I had no special training or education in this matter. The reality of race was simply self-evident: I could effortlessly see it with my eyes. I could also easily associate racial types with the appropriate areas of the world from which they derive. At age eight, when I saw the movie ?The Bridge Over the River Kwai,? I understood and could identify the racial distinction between the Japanese and British soldiers, even without their uniforms, and if a Briton had been cast as a Japanese, or vice versa, I would have instantly recognized that as improper. My racial identification process had nothing to do with the subject?s blood type, cephalic index, IQ, height, or numerous genetic variables, although some of these can be seen with the eye while others cannot. You could provide me with all this information about a person and I wouldn?t be able to identify their race, but show me a good picture of them and I can identify them most readily (and could when I was eight years old, although I wasn?t as aware of the finer points of racial identification as I am today). Even if they are of mixed type, I can identify the dominant type in the mixture and possibly the other types as well. (For example, golfer Tiger Woods? dominant type is Congoid, although his ancestry is 50% Thai [Southeast Asian] and less than 50% Congoid, as he has some Amerindian and Caucasian ancestry as well. Yet my knowledge that he is part Amerindian and Caucasian is different than my knowledge that he is predominantly Congoid. I can see his Congoid ancestry with my own eyes, so it is first hand knowledge. I can?t see his Amerindian or Caucasian ancestry, it is not evident to me, so my knowledge of it is second hand, based on what I?ve read or been told.)
Interestingly, all the claims that races are not real and simply don?t exist are based on differences (or lack of differences) in things which are not racially definitive, which have never been used by ordinary people for racial identification, whether things we can?t see (genes, blood types, IQ, etc.) or things we can (height, cephalic index, etc.). Some scientists may have attempted to identify different races through these things, but they are of marginal utility as racial identifiers, and at best secondary to the primary identifiers of physical appearance. They are actually completely unnecessary for racial identification and are only a matter of interest to those scientists who study such things. Their use as racial identifiers probably began in good faith, in the search for measurable and quantifiable means of racial identification, but now they are used by the racial nihilists, racial gnostics and other race deniers to claim that races don?t exist, are not real, because the differences between the different races in these things are either minor or essentially nonexistent, often based on the assertion that the variation in these things between different individuals within a race are greater than the average variation in these things between races. So what! These things are not primary racial identifiers. They are at most secondary racial identifiers. As I said, you could tell me all these things about a person and I wouldn?t be able to identify their race. But I can identify their race by their physical appearance, as I can identify different types of animals or plants by their appearance but not by such things as genes, blood types, etc. Yet the race deniers press on with their insistence that races don?t exist, based on their measurements of these improper racial identifiers, and present this logical fallacy to the public as the scientific view. I?m sorry to say that Luigi Cavalli-Sforza is also guilty of this intellectual dishonesty or incompetence. We don?t need scientists to identify races for us. I was able to do it with great accuracy by age eight without reading any scientific work on the subject, and everyone in my family, and everyone I knew or know, was and is able to do it without help from any scientist. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and other scientists who proclaim race doesn?t exist are willfully racially blind, and only fools allow the blind to lead them. Unfortunately, racial blindness, whether real or feigned, is a precondition for success, or even survival, in the present culture. It is the price which all must pay to qualify for advancement to positions of influence and power. (Reminiscent of ?Gulliver?s Travels,? where blindness was the price required for immortality. Who was Swift satirizing? All the willingly blind conformists who prefer social success to objective truth.)
This is the reason why I often compare our situation to Hans Christian Andersen?s story ?The Emperor?s New Clothes.? In the story, the population is told by the expert authorities that the Emperor?s clothes are real, told to believe something contrary to what they can see with their own eyes, to distrust their own judgment and deny the evidence of their own senses. But a child, uncorrupted by political correctness, naturally trusting what he sees with his own eyes, exposes their fraud. Like the child, we must trust what we see with our own eyes, and virtually every person of anywhere near average intelligence who has eyes to see can readily identify a person?s dominant primary racial type by their physical appearance. Even the race deniers can do this, but claim that physical appearance is not the proper racial identifier, insisting against all logic that the proper racial identifiers are those things with which they, and we, are actually unable to identify a person?s race. Thus the race deniers attempt to define race out of existence with word games. But it is a physical reality that people see with their own eyes, however much they have been told to be racially blind and not see it, and to deny they see it.
The ultimate purpose of race denial is to promote racial intermixture, for if race is not real there are no legitimate grounds for racial preservationism ? or opposition to intermixture ? as there is no race to preserve. Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute and a regent of the University of California, is an advocate of interracial marriage. In this he practices what he preaches, or vice versa, as he is Congoid and his wife is Caucasian. Connerly is widely admired by racial nihilist American ?conservatives? for his crusade to end ?Affirmative Action? racial quota programs, consistent with his belief that all racial values and considerations should be eliminated. The following is from an article by Connerly that appeared in David Horowitz? FrontPage Magazine in September, 2000, entitled ?Loving America:?
When the history books are written about ?race? relations in the last half of the 20th century, I expect 1967 to be a big year?.1967 marks a turning point in America?s race relations?. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that laws forbidding ?interracial? marriage were unconstitutional. The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. Throughout the 20th century, scientists told us that ?race? is a human invention, and that it does not represent a natural biological division between humans. Nevertheless, Americans continued to divide people along ?racial? lines. Until 1950, we only allowed ?whites? to become naturalized American citizens?.By mid-century, however, cracks began to appear in our racial lines?.Rev. King moved Kennedy, and then Johnson, to pass the Civil Rights laws that we currently observe. But, these merely broke down the artificial barriers between the ?races.? A number of states still maintained the fundamental barrier ? they forbade ?black? and ?white? people from marrying.
That is why Loving is so important. After Loving, people began to ignore the government?s racial lines. Individuals whose skin color didn?t match began to date, marry and have children in ever-increasing numbers. The effect was difficult to see at first. There were many who gasped when the University of Georgia?s star running back, Herschel Walker, had a white girlfriend. Today, though, the cable network E! may ask Tiger Woods and Joanne Jagoda, Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt and Maury Povich and Connie Chung about their love lives, but not because they are ?interracial? couples. Sober observers of race relations today recognize the fundamental sea changes at work. Later this month the Jerome Levy Institute is sponsoring a conference devoted to ?multiraciality.?
It is easy to lose sight of the powerful effect the ?interracial? community is having on America?.In California today, there are more children born to ?interracial? couples than are born to two black parents. As the Hispanic and Asian diasporas continue, the ?California trend? will become the American trend. By 2070, perhaps sooner, ?black,? ?brown,? and ?white? will be historical concepts. Café-au-lait will be reality?.We are on the cusp of the age that forgot ?race.? Today?s young children will never understand ?race? like their parents. Their playgrounds are ?interracial.? The skin of their friends and classmates represent every hue imaginable. We are finally nearing the summit, when the government will stop stuffing the richness of our common humanity into their stifling ?race? boxes. The transition from a ?race? paradigm to one in which there is no such thing as ?race? will not be easy. There is no road map to get us there. Political obstacles will emerge at every step of the way, because of those who hold that ?race? is one of those ?self-evident truths.? Because certain Americans look roughly alike, they must be members of the same ?race,? so the argument will go. We must induce the scientists to step forward and refute the myths of ?race.?
Our language must be modified to reflect more appropriate ways of identifying people other than ?African-American,? ?Asian,? and ?Hispanic.? We must argue for the abandonment of terms such as ?minority? to reflect the reality that Americans are not part of any socially defined ?racial? groups. Thus, there is no ?majority? or ?minority.? More Americans must be encouraged to acknowledge the ?diversity? of their backgrounds. When more ?African-Americans? readily and proudly acknowledge the diversity? of their backgrounds ? the fact that they are the product of America?s melting pot ? then the concept of ?race? will disintegrate?
Once social outcasts because of their defiance of social conventions, interracial people can and must now be leaders in preparing our nation for the future. We are truly one people, a merging of those who believe in a colorblind society, who are willing to act on those beliefs in the things that matter most. Now is the time to step forward, to be counted, and to show what a Loving America really is.
The purpose of this race denial, again, is obvious. It seeks to delegitimize racial existence by denying that existence. Something which doesn?t exist has no legal or moral standing to claim a right to exist or any other rights: no right to life, to control of its life, or to the conditions it requires for life; no right to preservation, no right to independence, freedom or self-determination, no right to its own territory and homeland, no right to be. Since it doesn?t really exist there is nothing to preserve or protect, its continued existence is not a matter of legitimate concern, and nothing will be lost by its nonexistence, destruction or extinction. The basis for a Nordish racial preservationist challenge to the multiracialist goal of Nordish racial extinction is cut off at its source, delegitimized as unreal and pathologized as mentally ill (paranoid delusion?), and it will likely be eventually criminalized as a threat to the multiracialist civil order.
Richard McCulloch[/justify]
The Reality of Race Discussion and commentary regarding the claims by racial deconstructionists that the races of humanity are not real
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:49:34 -0400
From: ?D.B.? in U.S.A.[/center]
[justify]In a correspondence dated June 27, 1990, professor Philip M. Peek (chairman,
anthropology department Drew University) responded to questions I had
concerning phenotypic similarities/differences concerning Nordics and
Mediterraneans. He replied ?Since the advent of molecular biology (and its
offshoot, ?molecular anthropology?), however, few human biologists base
racial classifications on any criteria that cannot be shown to be genotypic.
Many, such as Ashley Montagu and Frank Livingston, have abandoned all
biotaxic classifications of hominids below the species level. They therefore
deny the validity of the very concept of race as biological (rather than a
cultural) reality.? So? are we in the minority here?
__________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:08:50 -0400
From: ?A. P.? in South Africa
Undoubtedly we are in the minority, but it depends more on political than
scientific reasons. Today it is ?politically correct? to deny the importance
or the existence of human races, and, as prof. Philippe Rushton states,
every effort is made to deconstruct its very concept. Of course it?s not the
first time in history that ideology influences and hinders science. As for
the genetic studies, they are by far too incomplete and limited to
substitute for traditional physical anthropology, despite the claims of the
current cultural elites.
A.P.
______________________________________________________
Richard McCulloch?s reply and commentary,
To the above remarks by Professor Peep I would add the following excerpts from a newspaper article entitled ?Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep,? by Robert Boyd in the Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996; p. 14A):
WASHINGTON ? Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups. Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents?.?Race has no basic biological reality,? said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist?.Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. ?In the social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is not,? said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to contradict common sense. ?The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no such thing as race,? said C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. ?The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves intellectuals.?
The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. ?Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology?have completely revamped the traditional notions,? said Solomon Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed that humans could be sorted into a few?inherited racial types?.As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if they believe in the existence of separate biological races?.As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race?.[T]he revised concept of race?reflects recent scientific work with DNA?.?We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level,? said a Yale geneticist, Kenneth Kidd?.[which]?support the concept that you can?t draw boundaries around races.?
This is really a matter of semantics, a word game of political correctness. The motive can be easily understood. The ideology of racial nihilism, which always minimized the importance or value of race and racial differences, is now dominant enough to attempt to deny the very reality of race, as it seeks the destruction of race. The dominant elements in academia and the culture do not want race to exist so they deny its existence as scientifically invalid, engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief regarding the claims that ?there is no such thing as race,? as if they can wish race into nonexistence by pretending it does not exist. They claim that race is only a cultural or political ?construct,? an arbitrary creation of society that people believe exists only because they are taught to believe it exists, and that if people were not taught about race they would be unaware of it and it would be deconstructed, ceasing to exist. But since race actually is objectively real, a fact that people can see for themselves without any need to be taught, then its deconstruction actually requires that they be taught that it is not real, and does not really exist, in spite of what they see to the contrary. The role of supposed ?experts,? possessors of superior and secret knowledge to whom ordinary people must defer, is central to this process, as described in Hans Christian Andersen?s classic tale of The Emperor?s New Clothes.
It is noteworthy that a valid definition of race is given in the above article, i.e., ?races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents.? This is not typical of racial deconstructionists. More commonly they neglect to give a valid definition of race even as they attempt to define race out of existence. Without a definition there is no point or standard of reference from which to judge the merits of their claims. Often race is confused with species, and wrongly defined as essentially the same as a species (i.e., as including all populations fully capable of interbreeding), and as there is only one human species and therefore different human species do not exist, if race is defined similarly then there is only one human race and different races cannot exist. But a race is not a species, and should not be defined the same as a species. It is a subdivision of a species, or subspecies, created by the divergent evolution of isolated populations of a species in the same process that eventually produces new species. I offer three dictionary definitions that represent the mainstream of pre-1990s opinion so the reader can judge whether the populations they define are real or not.
1.) ?Any of the ?biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by [features of physical appearance]. ? Webster?s New World Dictionary (1966)
2.) ?[A] group of persons connected by common descent, blood, or heredity?.characterized by a more or less unique combination of physical traits which are transmitted in descent.? The American College Dictionary (1969)
3.) ?A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.? Reader?s Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary (1987)
Next in order is a review of the definition of race offered in the above article, by which definition the reality of race is denied, i.e., ?races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents.? What part of this is not real?
Are the races not ?distinct,? e.g., can one not distinguish one race from another? Can one not easily distinguish indigenous Northern European, Central African or Northeast Asian individuals and populations from each other? I think the answer to this is obvious. Of course, these are probably the three most distinct racial types, representing the specialized extremes of a tripolar human racial typology. The main problem with racial typology is that there are so many different types, so much diversity, to be classified and typed, depending on how specific (and accurate) you want to be. The other races tend to be more generalized and not so physically distinct as these three, yet even a slight degree of familiarity with almost any race normally enables one to readily distinguish it from any other, and certainly the members of any race usually have no difficulty distinguishing themselves from any other race. Exceptions may exist, but they are rare and not the rule, and if anything only tend to prove the rule. A population that cannot be distinguished from other populations by its physical or racial traits should not be classified as a separate race. There are also many hybrid individuals and populations, the result of racial intermixture, that cannot be properly classified as belonging to any one race. But because they cannot be classified as belonging to any one particular race does not mean that races do not exist, only that these individuals or populations should be classified as being a hybrid or mixed blend of two or more races.
Are the races not ?created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents,? i.e., are not racial traits genetically determined and genetically transmitted from parents to their offspring? Again, I think the answer is obvious, and is as true for races as it is for any taxonomic or biological category. The most ordinary observation confirms that racial traits are clearly transmitted from generation to generation, from parents to their offspring, and are solely determined by this transmission, and not by any external or environmental influence. (Marxist dislike of this fact caused the Soviet Union to promote the contrary theory of ?Lysenkoism,? which held that traits acquired from the environment could be inherited by subsequent generations, and which may be enjoying an implicit revival among Neo-Marxist racial nihilists in the West.) This was known long before there was any knowledge of genes, and therefore any accurate knowledge of the actual means of transmission. We now know that genes are the means of transmission of all physical traits, including racial traits, from the structure of the brain to the features of the face and the pigmentation and texture of the epidermis. If these traits are not genetically transmitted then how are they transmitted? I don?t know of any other credible explanation for the observed transmission of racial traits from parents to their offspring other than the genetic one, and I doubt that any anthropologist or biologist is explicitly offering one.
Are the races not ?biological categories,? i.e., are they not biological entities, and is their existence not a biological phenomenon? One more time, the answer is obvious. Genes are a biological phenomenon, a part of biology, and probably the most fundamental part. If different races are ?created by differences in the genes? then they are biological categories. Specifically, they are a category below the category of species. Also, races are a product of the biological process of evolution. They were created by the same process of divergent evolution ? the branching of life into different forms that occurs when populations are isolated from each other, usually due to geographic separation ? that created all the biological diversity, or biodiversity, of life on earth. Races are part of that biological diversity. Races are a necessary part of biological evolution. They are the first step in the differentiation or divergence of life into distinctly different forms, the means by which different species are created. They are the stage of evolution a diverging or differentiating population must go through as it develops into separate species. If there were no races there would be no divergent evolution and differentiation of life into separate species.
What did Kenneth Kidd mean when he said, ?you can?t draw boundaries around races,? with the inference that this means races are not real? This sounds like a reference to the fact that the different races of humanity can and do interbreed, that there are no biological or genetic boundaries separating them from intermixture with other races, and hybrid populations or ?clines? of intermediate, racially mixed type do exist. But that is why they are defined as races and not as different species, which are separated by biological or genetic boundaries which make them unable to interbreed and produce hybrid populations. Races do not have to be incapable of interbreeding with other races to be considered genetically and biologically real or distinct. If they were they would be classified as species, not races. The fact that hybrid populations or clines exist means that the different populations of humanity are different races, not different species. The matter of clines has been too much abused by those who seek to use them to deny the existence of different races. The existence of clines proves that all humans are part of the same species, not part of the same race. Indeed, one would expect clines to exist within a species consisting of different races. Also, the existence of clines actually implies the existence of races, as how could there be clines of intermediate types between races if there were no races?
Or, alternatively, perhaps Kidd?s remark is a reference to the fact that because of hybridization or intermixture there are no clear dividing lines or boundaries between the races, but instead a continuum of individuals and populations forming a gradient or cline of gradually changing racial type between the races, so choosing a single point on this continuum of intermediate racial types as a boundary or dividing line between the distinct races at the two ends of the continuum must be somewhat arbitrary, as the types that are located on each side of the dividing line will be more similar, and more closely related, to the type next to them on the other side of the dividing line than they are to the distinct type at the far end of their side of the line. But the existence of a cline or continuous range of intermediate or hybridized racial types between two distinct races does not mean that there is no distinct difference between the two races at the polar ends of the racial continuum. As with any continuum of type, or space or time, the two ends of the continuum are the most distinct from each other, while any two intermediate points on the continuum are less distinct from each other. To suggest that the absence of clear boundary points along a continuum (which is a defining characteristic of a continuum) is evidence that the distinct ends of the continuum do not really exist, and cannot be clearly distinguished from each other, is the product of either simplistic thinking or semantic obfuscation. The solution to this apparent dilemma is to ?step out of the box? constructed by false logic and recognize that it is arbitrary to insist on dividing a continuum of gradually changing types into just two parts, when three or more parts ? the two distinct parts and one or more intermediate parts ? would be a more accurate description of reality. The logical error; or intellectual dishonesty, is only compounded when this arbitrarily imposed inaccuracy is then used as an argument to deny the reality ? the existence ? of the distinct races at the ends of the continuum.
The different races, like species, are biological and genetic entities. Their distinguishing traits are genetic traits, meaning that they are genetically determined and genetically transmitted or passed through the generations, by inherited genes, from the parents to the children, from one generation to another, and thus, despite the denials in the Miami Herald article, obviously ?created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents.? Thus racial traits are genetic traits, and genetic traits are biological traits. Thus race is genetically and biologically based or determined, and thus genetically and biologically real. This is obvious for everyone to see, so obvious that no so-called scientist or expert can credibly or believably deny it, and why denials elicit disbelief by those still in possession of common sense, and are accepted only by those who engage in a ?willing suspension of disbelief? in order to conform to the dictates of ?political correctness.? Leonard Lieberman?s survey of belief, mentioned in the Miami Herald article, is an obvious tool for inculcating and enforcing political correctness or ideological conformity of belief.
Those who claim race is not real cannot see the forest for the trees. They concentrate on the building blocks and cannot see the building. Thus they make statements such as ?all blood is red? or the same color, or all people have the same organs inside, or we are all the same under the skin, etc. (although racial appearance is determined by bone, cartilage and muscle as well as skin, hair and eyes) to make the point that racial differences are not important, as only the building blocks or components are important, not their arrangement or what they form. A physicist I knew in college liked to say that at the sub-atomic level of neutrons, electrons and protons all matter is essentially indistinguishable, and at that level a non-specialist could not determine the difference between a human or a piece of rock, and he was right. Thus anthropologists now adhere to the politically correct racial nihilist dogma of racial denial by stating that at the molecular level of DNA or genes the different races are essentially indistinguishable, and only a specialist could hope to do so. But our senses do not operate at the molecular level, or at the level of our various internal organs, but at the level of the complete being they form, not at the micro level of the component parts (or building blocks) but at the macro level of their completed arrangement or construction. It is this complete construction that those who seek to deconstruct race deny is real, on the grounds that the differences seen in the complete or macro form in which our senses operate cannot be seen by a non-specialist at the micro level of its component parts. The Nordish race is as real as all the individual members who comprise it, who form its existence. They are the Nordish race, and the undeniable reality of their existence is also the undeniable reality of its existence.
This brings us to the important subject of the criteria for racial classification. In order of importance, they are:
1.) Phenotype: the subject?s physical appearance, especially facial features and other obvious physical racial markers. This is the means used by people from time immemorial to identify and define race. Different people, based on their study, awareness, experience and aptitude, have different degrees of ability in this area, yet nearly all people of normal ability can easily distinguish between the primary racial types, and most can also distinguish between the subtypes with which they are most familiar (e.g., Englishmen can usually distinguish between a number of the more common English subtypes). The ability to make these distinctions is to some extent unconscious, seeming somewhat unscientific, subjective and almost intuitive, yet it is an inherent human ability constantly used to identify many common things which are familiar to us, and was used for racial identification long before anyone attempted to construct scientific criteria for this purpose.
2.) Anthropometrics: the subject?s measurements and the indices derived therefrom. This requires some simple measuring tools and expertise in their use, but the results can be cross-checked and verified to a significant degree by the unaided but experienced eye. Carleton Coon, like many classical physical anthropologists of the first half of the 20th century, belonged to what could be called the anthropometric school. Unfortunately, when anthropometrics are given priority over phenotype in classification the result can be a subject classified as something which they don?t really look like. Thus Coon?s reference to exotic Nordic types, from places far removed from the Nordic centers, who conform to the Nordic anthropometric indices but really don?t ?look? Nordic in appearance. When there is an inconsistency between phenotypic and anthropometric classification the phenotypic appearance should generally be given priority. The fact is that a person?s physical appearance or phenotype involves much more than is measured by all the different anthropometric indices. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of subtle, genetically determined things we notice almost unconsciously about a person?s face that are not measured by any of the anthropometric indices of facial features, and this is also true of other areas of the body. This makes phenotype a much more accurate and comprehensive method of racial classification than all the anthropometric measurements yet devised. Anthropometrics originally began more as the measurement and study of the differences between the known European subraces than as a method for classifying or reclassifying them, and I believe it was improper to elevate it to the primary means of racial classification with precedence over phenotype. Anthropometrics should be seen as an aid to assist in phenotypic classification in difficult cases, perhaps casting the deciding vote in case of a phenotypic impasse, rather than as something that replaces or takes precedence over it.
3. Genetics: This measurement of molecular phenomena is based on something that is effectively invisible and unknown to the human senses. It is subject to the most abuse as the layman has no means of independently evaluating, verifying or checking the claims made by the supposed expert geneticist, as to do so would require extensive laboratory facilities and equipment, samples, and specialized scientific expertise. As a result, the claims are essentially taken on faith or trust in the competence and honesty of the experts, and can be easily misinterpreted, selectively reported or even falsified. Therefore genetic measurements should be regarded with suspicion when they are inconsistent with more visible means of classification. Also, geneticists do not yet really know what specific genes are involved in the determination of those traits which constitute the racial phenotype, so their measurements do not really involve those genes which are actually racially determinative but arbitrarily selected genes that determine genetic traits that are often really racially neutral (e.g., blood factors, etc.) and are present in all races, basing their measurements on the different frequencies of these genes in different populations.
Since the particular genetic traits that the geneticists measure are present in all human populations and races, varying only in frequency, and they have not yet identified the specific genes responsible for the inherited traits that distinguish the different races and are thus unique to a particular race, genetics is thus far only of very limited and questionable value as a means of racial classification. (Although forensic scientists can now fairly accurately identify a subject?s racial ancestry from DNA samples.) To base a system of racial classification on it, as is perhaps most famously done by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators, can lead to some gross inaccuracies. For example, Cavalli-Sforza?s widely reproduced chart of genetic distances between populations (?The History and Geography of Human Genes,? page 78, Figure 2.3.2.B) groups the Japanese, Koreans and Mongols in a common category with Europeans while grouping the south Chinese in a different category with Polynesians, etc., indicating greater genetic distance between Japanese and southern Chinese than between Japanese and Europeans. Simply put, the particular genetic traits he uses for racial classification are more similar in Northeast Asians and Europeans than they are in Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians. This result should have set off alarm bells, clearly discrediting these genetic traits as irrelevant for the purpose of racial classification, but the genetic anthropologists persist in their use. Given this logical, or illogical, paradigm, is it any wonder that the genetic anthropologists come to the conclusion that the different races don?t really exist, because they don?t really exist in the particular genes they use for their studies?
We have not yet found the specific genes that determine race and racial differences, yet we know the traits that differentiate the races are real and are genetically determined, inherited from the parents and earlier ancestors, and from this readily observable and consistent fact we logically (and scientifically) deduce the existence of those genes. It is scientific arrogance, and very arbitrary, illogical and unscientific, to claim ? as the genetic anthropologists referred to by Prof. Peek do about race ? that something does not exist, is not scientifically valid, and is not real until science can fully understand and explain it, or in his words, that racial classifications cannot be based ?on any criteria that cannot be shown to be genotypic.? What is the standard for ?shown?? It is obvious to the most normal observation that the physical traits or criteria that are popularly used for racial classification or identification, with virtually error-free accuracy, are consistently and predictably inherited from the parents and passed through the generations. The only possible logical deduction is that these inherited traits are genetically transmitted, and that they are genotypic, even if they cannot yet be ?shown to be genotypic? in the sense of being identified, observed in action and fully understood and explained at the genetic level. Such an extreme standard or requirement for scientific acceptance is arbitrary and illogical. Scientific explanations for most common and easily observable phenomena are very recent, yet those phenomena ? those facts of nature and reality ? existed and were no less real before they had a scientific explanation, and were accepted as real by science, regardless of whether their underlying existence was proved or their nature understood. Things exist and are real independent of our scientific understanding of them, otherwise nothing would have existed until quite recently. Science is the study of reality, not the creator of reality.
Attempts to minimize or trivialize race and racial differences as meaningless and unimportant ? or even nonexistent ? on the grounds that the races share 99.9% of their genetic code or genome in common sound impressive until put in perspective with regard to the degree of human genetic similarity with other life forms. For example, we share 20-30% of our genetic code in common with yeast and bacteria, 80% in common with birds, 90% in common with non-primate mammals (e.g., cows, horses, pigs, cats, dogs, raccoons, etc.), and 98.6% in common with chimpanzees. Seen in this perspective a .1% genetic difference actually looms large as a degree of difference that is very meaningful and important.
The active or functional part of the human genome or genetic code consists of about 22,000 genes (2007 estimates) containing about 87 million ?genetic letters,? or nucleotide base pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid), of the total of about 2.9 billion base pairs in the complete human genome, or an average of about 4,000 genetic base pairs or ?letters? per gene. The races of the human species share 99.9% of their 2.9 billion genetic base pairs in common, with genetic differences in .1% of the base pairs, a proportion which represents about 2.9 million genetic differences in the genome, or 87,000 genetic differences in the genes, or an average of four differences in genetic base pairs per gene. A single difference in the genetic base pairs or coding of a gene can significantly alter its effect, so a .1% difference in the genetic code could theoretically change the effect of virtually every gene in the genome. Seen in this perspective, as in the perspective in the preceding paragraph, a .1% genetic difference actually looms large as a degree of difference that is very meaningful and important.
The common argument that there is a greater degree of genetic variation within a race than between races is so misleading as to be suspect of deliberate deception. First, those who use this argument (frequently citing Luigi Cavalli-Sforza et. al. as their authority) often fail to state that the genetic difference between races they are referring to is in the racial average of the given traits. Thus what they should be saying is that the difference between the average in the given genetic traits between two races is less than the degree of variation in those traits within each race. Of course, to a thoughtful person this should be obvious, as it is logically impossible for there to be less variation in a given trait in two races than in one race. But leaving out the fact that they are comparing the full extremes of variation in a genetic trait within one race with the difference between the averages of that trait in two races is like leaving out the fact that one is comparing apples and oranges, and that such a comparision is not really very meaningful. Second, and most important, the genetic traits they use for these comparisons are not among those that are racially definitive and determinative, the traits on which racial identity is based and that are unique to each race, but among those that are not racially definitive or determining, that are racially neutral, and thus not really racially meaningful. The same argument could be used in a comparison of humans with chimpanzees, as the degree of difference between the average of humans and chimpanzees in the genetic traits they share in common is less than the degree of difference or variation in those traits within the human or chimpanzee species. It is the genetic traits that the human races do not share in common that determine the differences between them, just as it is the genetic traits that humans and chimpanzees do not share in common that determine the differences between them, and these are the only traits that are meaningful or important when discussing the differences between races and species.
At the risk of being repetitive, I?d like to add something I wrote on this subject to another correspondent. A political analysis is necessary because the ultimate motive for denying the reality of race is itself purely political in origin, not scientific.
The claim that races don?t really exist, ludicrous and absurd as it is, is being encountered with increasing frequency, and is central to the cause of racial preservation, so we have to take it seriously and expose it for what it is: an exercise in thought control to impose an incredible falsehood as politically correct orthodox dogma to which all must conform or suffer condemnation and reprisal [cf. Lieberman's survey of belief cited in the Miami Herald article above]. The purpose can only be to eradicate every vestigial trace of European racial consciousness and awareness. Thus a person of European racial type can?t love or care for their race, or have any loyalty or positive feelings or emotions towards it, as these feelings are based on racial consciousness which the dominant culture condemns as politically incorrect, and even pathologizes as mental illness. This tactic is ineffective on persons with a high degree of intellectual and moral autonomy, but people of less independent thought ? who depend upon the opinions of experts for their own opinions, yet characteristically and perversely regard themselves as superior to the independent thinkers ? are easy to control.
Personally, I trust what I can see with my own eyes over any claim to the contrary. I was well aware of primary racial differences before the age of eight, even though they weren?t discussed in my home and I had no special training or education in this matter. The reality of race was simply self-evident: I could effortlessly see it with my eyes. I could also easily associate racial types with the appropriate areas of the world from which they derive. At age eight, when I saw the movie ?The Bridge Over the River Kwai,? I understood and could identify the racial distinction between the Japanese and British soldiers, even without their uniforms, and if a Briton had been cast as a Japanese, or vice versa, I would have instantly recognized that as improper. My racial identification process had nothing to do with the subject?s blood type, cephalic index, IQ, height, or numerous genetic variables, although some of these can be seen with the eye while others cannot. You could provide me with all this information about a person and I wouldn?t be able to identify their race, but show me a good picture of them and I can identify them most readily (and could when I was eight years old, although I wasn?t as aware of the finer points of racial identification as I am today). Even if they are of mixed type, I can identify the dominant type in the mixture and possibly the other types as well. (For example, golfer Tiger Woods? dominant type is Congoid, although his ancestry is 50% Thai [Southeast Asian] and less than 50% Congoid, as he has some Amerindian and Caucasian ancestry as well. Yet my knowledge that he is part Amerindian and Caucasian is different than my knowledge that he is predominantly Congoid. I can see his Congoid ancestry with my own eyes, so it is first hand knowledge. I can?t see his Amerindian or Caucasian ancestry, it is not evident to me, so my knowledge of it is second hand, based on what I?ve read or been told.)
Interestingly, all the claims that races are not real and simply don?t exist are based on differences (or lack of differences) in things which are not racially definitive, which have never been used by ordinary people for racial identification, whether things we can?t see (genes, blood types, IQ, etc.) or things we can (height, cephalic index, etc.). Some scientists may have attempted to identify different races through these things, but they are of marginal utility as racial identifiers, and at best secondary to the primary identifiers of physical appearance. They are actually completely unnecessary for racial identification and are only a matter of interest to those scientists who study such things. Their use as racial identifiers probably began in good faith, in the search for measurable and quantifiable means of racial identification, but now they are used by the racial nihilists, racial gnostics and other race deniers to claim that races don?t exist, are not real, because the differences between the different races in these things are either minor or essentially nonexistent, often based on the assertion that the variation in these things between different individuals within a race are greater than the average variation in these things between races. So what! These things are not primary racial identifiers. They are at most secondary racial identifiers. As I said, you could tell me all these things about a person and I wouldn?t be able to identify their race. But I can identify their race by their physical appearance, as I can identify different types of animals or plants by their appearance but not by such things as genes, blood types, etc. Yet the race deniers press on with their insistence that races don?t exist, based on their measurements of these improper racial identifiers, and present this logical fallacy to the public as the scientific view. I?m sorry to say that Luigi Cavalli-Sforza is also guilty of this intellectual dishonesty or incompetence. We don?t need scientists to identify races for us. I was able to do it with great accuracy by age eight without reading any scientific work on the subject, and everyone in my family, and everyone I knew or know, was and is able to do it without help from any scientist. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and other scientists who proclaim race doesn?t exist are willfully racially blind, and only fools allow the blind to lead them. Unfortunately, racial blindness, whether real or feigned, is a precondition for success, or even survival, in the present culture. It is the price which all must pay to qualify for advancement to positions of influence and power. (Reminiscent of ?Gulliver?s Travels,? where blindness was the price required for immortality. Who was Swift satirizing? All the willingly blind conformists who prefer social success to objective truth.)
This is the reason why I often compare our situation to Hans Christian Andersen?s story ?The Emperor?s New Clothes.? In the story, the population is told by the expert authorities that the Emperor?s clothes are real, told to believe something contrary to what they can see with their own eyes, to distrust their own judgment and deny the evidence of their own senses. But a child, uncorrupted by political correctness, naturally trusting what he sees with his own eyes, exposes their fraud. Like the child, we must trust what we see with our own eyes, and virtually every person of anywhere near average intelligence who has eyes to see can readily identify a person?s dominant primary racial type by their physical appearance. Even the race deniers can do this, but claim that physical appearance is not the proper racial identifier, insisting against all logic that the proper racial identifiers are those things with which they, and we, are actually unable to identify a person?s race. Thus the race deniers attempt to define race out of existence with word games. But it is a physical reality that people see with their own eyes, however much they have been told to be racially blind and not see it, and to deny they see it.
The ultimate purpose of race denial is to promote racial intermixture, for if race is not real there are no legitimate grounds for racial preservationism ? or opposition to intermixture ? as there is no race to preserve. Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute and a regent of the University of California, is an advocate of interracial marriage. In this he practices what he preaches, or vice versa, as he is Congoid and his wife is Caucasian. Connerly is widely admired by racial nihilist American ?conservatives? for his crusade to end ?Affirmative Action? racial quota programs, consistent with his belief that all racial values and considerations should be eliminated. The following is from an article by Connerly that appeared in David Horowitz? FrontPage Magazine in September, 2000, entitled ?Loving America:?
When the history books are written about ?race? relations in the last half of the 20th century, I expect 1967 to be a big year?.1967 marks a turning point in America?s race relations?. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that laws forbidding ?interracial? marriage were unconstitutional. The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. Throughout the 20th century, scientists told us that ?race? is a human invention, and that it does not represent a natural biological division between humans. Nevertheless, Americans continued to divide people along ?racial? lines. Until 1950, we only allowed ?whites? to become naturalized American citizens?.By mid-century, however, cracks began to appear in our racial lines?.Rev. King moved Kennedy, and then Johnson, to pass the Civil Rights laws that we currently observe. But, these merely broke down the artificial barriers between the ?races.? A number of states still maintained the fundamental barrier ? they forbade ?black? and ?white? people from marrying.
That is why Loving is so important. After Loving, people began to ignore the government?s racial lines. Individuals whose skin color didn?t match began to date, marry and have children in ever-increasing numbers. The effect was difficult to see at first. There were many who gasped when the University of Georgia?s star running back, Herschel Walker, had a white girlfriend. Today, though, the cable network E! may ask Tiger Woods and Joanne Jagoda, Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt and Maury Povich and Connie Chung about their love lives, but not because they are ?interracial? couples. Sober observers of race relations today recognize the fundamental sea changes at work. Later this month the Jerome Levy Institute is sponsoring a conference devoted to ?multiraciality.?
It is easy to lose sight of the powerful effect the ?interracial? community is having on America?.In California today, there are more children born to ?interracial? couples than are born to two black parents. As the Hispanic and Asian diasporas continue, the ?California trend? will become the American trend. By 2070, perhaps sooner, ?black,? ?brown,? and ?white? will be historical concepts. Café-au-lait will be reality?.We are on the cusp of the age that forgot ?race.? Today?s young children will never understand ?race? like their parents. Their playgrounds are ?interracial.? The skin of their friends and classmates represent every hue imaginable. We are finally nearing the summit, when the government will stop stuffing the richness of our common humanity into their stifling ?race? boxes. The transition from a ?race? paradigm to one in which there is no such thing as ?race? will not be easy. There is no road map to get us there. Political obstacles will emerge at every step of the way, because of those who hold that ?race? is one of those ?self-evident truths.? Because certain Americans look roughly alike, they must be members of the same ?race,? so the argument will go. We must induce the scientists to step forward and refute the myths of ?race.?
Our language must be modified to reflect more appropriate ways of identifying people other than ?African-American,? ?Asian,? and ?Hispanic.? We must argue for the abandonment of terms such as ?minority? to reflect the reality that Americans are not part of any socially defined ?racial? groups. Thus, there is no ?majority? or ?minority.? More Americans must be encouraged to acknowledge the ?diversity? of their backgrounds. When more ?African-Americans? readily and proudly acknowledge the diversity? of their backgrounds ? the fact that they are the product of America?s melting pot ? then the concept of ?race? will disintegrate?
Once social outcasts because of their defiance of social conventions, interracial people can and must now be leaders in preparing our nation for the future. We are truly one people, a merging of those who believe in a colorblind society, who are willing to act on those beliefs in the things that matter most. Now is the time to step forward, to be counted, and to show what a Loving America really is.
The purpose of this race denial, again, is obvious. It seeks to delegitimize racial existence by denying that existence. Something which doesn?t exist has no legal or moral standing to claim a right to exist or any other rights: no right to life, to control of its life, or to the conditions it requires for life; no right to preservation, no right to independence, freedom or self-determination, no right to its own territory and homeland, no right to be. Since it doesn?t really exist there is nothing to preserve or protect, its continued existence is not a matter of legitimate concern, and nothing will be lost by its nonexistence, destruction or extinction. The basis for a Nordish racial preservationist challenge to the multiracialist goal of Nordish racial extinction is cut off at its source, delegitimized as unreal and pathologized as mentally ill (paranoid delusion?), and it will likely be eventually criminalized as a threat to the multiracialist civil order.
Richard McCulloch[/justify]
[center]Issue of Racial Intermixture and "Impurity"
The Issue of Racial Intermixture and ?Impurity? Correspondence and commentary on claims that the Nordish peoples are racially mixed and ?impure?[/center]
Subject: South African types
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:56:05
From: ?A. P.? in South Africa
[justify]I would like to ask ?.about? the claim by a
geneticist from Cape Town (I don?t remember the name) that genetically the
South African whites are 7% Africans (ie Capoid and Congoid). I think that
it?s mostly propaganda and that the african strain in the white, and
especially Afrikaans, SA folk would be negligible, if one considers the
historical and social conditions of that country.
Regards
A.P.
Subject: Re: South African types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:16:39 SAST
From: ?G.P.? in South Africa
On discussing South African White racial composition, I take interest in the
point mentioned by A.P. about Congoid and Capoid intermixture. Since I am
not a genetic expert, it is difficult for me to argue on genetics. What I
can say, is that a 7% influence is definitely on the extreme side. For
instance, historians claim a 7% French Huguenot ancestry. They had a
profound influence on the cultivation of wine, and other cultural aspects of
the Cape. To claim the same amount of coloured contribution sounds a bit
absurd. I have, for instance, genealogical records of my family
dating back to the 1580?s.
Another point to mention is that there have been made many attempts by South
African genealogists like Cor Pama to map the Afrikaans ancestry. To make
any ?new? claims seems to me like apartheid-abolishionist propaganda, of
what there have been no shortage since the 1980?s.
Regards
G.P.
Subject: S.A. types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:27:41
From: ?A. P.? in South Africa
I have a theory about that 7%. I read on an interview to an Afrikaans woman
married to a Zulu man that their light skinned daughter was registered as
white, while their darker skinned son as coloured. Of course, that?s
nonsense, because both are mulattoes, disregarding their skin colours. But,
if in the recent past light mulattoes in SA were classified as whites, then
that 7% is not surprising after all.
Regards.
A.P.
Richard McCulloch?s reply,
Regarding the claim mentioned by ?A.P.? that white South Africans are 7% Congoid or Capoid, I include below a rather lengthy edited excerpt from my book Destiny of Angels (1986) that addresses this very subject in the American context. (Funny how the same multiracialist tactics keep popping up in different countries.)
The growing effort to discourage resistance to interracial mixture by asserting that the Nordish race is already thoroughly mixed beyond hope of correction ? thereby also disparaging Nordish racial integrity and identity ? has a tendency to grow bolder, and more reckless and irresponsible in its claims, as its prior false assertions go unchallenged in the dominant multiracialist intellectual environment.
An example of how far this process has gone ? to the point where almost ?anything goes? and any exaggeration is accepted, provided it is consistent with the designs and interests of multiracialism ? appeared in an article in People Weekly magazine (Dec. 6, 1982, page 156.) about a Louisiana woman whose ancestry was one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) ?black,? but who regarded herself as ?white? and had been raised in, and accepted by, the white community. Her mother and her mother?s sister, both ?octoroons? (one-eighth or 12.5 percent black, having the equivalent of one black great-grandparent), had gone by different paths, the mother ?passing? as white while the aunt remained part of the black community. The woman was challenging a Louisiana law (since repealed) which required that any person more than one-thirty-second (3.125 percent) of black ancestry be classified as black in the state?s legal records.
According to the article, Dr. Munro Edmonson, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University appearing as an expert witness on the woman?s behalf, testified that ?modern genetic studies show that blacks around the country average 25 percent white genes and whites five percent black genes. By these statistics, said Edmonson, and assuming the one-thirty-second law prevailed, the entire native born population of Louisiana could be considered black!?
The first criticism of Edmonson?s above claim is obvious. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the ?average? white person in the United States had five percent black genes (more on this assumption later) only a few would actually be the exact ?average? of five percent or one-twentieth black ancestry. (Hybridization requires many generations after its total completion before achieving a level of stabilized uniformity even remotely approaching homogeneity.) Many would have no black genes at all, while many others would have far more than five percent in order to counterbalance the effect of those who had no black genes and still achieve the five percent average. If half of the white population had no black genes, the other half would have to average ten percent black genes in order to maintain the five percent overall average. Of the half with black genes some, again, would be far less than ten percent black, while others would have to be proportionately more in order to sustain the group?s ten percent average. If three-quarters of the white population had no black genes, the remaining quarter would have to average twenty percent black genes to uphold the overall five percent average, and some would have to be considerably more than this. If nine-tenths of the members of the white population had no black genes, the remaining tenth would have to average fifty percent black genes (that is, be half black, or mulattoes) to keep a five percent overall average, and many would actually have to be more than half black to compensate for those who were less.
At this point we confront the definition of what is ?white.? The phenomenon of partial blacks ?passing? as white is a complex one. Passing is a form of deception, and whether it will succeed depends on both the racial knowledge and sensitivity of the person being deceived and the detectability of the black traits, which varies greatly even when the degree of intermixture ? or percentage of black genes ? is the same, as among siblings (see the above example of the Louisiana woman?s mother and aunt). The same partial black may successfully deceive some whites while failing to deceive others whose level of racial knowledge and sensitivity is greater. Under present levels of racial knowledge and sensitivity, an octoroon generally cannot successfully pass as an unmixed or full-blooded white, while a person who is one-sixteenth black generally, but not always, can. However, when they do succeed in passing as white, it is usually as a marginal and indistinct type of white under the broad, less sensitive and discriminating definition of the term. They usually do not pass as a distinctively Northern European type of white. A white who was five percent black in ancestry would, in nearly all cases, know it. For him not to know it would require that he not know his parents or grandparents, and even then he would probably still know or suspect it. That so few whites, including Louisiana whites, have knowledge of any black ancestry indicates how rare and uncommon such ancestry actually is.
The second objection to Edmonson?s assertion is twofold. If 6.25 percent black intermixture is the maximum level that can generally successfully pass as a marginal white, how is it possible for the claimed average degree of intermixture ? five percent ? to be so close to the maximum permissible degree for passing, when the upper end of the range should far exceed the average in order to counterbalance the lower end and the large number who have no black genes at all? Also, since persons who are one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) of black ancestry tend to bear a physical resemblance to less distinct, borderline or marginal whites, such as the typical inhabitants of Andalusia or Tunisia, why is it that the white population of the United States bears no resemblance to those two peoples? In fact, the Northern European population of America ? which in 1980 constituted about 79 percent of the white population ? shows no identifiable sign or trace of black intermixture, and remains essentially indistinguishable racially, physically and esthetically ? showing no significant difference ? from the other members of the same branches of their race who remain in northern Europe, free from any evident black interracial mixture. If the Northern European population of America were five percent, or even one percent, black it would obviously show. It would not look the way it does. The physical-esthetic difference would be definite and undeniable, especially among the more recessive, fragile and distinct traits ? whose frequency of occurrence would be greatly reduced and quality of expression and realization distorted and diminished, suffering severe losses in both quantity and quality. If the population of northern Europe from which Nordish-Americans came is accepted as a control group, it must be admitted that there is no significant racial-physical-esthetic variation between the two, and the percentage of fractionally-black hybrids in the Nordish-American population must be so small as to escape attention.
Genetic studies of hybridization are based on variations in blood group frequencies. Like paternity tests they cannot actually prove intermixture, but only establish the possible limits of it, unless the frequency variations are so large that they cannot be accounted for by any other explanation. For example, if a black population has a frequency of fifty percent for a blood group trait and a white population has a frequency of ten percent for the trait, while a second white population has a frequency of twelve percent for the same trait, it may be inferred ? depending on certain variables, such as the dominant or recessive nature of the trait ? that the second white population has a possible degree of black intermixture as high as five percent. But the natural variation which occurs within populations in the frequency of such traits (due to genetic drift and other reasons other than intermixture), and the margin for error inherent in such studies, are both large enough that any indication of intermixture below ten percent could in fact be zero ? too small to provide certain proof or evidence of any degree of intermixture ? and we could therefore be discussing something which is virtually nonexistent except in the minds of men. Even in a population as comparatively homogeneous ? and with as little variation ? as that of Japan, the variation which will unavoidably exist between different groups (such as the populations of different islands) will be sufficient to establish a possibility of some small degree of intermixture with any other population on earth. Only a population which exhibited zero variation ? and none such exist or can exist ? could prove the impossibility of any degree of intermixture.
Here again there is the problem of definition to consider. A wide spectrum of racial types in the population of the United States ? Northern Europeans, Armenids, Mediterranids, Orientalids, Irano-Afgans, and even some groups (such as the Puerto Ricans) who exhibit an obvious degree of black intermixture ? are commonly defined and classified as ?white.? The degree of variation existing between the diverse racial types in this broadly defined population is so extreme that it defies as absurd any attempt to classify it as a coherent whole in relationship to any other race.
The final answer to Edmonson?s testimony is historical in approach. Scholars and anthropologists in the earlier part of this century, or in the previous century, never suspected or indicated a significant absorption of black genes into the white population. There is no record of racially mixed offspring being raised by, or accepted into, the white community to any measurable extent. Before the middle of this century, interracial marriage between white and black was socially unacceptable (and often illegal) and so rare as to be almost nonexistent in statistical terms. Thus the overwhelming majority of racially mixed children (mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons) were illegitimate and were virtually always raised by ? and absorbed into ? the black population. Nearly all the black-white intermixture which occurred before this century involved white males and black females (unlike the present situation, where three-fourths of the wives in black-white marriages are white). Then, as now, the children overwhelmingly tended to stay with the natural mother and her family rather than with the father. The practice of racism acted to protect the white race from intermixture and prevent the acceptance of racially mixed children into its ranks.
That nearly all the mixed offspring were absorbed into the black population is indicated by the high proportion (25 percent) of white genes in its genetic composition. Assuming that for most of American history the white population outnumbered the black by a ratio of about ten to one, the above percentage indicates that the black community, over the course of about eight generations, absorbed the equivalent of one-fortieth or 2.5 percent of the white population into itself. For whites to average five percent black genes while blacks average 25 percent white genes ? a mixture ratio of five to one, when the population ratio as given above was ten to one ? would require that twice as many of the racially mixed offspring were absorbed into the white population as were absorbed into the black population (or that two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the mixed children were absorbed into the white race and one-third into the black). A five percent average of black genes, assuming the ten to one population ratio, would indicate that the white population absorbed the equivalent of one-half or 50 percent of the black population into itself (50 percent divided by ten equals five percent), and that the white race absorbed twice as many black genes as the black race absorbed white genes. But this contradicts the fact, which ordinary observation should qualify as common knowledge, that as a result of the ?color bar? created by white racism the racially mixed children were almost invariably raised by and absorbed into the black community, and that the proportion who were absorbed into the white population, rather than the 67 percent required to create a five percent degree of intermixture, was probably much less than one percent.
For the Nordish race, existence in a multiracial society, in close and unnatural proximity to other races, has always resulted in interracial mixture by wayward and irresponsible members who endangered the future integrity and well-being of their kind. In this racially unhealthy environment, fraught with danger to racial survival by the ever-present threat of absorbing dominant alien genes, only the practice of racism protects the integrity, identity and continued existence of the race ? and its vulnerable recessive traits ? by isolating it from the effects of intermixture. Until recently the practice of racism has preserved the Nordish race, so that it still exists in unaltered form with its identity still intact. The recent trend toward multiracialism is stripping the Nordish race of its defense and protection from intermixture, and its consequent destructive effects of extinction and racial death. (With the resultant intermixture of Northern Europeans with virtually every other race on earth, through both marriage and adoption.) The apologists and proponents of intermixture ? who presently enjoy such dominance that the once great academic disciplines created by the white race have been enlisted in the cause of its destruction ? employ every opportunity to disparage and cast doubts on the racial integrity, uniqueness and value of the Nordish race, thereby weakening its will to resist by depriving it of belief in itself. The goal of their misleading distortions is to prevent Northern Europeans from learning the truth until it is too late to do anything about it. Their hope is that if the Nordish race falsely believes it has already fallen, then it will fall, when it really falls, without a struggle.
Richard McCulloch
Subject: Disillusionment
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2000
From: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>
To: archon@racialcompact.com
The Myth of Northern European Racial Purity
White supremacists, white separatists, and white pride groups in general are
quick to acknowledge racial impurity in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe,
and, in some cases, even Central Europe, but they continue to operate, not
accidentally, on the assumption that Northern Europe?namely the British
Isles, from where most white Americans are descended?is 100% Nordic, or, if
not that, then 100% ?Aryan? (recent Third World immigrants notwithstanding).
However, centuries ago, the British Isles were settled by Phoenicians, a
Hamito-Semitic people of the Middle East and North Africa, who left their
genetic and phenotypic imprints on the current populations of those lands.
Furthermore, it?s estimated that, as a result of white settlers in America
raping their slaves and prisoners, and of the offspring of such unions often
passing for white, some 10-15% of Americans who think of themselves as
entirely descended from Northern Europe in fact have some black or Indian
blood, which can manifest itself as a dark complexion, kinky hair, a broad
face, wide nose or almond shaped eyes, or, sometimes, it doesn?t manifest
itself at all. For instance, such apparently Nordic people as Heather
Locklear, Chuck Norris, Gary Busey, and Anna Nicole Smith are purported to
have Indian ancestry.
Thus, the native populations of the United Kingdom, and their descendants in
America, like all other European populations, are the products of centuries
of racial and ethnic admixture, and are thus composed of individuals
belonging to the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean physical types, as well as
every conceivable intermediate.
To illustrate this, here are some celebrities who are descended from either England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and who clearly exhibit non-Nordic or non-?Aryan? physical traits which attest to obvious non-European ancestry : VICTORIA ADAMS, JOHNNY CASH, TOM BOSLEY, SEAN CONNERY, ROBERT FORSTER, TERI HATCHER, BOB HOSKINS, PHYLIS LEE ISLEY (Jennifer Jones), TOM JONES, JOE NAMATH, JOHN OATES, STEPHEN PEARCY, STEPHEN REA, MEG TILLY, CATHERINE ZETA-JONES
Got a problem with that?
Subject: Why disillusionment?
Date: Thurs, 23 Feb 2000
From: archon@racialcompact.com
To: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>
I don?t know of any historical or anthropological source that states that Phoenicians settled in Britain, as you state. There is a possibility that they traded for the tin of Cornwall, but this would not constitute a settlement of the racial significance that you imply. It is likely that a Middle Eastern element arrived during Roman times, but they didn?t have a lasting impact on the population.
While the individuals listed above all show signs of non-Nordic ancestry, none of them show obvious signs of ?non-European? ancestry, contrary to your claim, with the possible exception of Bob Hoskins, who is of Jewish rather than British ancestry. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones both show strong influence of the Atlanto-Mediterranean type that settled in Britain during Mesolithic times and has been an important element in the population ever since. Neither Joe Namath nor Tom Bosley are of British ancestry ? Namath being Hungarian in ancestry and Bosley Jewish. As for those who ?are purported to have Indian ancestry,? this information is of little value without the proportion of Indian ancestry. Many Nordish-Americans have some small proportion of Indian ancestry. If it is 1/8 or less it usually has little racial effect, although the psychological effect on racial consciousness and loyalties may be significant. (President Clinton claims to be some small fraction Cherokee Indian, and although this isn?t obvious in his phenotype, which is Nordish, it may have contributed psychologically to his lack of loyalty to the vital interests of the Nordish race.)
Regarding the allegation of extensive intermixture with blacks, Carleton Coon ? in The Living Races of Man (1965), page 307 ? 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 Nordish-American population.
But what is your point? Is it to oppose Nordish (Northern European) racial preservation and continued existence on the grounds that the Northern Europeans are not 100% pure, and anything not 100% pure is not worth saving? If so, this is an old argument that I?ve always considered to be very illogical, in that the people who most strongly oppose and hate racial ?purity,? and want to destroy it, are the ones who make such a fetish about it by holding it to such an arbitrary and extreme standard as to define it out of existence. In my essay ?Racial Average is Racial Destiny? I propose an objective means of measuring the extent to which Northern Europeans can assimilate other racial elements and still remain Nordish in racial type. Obviously, this means that 100% Nordish ancestry is not required for a people, or an individual, to be Nordish in racial type.
Personally, I love the Northern Europeans just as they are, and want to preserve them that way, just as I want to preserve all the races that now exist essentially as they are. That?s ?purity? enough for me.
Richard McCulloch
Richard McCulloch comments,
Perhaps the most relevant genetic study to date on the issue of Nordish or Northern European racial ?purity? versus mixture was reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of the periodical Nature. ?Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome? (p.199) had findings suggesting ?that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans,? and asked, ?What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently recolonized by a small number of founders.? This report received considerable publicity in the popular press. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:
?All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men ? perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 ? researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA.The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa.?
This study leaves little room for significant mixture from other sources over the last 15,000 years, or even the last 30,000 years. It points instead to a separate ?Adam and Eve,? or more precisely a very small group of Adams and Eves, at least 15,000 years ago who were essentially the sole and exclusive ancestors of all modern northern Europeans.
One comes across many reports that some celebrity is part Indian (James Garner, Val Kilmer, Cathy Lee Crosby) but without knowing what part (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32?) it is not really very meaningful or helpful. Kim Basinger and Farrah Fawcett are both purported to be 1/8 Indian, which again indicates that a proportion of 1/8 or less is not always phenotypically significant.
In fact, I knew a very attractive sandy-haired, blue-eyed girl who was 1/4 Cherokee, but bragged about how people mistook her for Swedish when she traveled in Europe, something I found very believable, although her high cheekbones, of which she was very proud, were too angular to be typical of the Swedish type, and were really the only trait that indicated her Indian ancestry. Her complexion was similar to Kim Basinger (who really is Swedish, at least her non-Indian part). I met her family. Her half-Cherokee mother looked very Indian, while her father was a very big and very blond Borreby type. Her sister apparently got the obvious Indian genes, with blackish brown hair and coppery skin, yet attractive Europeanized facial features.
I came across a PBS Frontline website that purports to reveal the mixed racial ancestry of historical figures and celebrities, with the obvious ulterior motive of normalizing and thus promoting racial intermixture. It asserts that England?s Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, who was of Portuguese ancestry, was part Congoid. It also implies that Heather Locklear is of part Indian and Congoid ancestry because the name Locklear is associated with certain ?tri-racial isolates? ? communities of mixed Congoid, Indian and European elements that existed in North Carolina two or more centuries ago. It doesn?t specifically state that she is part Indian or Congoid, and gives no indication what part Indian or Congoid she might be (1/32, 1/64, 1/128?), but she is pictured, and the implication in the text, which almost gloats as it describes her as a paragon of blonde Anglo-Saxon beauty, is unmistakable.
One is reminded of the absurd claims that Beethoven, Hannibal or Cleopatra were Congoid, the latter two apparently for no reason other than that they were born on the continent of Africa (by which reasoning Syrians and Lebanese should be the same race as Chinese, as they were also born on the continent of Asia). Cleopatra, of course, wasn?t even Egyptian, but Macedonian, the last of the Ptolemaic dynasty founded by one of the successors of Alexander the Great, spoke Greek as her native language (although she did know many other languages, including Egyptian, being reportedly the first of her dynasty to learn it), wore Greek clothing, was surrounded by the Greek culture and Greek architecture of her mostly Greek capital, and was no more Congoid than a modern Afrikaner. Yet political correctness prevents timid academics from correcting the racial fallacies about her that repeatedly appear in the popular culture. Even Michael Grant, a don of ancient history who should know better, asserts that she was probably dark because she was of part Syrian ancestry. But her ?Syrian ancestry? was an ancestress from the Seleucid dynasty, another Macedonian successor kingdom of Alexander that had its capital in Syria, and who was thus no more Syrian than Cleo was Egyptian. (The Seleucid dynasty was however part Iranian or Persian, as its founder, another of Alexander?s generals, had taken his wife from the old Persian nobility, as did Alexander himself, who took several.)
The ultimate purpose, or ulterior motive, for the above and similar claims of racial intermixture, whatever their validity or relevance, is to normalize and legitimize it, and thus promote such intermixture by making it seem harmless, right and socially acceptable, and the avoidance of intermixture seem less vital, necessary and important, and even as wrong or illegitimate. Such seemingly disparate figures as President Clinton and evangelist Billy Graham have endorsed interracial marriage as a means to lessen racial divisions. James Toback, director of the motion picture Black and White, shares their vision, minus the focus on marriage. As reported in Entertainment Weekly (April 14, 2000; pp.41-44)
?Toback suggests ?mass interracial sex? can eliminate racism?.[T]alk to Toback, who also wrote [the film], and you realize he?s celebrating the power of hip-hop [black music] and interracial sex to conquer bigotry?.?I think it is completely changing the whole social order in a way that makes even passive bigotry totally unacceptable to anyone who isn?t kind of a professed Neanderthal. It?s changed the sexual culture completely, which is the key to race, because as soon as you have interracial sex to a degree where it isn?t even an issue and you start with mass interracial sex, then the races become indistinguishable.?
This is, of course, the very thing that opponents of racial integration in the 1960s predicted would happen as a consequence of integration, and which the proponents of racial integration denied would happen. As its opponents feared, and are now being proven right, racial integration is just a euphemism for racial intermixture. Unfortunately, in the 1960s the proponents of racial intermixture were not as open and honest as its proponents such as James Toback are today. If they were Nordish-Americans would have been better informed about the real consequences of their policies at a time when they would have been much more resistant to them. Several decades of racial nihilist indoctrination were necessary before such openness and honesty could be expressed without fear of provoking strong Nordish-American opposition.
Richard McCulloch[/justify]
The Issue of Racial Intermixture and ?Impurity? Correspondence and commentary on claims that the Nordish peoples are racially mixed and ?impure?[/center]
Subject: South African types
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:56:05
From: ?A. P.? in South Africa
[justify]I would like to ask ?.about? the claim by a
geneticist from Cape Town (I don?t remember the name) that genetically the
South African whites are 7% Africans (ie Capoid and Congoid). I think that
it?s mostly propaganda and that the african strain in the white, and
especially Afrikaans, SA folk would be negligible, if one considers the
historical and social conditions of that country.
Regards
A.P.
Subject: Re: South African types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:16:39 SAST
From: ?G.P.? in South Africa
On discussing South African White racial composition, I take interest in the
point mentioned by A.P. about Congoid and Capoid intermixture. Since I am
not a genetic expert, it is difficult for me to argue on genetics. What I
can say, is that a 7% influence is definitely on the extreme side. For
instance, historians claim a 7% French Huguenot ancestry. They had a
profound influence on the cultivation of wine, and other cultural aspects of
the Cape. To claim the same amount of coloured contribution sounds a bit
absurd. I have, for instance, genealogical records of my family
dating back to the 1580?s.
Another point to mention is that there have been made many attempts by South
African genealogists like Cor Pama to map the Afrikaans ancestry. To make
any ?new? claims seems to me like apartheid-abolishionist propaganda, of
what there have been no shortage since the 1980?s.
Regards
G.P.
Subject: S.A. types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:27:41
From: ?A. P.? in South Africa
I have a theory about that 7%. I read on an interview to an Afrikaans woman
married to a Zulu man that their light skinned daughter was registered as
white, while their darker skinned son as coloured. Of course, that?s
nonsense, because both are mulattoes, disregarding their skin colours. But,
if in the recent past light mulattoes in SA were classified as whites, then
that 7% is not surprising after all.
Regards.
A.P.
Richard McCulloch?s reply,
Regarding the claim mentioned by ?A.P.? that white South Africans are 7% Congoid or Capoid, I include below a rather lengthy edited excerpt from my book Destiny of Angels (1986) that addresses this very subject in the American context. (Funny how the same multiracialist tactics keep popping up in different countries.)
The growing effort to discourage resistance to interracial mixture by asserting that the Nordish race is already thoroughly mixed beyond hope of correction ? thereby also disparaging Nordish racial integrity and identity ? has a tendency to grow bolder, and more reckless and irresponsible in its claims, as its prior false assertions go unchallenged in the dominant multiracialist intellectual environment.
An example of how far this process has gone ? to the point where almost ?anything goes? and any exaggeration is accepted, provided it is consistent with the designs and interests of multiracialism ? appeared in an article in People Weekly magazine (Dec. 6, 1982, page 156.) about a Louisiana woman whose ancestry was one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) ?black,? but who regarded herself as ?white? and had been raised in, and accepted by, the white community. Her mother and her mother?s sister, both ?octoroons? (one-eighth or 12.5 percent black, having the equivalent of one black great-grandparent), had gone by different paths, the mother ?passing? as white while the aunt remained part of the black community. The woman was challenging a Louisiana law (since repealed) which required that any person more than one-thirty-second (3.125 percent) of black ancestry be classified as black in the state?s legal records.
According to the article, Dr. Munro Edmonson, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University appearing as an expert witness on the woman?s behalf, testified that ?modern genetic studies show that blacks around the country average 25 percent white genes and whites five percent black genes. By these statistics, said Edmonson, and assuming the one-thirty-second law prevailed, the entire native born population of Louisiana could be considered black!?
The first criticism of Edmonson?s above claim is obvious. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the ?average? white person in the United States had five percent black genes (more on this assumption later) only a few would actually be the exact ?average? of five percent or one-twentieth black ancestry. (Hybridization requires many generations after its total completion before achieving a level of stabilized uniformity even remotely approaching homogeneity.) Many would have no black genes at all, while many others would have far more than five percent in order to counterbalance the effect of those who had no black genes and still achieve the five percent average. If half of the white population had no black genes, the other half would have to average ten percent black genes in order to maintain the five percent overall average. Of the half with black genes some, again, would be far less than ten percent black, while others would have to be proportionately more in order to sustain the group?s ten percent average. If three-quarters of the white population had no black genes, the remaining quarter would have to average twenty percent black genes to uphold the overall five percent average, and some would have to be considerably more than this. If nine-tenths of the members of the white population had no black genes, the remaining tenth would have to average fifty percent black genes (that is, be half black, or mulattoes) to keep a five percent overall average, and many would actually have to be more than half black to compensate for those who were less.
At this point we confront the definition of what is ?white.? The phenomenon of partial blacks ?passing? as white is a complex one. Passing is a form of deception, and whether it will succeed depends on both the racial knowledge and sensitivity of the person being deceived and the detectability of the black traits, which varies greatly even when the degree of intermixture ? or percentage of black genes ? is the same, as among siblings (see the above example of the Louisiana woman?s mother and aunt). The same partial black may successfully deceive some whites while failing to deceive others whose level of racial knowledge and sensitivity is greater. Under present levels of racial knowledge and sensitivity, an octoroon generally cannot successfully pass as an unmixed or full-blooded white, while a person who is one-sixteenth black generally, but not always, can. However, when they do succeed in passing as white, it is usually as a marginal and indistinct type of white under the broad, less sensitive and discriminating definition of the term. They usually do not pass as a distinctively Northern European type of white. A white who was five percent black in ancestry would, in nearly all cases, know it. For him not to know it would require that he not know his parents or grandparents, and even then he would probably still know or suspect it. That so few whites, including Louisiana whites, have knowledge of any black ancestry indicates how rare and uncommon such ancestry actually is.
The second objection to Edmonson?s assertion is twofold. If 6.25 percent black intermixture is the maximum level that can generally successfully pass as a marginal white, how is it possible for the claimed average degree of intermixture ? five percent ? to be so close to the maximum permissible degree for passing, when the upper end of the range should far exceed the average in order to counterbalance the lower end and the large number who have no black genes at all? Also, since persons who are one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) of black ancestry tend to bear a physical resemblance to less distinct, borderline or marginal whites, such as the typical inhabitants of Andalusia or Tunisia, why is it that the white population of the United States bears no resemblance to those two peoples? In fact, the Northern European population of America ? which in 1980 constituted about 79 percent of the white population ? shows no identifiable sign or trace of black intermixture, and remains essentially indistinguishable racially, physically and esthetically ? showing no significant difference ? from the other members of the same branches of their race who remain in northern Europe, free from any evident black interracial mixture. If the Northern European population of America were five percent, or even one percent, black it would obviously show. It would not look the way it does. The physical-esthetic difference would be definite and undeniable, especially among the more recessive, fragile and distinct traits ? whose frequency of occurrence would be greatly reduced and quality of expression and realization distorted and diminished, suffering severe losses in both quantity and quality. If the population of northern Europe from which Nordish-Americans came is accepted as a control group, it must be admitted that there is no significant racial-physical-esthetic variation between the two, and the percentage of fractionally-black hybrids in the Nordish-American population must be so small as to escape attention.
Genetic studies of hybridization are based on variations in blood group frequencies. Like paternity tests they cannot actually prove intermixture, but only establish the possible limits of it, unless the frequency variations are so large that they cannot be accounted for by any other explanation. For example, if a black population has a frequency of fifty percent for a blood group trait and a white population has a frequency of ten percent for the trait, while a second white population has a frequency of twelve percent for the same trait, it may be inferred ? depending on certain variables, such as the dominant or recessive nature of the trait ? that the second white population has a possible degree of black intermixture as high as five percent. But the natural variation which occurs within populations in the frequency of such traits (due to genetic drift and other reasons other than intermixture), and the margin for error inherent in such studies, are both large enough that any indication of intermixture below ten percent could in fact be zero ? too small to provide certain proof or evidence of any degree of intermixture ? and we could therefore be discussing something which is virtually nonexistent except in the minds of men. Even in a population as comparatively homogeneous ? and with as little variation ? as that of Japan, the variation which will unavoidably exist between different groups (such as the populations of different islands) will be sufficient to establish a possibility of some small degree of intermixture with any other population on earth. Only a population which exhibited zero variation ? and none such exist or can exist ? could prove the impossibility of any degree of intermixture.
Here again there is the problem of definition to consider. A wide spectrum of racial types in the population of the United States ? Northern Europeans, Armenids, Mediterranids, Orientalids, Irano-Afgans, and even some groups (such as the Puerto Ricans) who exhibit an obvious degree of black intermixture ? are commonly defined and classified as ?white.? The degree of variation existing between the diverse racial types in this broadly defined population is so extreme that it defies as absurd any attempt to classify it as a coherent whole in relationship to any other race.
The final answer to Edmonson?s testimony is historical in approach. Scholars and anthropologists in the earlier part of this century, or in the previous century, never suspected or indicated a significant absorption of black genes into the white population. There is no record of racially mixed offspring being raised by, or accepted into, the white community to any measurable extent. Before the middle of this century, interracial marriage between white and black was socially unacceptable (and often illegal) and so rare as to be almost nonexistent in statistical terms. Thus the overwhelming majority of racially mixed children (mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons) were illegitimate and were virtually always raised by ? and absorbed into ? the black population. Nearly all the black-white intermixture which occurred before this century involved white males and black females (unlike the present situation, where three-fourths of the wives in black-white marriages are white). Then, as now, the children overwhelmingly tended to stay with the natural mother and her family rather than with the father. The practice of racism acted to protect the white race from intermixture and prevent the acceptance of racially mixed children into its ranks.
That nearly all the mixed offspring were absorbed into the black population is indicated by the high proportion (25 percent) of white genes in its genetic composition. Assuming that for most of American history the white population outnumbered the black by a ratio of about ten to one, the above percentage indicates that the black community, over the course of about eight generations, absorbed the equivalent of one-fortieth or 2.5 percent of the white population into itself. For whites to average five percent black genes while blacks average 25 percent white genes ? a mixture ratio of five to one, when the population ratio as given above was ten to one ? would require that twice as many of the racially mixed offspring were absorbed into the white population as were absorbed into the black population (or that two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the mixed children were absorbed into the white race and one-third into the black). A five percent average of black genes, assuming the ten to one population ratio, would indicate that the white population absorbed the equivalent of one-half or 50 percent of the black population into itself (50 percent divided by ten equals five percent), and that the white race absorbed twice as many black genes as the black race absorbed white genes. But this contradicts the fact, which ordinary observation should qualify as common knowledge, that as a result of the ?color bar? created by white racism the racially mixed children were almost invariably raised by and absorbed into the black community, and that the proportion who were absorbed into the white population, rather than the 67 percent required to create a five percent degree of intermixture, was probably much less than one percent.
For the Nordish race, existence in a multiracial society, in close and unnatural proximity to other races, has always resulted in interracial mixture by wayward and irresponsible members who endangered the future integrity and well-being of their kind. In this racially unhealthy environment, fraught with danger to racial survival by the ever-present threat of absorbing dominant alien genes, only the practice of racism protects the integrity, identity and continued existence of the race ? and its vulnerable recessive traits ? by isolating it from the effects of intermixture. Until recently the practice of racism has preserved the Nordish race, so that it still exists in unaltered form with its identity still intact. The recent trend toward multiracialism is stripping the Nordish race of its defense and protection from intermixture, and its consequent destructive effects of extinction and racial death. (With the resultant intermixture of Northern Europeans with virtually every other race on earth, through both marriage and adoption.) The apologists and proponents of intermixture ? who presently enjoy such dominance that the once great academic disciplines created by the white race have been enlisted in the cause of its destruction ? employ every opportunity to disparage and cast doubts on the racial integrity, uniqueness and value of the Nordish race, thereby weakening its will to resist by depriving it of belief in itself. The goal of their misleading distortions is to prevent Northern Europeans from learning the truth until it is too late to do anything about it. Their hope is that if the Nordish race falsely believes it has already fallen, then it will fall, when it really falls, without a struggle.
Richard McCulloch
Subject: Disillusionment
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2000
From: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>
To: archon@racialcompact.com
The Myth of Northern European Racial Purity
White supremacists, white separatists, and white pride groups in general are
quick to acknowledge racial impurity in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe,
and, in some cases, even Central Europe, but they continue to operate, not
accidentally, on the assumption that Northern Europe?namely the British
Isles, from where most white Americans are descended?is 100% Nordic, or, if
not that, then 100% ?Aryan? (recent Third World immigrants notwithstanding).
However, centuries ago, the British Isles were settled by Phoenicians, a
Hamito-Semitic people of the Middle East and North Africa, who left their
genetic and phenotypic imprints on the current populations of those lands.
Furthermore, it?s estimated that, as a result of white settlers in America
raping their slaves and prisoners, and of the offspring of such unions often
passing for white, some 10-15% of Americans who think of themselves as
entirely descended from Northern Europe in fact have some black or Indian
blood, which can manifest itself as a dark complexion, kinky hair, a broad
face, wide nose or almond shaped eyes, or, sometimes, it doesn?t manifest
itself at all. For instance, such apparently Nordic people as Heather
Locklear, Chuck Norris, Gary Busey, and Anna Nicole Smith are purported to
have Indian ancestry.
Thus, the native populations of the United Kingdom, and their descendants in
America, like all other European populations, are the products of centuries
of racial and ethnic admixture, and are thus composed of individuals
belonging to the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean physical types, as well as
every conceivable intermediate.
To illustrate this, here are some celebrities who are descended from either England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and who clearly exhibit non-Nordic or non-?Aryan? physical traits which attest to obvious non-European ancestry : VICTORIA ADAMS, JOHNNY CASH, TOM BOSLEY, SEAN CONNERY, ROBERT FORSTER, TERI HATCHER, BOB HOSKINS, PHYLIS LEE ISLEY (Jennifer Jones), TOM JONES, JOE NAMATH, JOHN OATES, STEPHEN PEARCY, STEPHEN REA, MEG TILLY, CATHERINE ZETA-JONES
Got a problem with that?
Subject: Why disillusionment?
Date: Thurs, 23 Feb 2000
From: archon@racialcompact.com
To: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>
I don?t know of any historical or anthropological source that states that Phoenicians settled in Britain, as you state. There is a possibility that they traded for the tin of Cornwall, but this would not constitute a settlement of the racial significance that you imply. It is likely that a Middle Eastern element arrived during Roman times, but they didn?t have a lasting impact on the population.
While the individuals listed above all show signs of non-Nordic ancestry, none of them show obvious signs of ?non-European? ancestry, contrary to your claim, with the possible exception of Bob Hoskins, who is of Jewish rather than British ancestry. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones both show strong influence of the Atlanto-Mediterranean type that settled in Britain during Mesolithic times and has been an important element in the population ever since. Neither Joe Namath nor Tom Bosley are of British ancestry ? Namath being Hungarian in ancestry and Bosley Jewish. As for those who ?are purported to have Indian ancestry,? this information is of little value without the proportion of Indian ancestry. Many Nordish-Americans have some small proportion of Indian ancestry. If it is 1/8 or less it usually has little racial effect, although the psychological effect on racial consciousness and loyalties may be significant. (President Clinton claims to be some small fraction Cherokee Indian, and although this isn?t obvious in his phenotype, which is Nordish, it may have contributed psychologically to his lack of loyalty to the vital interests of the Nordish race.)
Regarding the allegation of extensive intermixture with blacks, Carleton Coon ? in The Living Races of Man (1965), page 307 ? 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 Nordish-American population.
But what is your point? Is it to oppose Nordish (Northern European) racial preservation and continued existence on the grounds that the Northern Europeans are not 100% pure, and anything not 100% pure is not worth saving? If so, this is an old argument that I?ve always considered to be very illogical, in that the people who most strongly oppose and hate racial ?purity,? and want to destroy it, are the ones who make such a fetish about it by holding it to such an arbitrary and extreme standard as to define it out of existence. In my essay ?Racial Average is Racial Destiny? I propose an objective means of measuring the extent to which Northern Europeans can assimilate other racial elements and still remain Nordish in racial type. Obviously, this means that 100% Nordish ancestry is not required for a people, or an individual, to be Nordish in racial type.
Personally, I love the Northern Europeans just as they are, and want to preserve them that way, just as I want to preserve all the races that now exist essentially as they are. That?s ?purity? enough for me.
Richard McCulloch
Richard McCulloch comments,
Perhaps the most relevant genetic study to date on the issue of Nordish or Northern European racial ?purity? versus mixture was reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of the periodical Nature. ?Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome? (p.199) had findings suggesting ?that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans,? and asked, ?What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently recolonized by a small number of founders.? This report received considerable publicity in the popular press. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:
?All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men ? perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 ? researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA.The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa.?
This study leaves little room for significant mixture from other sources over the last 15,000 years, or even the last 30,000 years. It points instead to a separate ?Adam and Eve,? or more precisely a very small group of Adams and Eves, at least 15,000 years ago who were essentially the sole and exclusive ancestors of all modern northern Europeans.
One comes across many reports that some celebrity is part Indian (James Garner, Val Kilmer, Cathy Lee Crosby) but without knowing what part (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32?) it is not really very meaningful or helpful. Kim Basinger and Farrah Fawcett are both purported to be 1/8 Indian, which again indicates that a proportion of 1/8 or less is not always phenotypically significant.
In fact, I knew a very attractive sandy-haired, blue-eyed girl who was 1/4 Cherokee, but bragged about how people mistook her for Swedish when she traveled in Europe, something I found very believable, although her high cheekbones, of which she was very proud, were too angular to be typical of the Swedish type, and were really the only trait that indicated her Indian ancestry. Her complexion was similar to Kim Basinger (who really is Swedish, at least her non-Indian part). I met her family. Her half-Cherokee mother looked very Indian, while her father was a very big and very blond Borreby type. Her sister apparently got the obvious Indian genes, with blackish brown hair and coppery skin, yet attractive Europeanized facial features.
I came across a PBS Frontline website that purports to reveal the mixed racial ancestry of historical figures and celebrities, with the obvious ulterior motive of normalizing and thus promoting racial intermixture. It asserts that England?s Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, who was of Portuguese ancestry, was part Congoid. It also implies that Heather Locklear is of part Indian and Congoid ancestry because the name Locklear is associated with certain ?tri-racial isolates? ? communities of mixed Congoid, Indian and European elements that existed in North Carolina two or more centuries ago. It doesn?t specifically state that she is part Indian or Congoid, and gives no indication what part Indian or Congoid she might be (1/32, 1/64, 1/128?), but she is pictured, and the implication in the text, which almost gloats as it describes her as a paragon of blonde Anglo-Saxon beauty, is unmistakable.
One is reminded of the absurd claims that Beethoven, Hannibal or Cleopatra were Congoid, the latter two apparently for no reason other than that they were born on the continent of Africa (by which reasoning Syrians and Lebanese should be the same race as Chinese, as they were also born on the continent of Asia). Cleopatra, of course, wasn?t even Egyptian, but Macedonian, the last of the Ptolemaic dynasty founded by one of the successors of Alexander the Great, spoke Greek as her native language (although she did know many other languages, including Egyptian, being reportedly the first of her dynasty to learn it), wore Greek clothing, was surrounded by the Greek culture and Greek architecture of her mostly Greek capital, and was no more Congoid than a modern Afrikaner. Yet political correctness prevents timid academics from correcting the racial fallacies about her that repeatedly appear in the popular culture. Even Michael Grant, a don of ancient history who should know better, asserts that she was probably dark because she was of part Syrian ancestry. But her ?Syrian ancestry? was an ancestress from the Seleucid dynasty, another Macedonian successor kingdom of Alexander that had its capital in Syria, and who was thus no more Syrian than Cleo was Egyptian. (The Seleucid dynasty was however part Iranian or Persian, as its founder, another of Alexander?s generals, had taken his wife from the old Persian nobility, as did Alexander himself, who took several.)
The ultimate purpose, or ulterior motive, for the above and similar claims of racial intermixture, whatever their validity or relevance, is to normalize and legitimize it, and thus promote such intermixture by making it seem harmless, right and socially acceptable, and the avoidance of intermixture seem less vital, necessary and important, and even as wrong or illegitimate. Such seemingly disparate figures as President Clinton and evangelist Billy Graham have endorsed interracial marriage as a means to lessen racial divisions. James Toback, director of the motion picture Black and White, shares their vision, minus the focus on marriage. As reported in Entertainment Weekly (April 14, 2000; pp.41-44)
?Toback suggests ?mass interracial sex? can eliminate racism?.[T]alk to Toback, who also wrote [the film], and you realize he?s celebrating the power of hip-hop [black music] and interracial sex to conquer bigotry?.?I think it is completely changing the whole social order in a way that makes even passive bigotry totally unacceptable to anyone who isn?t kind of a professed Neanderthal. It?s changed the sexual culture completely, which is the key to race, because as soon as you have interracial sex to a degree where it isn?t even an issue and you start with mass interracial sex, then the races become indistinguishable.?
This is, of course, the very thing that opponents of racial integration in the 1960s predicted would happen as a consequence of integration, and which the proponents of racial integration denied would happen. As its opponents feared, and are now being proven right, racial integration is just a euphemism for racial intermixture. Unfortunately, in the 1960s the proponents of racial intermixture were not as open and honest as its proponents such as James Toback are today. If they were Nordish-Americans would have been better informed about the real consequences of their policies at a time when they would have been much more resistant to them. Several decades of racial nihilist indoctrination were necessary before such openness and honesty could be expressed without fear of provoking strong Nordish-American opposition.
Richard McCulloch[/justify]
[center]The Ethnic Gap
A Rejoinder to Torriani & Rienzi
by Richard McCulloch (From The Occidental Quarterly, Summer, 2002; Vol. 2, No.2)[/center]
[justify]Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani make some specific criticisms of my article ?The Ethnic Gap? in the Fall 2001 issue of The Occidental Quarterly and some broad criticisms of my work in general as found on my website (http://www.racialcompact.com). Before addressing the specific criticisms, I think I should address the fundamental issue that underlies their general criticism and disagreement with my work.
I am an American of Northern European ancestry and race. I love my race and I want it to continue to exist. In normal times this would not need to be said. But these are not normal times. After over 5,000 years of existing without any danger to their existence the peoples of Northern Europe, and the populations of Northern European ancestry and race in America and Australia, are being destroyed. I do not want them to be destroyed, so my efforts have been directed toward their preservation.
Racial preservation has to be based on racial reality. It has to face the facts, ask the right questions and provide the right answers, however difficult they may be. What is destroying the Northern European peoples? How can they be saved from destruction? How can they be preserved? What is required for their preservation and what needs to be done to achieve it?
The Northern European peoples are being destroyed by multiracialism, the condition of different races existing together in the same territory and society. Their destruction is an unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. They simply cannot continue to exist in a multiracial society. This is a fact of racial reality, a reality of race, of what a race is.
The traits by which we define and identify race are not just individual traits but the traits of a population. A race is a stabilized breeding population, consisting in each of its generations of different individuals who are the passing components in the continuum of its potentially immortal existence. So long as each generation passes on its genes proportionately to its next generation the gene pool, and thus the race as a whole, does not change, but remains the same in each generation, although the individuals composing its population will vary. So long as the genes remain the same and other genes are not introduced from outside the population to change it ? either by changing the proportions of the existing elements or, more drastically, by adding entirely different elements ? the race will remain the same and be preserved in its entirety.
The concept of racial environment is critical to the understanding of racial reality. The racial environment consists of the types and proportions of racial elements within a stabilized breeding population. It is presumed that the different racial elements in a given society, sharing the same space, will eventually intermix, forming a single breeding population and gene pool. A race is created and preserved in a certain racial environment, a range of certain racial types in certain proportions, and this is the environment required for its preservation or continued existence. If the racial environment is changed the gene pool is also changed and the race cannot continue to exist in the same form, but will be transformed or shifted in the direction of the new racial environment. A change in the racial environment eventually causes a corresponding change in the racial gene pool, and this in turn causes a corresponding change in the race, a racial shift toward the traits of the new elements.
As my critics note, I use the term ?Nordish? to refer to Northern Europeans, which I will begin to do at this point, for stylistic reasons that should be obvious. (I do not, however, use Mr. Rienzi?s term ?Nordishist.?)
The Northern European or Nordish racial types evolved and have existed for over 5,000 years in a particular racial environment in which certain proportions of a certain range of racial types have maintained a stable balance or equilibrium. This is the racial environment in which the Nordish racial types evolved, and it is the racial environment that is required for their continued existence or preservation. If the racial environment is changed by the introduction of outside elements the racial proportions within the population will be changed, upsetting and destabilizing the racial balance. The introduction of less distinct Nordish types will cause a decrease in the proportions of the more distinct types and ? if the change is great enough ? their eventual extinction. The introduction of totally new and incompatible non-Nordish, or even non-European, racial types upsets the balance in the population even more drastically, destroying the racial environment that is required for Nordish racial preservation. This results in the extinction of the more distinct Nordish types first and eventually the general extinction of the entire Nordish population. This is what is now happening to the Nordish peoples of Western Europe, America, Canada and Australia. Their racial environments, which they require for their continued existence, are being destroyed ? or have already been destroyed ? by the introduction of different racial elements. They have been changed into multiracial environments in which the Nordish racial types cannot continue to exist. The destruction of the Nordish racial environment by multiracialism eventually means the destruction of the Nordish race.
The underlying reason for the general objection of Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani to my work, if we cut to the chase, is that I make a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. If not for that I suspect they would find little to disagree with in my work, but for that they broaden their criticism to include almost the entirety of my work.
My reason for making this distinction is basic Nordish racial preservationism, as plain and simple as it gets. Racial reality is either-or. You cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. You can either preserve the Nordish race or mix it with other races, but you cannot have both. Extensive intermixture with Mediterraneans will have consequences that cannot be responsibly evaded or denied. The consequence is a racial shift away from the Nordish types and toward the Mediterranean types. The greater the extent of intermixture the greater will be this shift. The most distinct Nordish phenotypes would be the first lost as a result of this shift, followed by the less distinct types. Eventually, if the extent of intermixture and the resulting racial shift is great enough, only the more generalized Nordish types might survive in any significant numbers. There are no studies detailing the specifics of this process (at least not in humans), and no figures are maintained on the Nordish phenotypes in the population. Thus there are no means to rigorously track, document or study any racial shift, including the shift that has already occurred due to the blending of Northern and Central Europeans, and to a lesser extent Southern Europeans. But any person with a modicum of racial sense and sensibility must be sensible to the fact that it would occur.
My own racial sense and sensibilities inform my belief that a general intermixture of Northern and Southern Europeans would be sufficient to make the more distinct Nordish types effectively extinct, and the less distinct types much less common. As a Nordish racial preservationist I therefore want to prevent a general intermixture of Northern and Southern Europeans, and as a racial realist I know that the only effective way to prevent intermixture is separation. And that is the rub, the heart of the matter, the general point of disagreement between Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani and myself. And it is one that I cannot change consistent with racial reality, and cannot yield on without surrendering the very essence of the Nordish race, and defeating the very purpose of Nordish preservation.
Admittedly, the racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans seem minor, some would say even trivial, compared to the differences between Europeans and the races of sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia. Certainly they are only a fraction of these differences, and certainly there is even a degree of racial overlap between the native populations of Northern and Southern Europe. But the racial reality is that the differences are great enough, even more than enough, to cause the extinction of the more distinct Nordish types if there is sufficient intermixture between them. The denial of those differences, and their effects, would prove fatal for the distinct Nordish types.
What is the extent of the racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans? Would anyone have difficulty distinguishing the native population of Stockholm from that of Naples, of Copenhagen from Madrid, of London from Seville? As indicated above, there are varying degrees of racial overlap or similarity in the individual members of the different populations of Europe. Some members of the Austrian and Italian populations ? for example ? resemble each other, yet the populations as a whole do not overlap, but are clearly distinct. If you took a group of 100 individuals from each European country, with each group being representative ? in types and proportions ? of their respective populations, the average person would have no difficulty distinguishing between the Italian group and the Austrian group, as each group would have a large proportion of individuals of racial types that are either completely absent or very rare in the other group.
However, if the two groups were mixed together the average person, or even an expert, would be less than 100% accurate in sorting the 200 individuals into their respective population groupings. This is because there is an overlap in the racial composition of the two populations. There is also an overlap between the Italian and British populations, only the differences are greater and the extent of overlap smaller. There is even less overlap between the native Scandinavian and Italian populations, so that a mixed group of representative individuals could probably be sorted with well over 90% accuracy. Each population forms a breeding group in which the proportions of the different types are stabilized in a balance that can continue indefinitely, maintaining the racial continuity of the population, so long as the proportions are not changed by the introduction of elements from outside the stabilized population.
The chart below is my attempt to provide an admittedly rough estimate of the phenotypic composition of the native European populations. The reader may disagree with my estimates, and I assume they are not precisely accurate, but I believe the concept is valid, and I assume the estimates are sufficiently accurate to give a valid illustration of the concept.
Phenotypic group A consists of the most distinct Northern European phenotypes found only in Northern Europe (represented on this chart by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, and northern and central Germany).
Phenotypic group B consists of the most common Northern European phenotypes which can still be regarded as distinctly Northern European although they are also found as minority elements in Central Europe (represented by southern Germany, Austria and northern France).
Phenotypic group C consists of generalized phenotypes that are common throughout Northern and Central Europe and are also present as a minor element in Southern Europe (represented by Italy, Spain and southern France).
Phenotypic group D consists of more generalized phenotypes that are found throughout Western Europe but are most common in Central Europe.
Phenotypic group E consists of phenotypes that are common throughout Southern and Central Europe but are absent or very rare in the native populations of Northern Europe.
Phenotypic group F consists of phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present in small numbers in Central Europe, but absent from Northern Europe.
Phenotypic group G consists of distinct ?Mediterranean? phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present as a minority element in North Africa, but absent from the native populations of Northern and Central Europe.
Phenotypic group H consists of more distinct ?Mediterranean? phenotypes that are common in both Southern Europe and North Africa.
Phenotypic group I consists of the most distinct ?Mediterranean? phenotypes found among the native populations of Southern Europe, but more common in North Africa and the Middle East.
In my partition proposal phenotypes not normally found in the native populations of Northern and Central Europe would be separated from the Nordish population. This racial dividing line would run through the F group of phenotypes in the above chart. Yet even in this proposal the long-term survival of the more distinct Nordish types in the Nordish-American population would be far from certain, and if they did survive they would certainly be much less common. The resulting racial environment would represent a considerable racial shift away from the one in which they existed for the last 5,000 years. There are always racial costs involved in any significant racial shift, and those costs have their greatest effect on the most distinct side of the racial range.
In Northern Europe itself, the racial dividing line should be based on the native populations themselves, and be stricter than the standard applied in the U.S. The immigration of additional generalized C or D phenotypes from Central or Southern Europe into Northern Europe would upset the balance of the racial environment, lowering the proportions of the more distinct Northern European types and, if sufficient, threatening their continued existence. This is true even though the native populations already contain those phenotypes, as a change in the proportions of phenotypes causes a change in the racial environment and gene pool, and thus a racial shift away from the more distinct types. Also, it should be noted that the generalized C and D phenotypes of Central and Southern Europe are not genotypically equivalent to the C and D phenotypes of Northern Europe. The native C and D phenotypes in Northern Europe usually carry recessive A and B genes in their genotypes, whereas this is usually not the case with C and D phenotypes in Central or Southern Europe.
Unfortunately, there are political costs incurred by racial separation, just as there are racial costs incurred by the lack of separation. The groups selected for separation from the Nordish population can generally be expected to oppose the separation. That is why I separated Northern and Central Europeans (NCEs) from other ethno-racial groups in my discussion of the prospects for building a pro-Nordish political movement in ?The Ethnic Gap,? as it could not be assumed that the non-NCEs would support the ultimate Nordish interest in separation. And that is why Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani oppose my proposal, and the reason for their general criticism of my work.
Both political and racial costs should be minimized to what is absolutely necessary, but if costs there must be, as a racial preservationist I am much more willing to incur political costs than racial costs, which involve a racial shift away from what I wish to preserve. Racial costs involve our being, what we are, and once incurred the political costs of reversing them (if it is still possible to reverse them) are usually prohibitive, and certainly far greater than the costs of preventing them. Should we sacrifice part of ourselves, lose the most distinct parts of our race, for political reasons? For me there is no political interest so compelling as to justify the extinction of the most distinct Nordish types, and no political cost so great as to compel me to accept racial policies that would have that result.
Is there anything we could offer the groups selected for separation that would significantly lessen their opposition to it? What could be done to accommodate those groups, to lessen their opposition to separation, and possibly even gain some measure of support? Certainly whatever could be done within reason, that does not defeat the purpose of Nordish racial preservation or sacrifice the legitimate interests of the Nordish-American population, that would be worthwhile and not in vain, that addresses legitimate concerns without catering to obstructionism, should be done.
It is my hope that we could be partners rather than adversaries in this enterprise, and that the interests of all could be adequately served and protected. But to the extent that interests do conflict, the primacy of the Nordish peoples in North America should be an established principle. Their interests should have priority and be given precedence. They have a much greater interest in North America, having committed a far greater part of their existence and being to the continent, than any other people. Until a little over a century ago it was clearly their country, and in spite of the ongoing process of their dispossession since that time they still have far more at stake in it than do any others. As a Nordish-American, my ancestors? vision and realization of a transcontinental nation is still my vision of what Nordish America should be, and what I want a post-partition Nordish America to be.
Turning to some of the specific criticisms, the term ?Nordish? simply means ?Northern European? when used in the racial sense. The racial term ?Northern European? in general usage refers to all the native peoples of Northern Europe, not distinguishing between Nordics, Borrebys and Brünns, but, in Mr. Rienzi?s terms, lumping them all together as I do with the term ?Nordish.? That said, I have found that the people who object to the term ?Nordish? are those who object to any distinction being made between Northern and Southern Europeans, or to any semantic tool that makes it easier to make that distinction. The same people also tend to object to the use of the racial term ?Mediterranean,? in general usage referring to all the native peoples of the Mediterranean region, as it also makes a distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans.
Regarding the contention that modern Nordics are more closely related to Mediterraneans than to their Brünn and Borreby countrymen, general usage ? including anthropology and genetics ? does distinguish between Northern and Southern Europeans, but does not distinguish between the Nordic, Borreby and Brünn types of Northern Europe. There is a very simple reason for this. Most people, including most scientists, have never heard of the Brünn and Borreby types, are unaware of their existence, and do not know how to distinguish them from each other or from Nordics. Some who are aware of them do not believe they represent different racial types but only normal individual and regional variation within the Northern European population.
Certainly John Baker was aware of them, yet he makes no mention of them in his 1974 work Race (pp. 217-220), referring only to ?Nordids? in Scandinavia and northern Germany, although he does clearly differentiate between ?Nordids? and ?Mediterranids.? And there is good reason for this, for whatever the prehistoric origin and derivation of these types might be, the overriding fact is that for the last 5,000 years they have been part of the same populations, blending together to the extent that few people can distinguish them either by phenotype or genotype. I think almost everyone, including Mr. Rienzi, would be able to distinguish the predominantly Nordic populations of Oslo and Stockholm from the Mediterranean populations of Naples and Madrid very easily, but would have considerable difficulty distinguishing them from the predominantly Borreby populations of Stavanger, Malmö and Copenhagen.
In my opinion Carleton Coon?s classic 1939 work The Races of Europe presents the most accurate and detailed description and classification of the modern races of Europe that I have seen, but I have never thought of it as the last word on European prehistory and racial origins. This area of study is still very open and the subject of considerable debate. In the past few years several genetic studies have contributed some insights. For example, a genetic study reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of Nature, ?Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome? (p.199) had findings suggesting ?that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans,? and asked, ?What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently re-colonized by a small number of founders.? This report received considerable publicity in the popular press, often distorted and falsified with a multiracialist bias. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:
All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men ? perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 ? researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA. The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa.?
This genetic study clearly does not differentiate between Nordics and other Northern Europeans, but assumes a common ancestry for all Northern Europeans going back 15,000 years or more. It also indicates a much earlier date of divergence, and more distant relationship, between Northern and Southern Europeans than is often supposed.
The following quotes might help to clarify Coon?s opinion on the relationship between modern Nordics and Mediterraneans. From Coon?s 1951 work, Caravan: the story of the Middle East, (p. 154):
Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations. In a dark-skinned and finer-boned form they are also found as the major population element in Pakistan and northern India.
(It should be noted that the modern Nordic homelands are not included in this description of the geographic distribution of the Mediterranean race.) From Coon?s 1965 work, The Living Races of Man, (p. 54):
Mediterranean and Nordic populations may be distinguished both in Europe and in West Asia during the span of the Mesolithic. It is a moot point whether the Nordic skeletal type of Neolithic Northern Europe came from the West or the East, or from both.
This indicates that Nordics and Mediterraneans were already distinguishable from each other at least as early as the Mesolithic, and that Nordics were already in Northern Europe at least as early as the Neolithic. And given that, with regard to the racial affinities of the modern Nordics I think that we can join Coon in saying that it is really a moot point where they came from, because they have been Northern Europeans for at least 5,000 years.
One of the most serious problems facing racial preservationism is ignorance of the consequences of multiracialism, and specifically of the effects of racial intermixture. Not only do many people still believe in the fantasy that multiracialism will not result in large-scale racial intermixture, they and many others are unaware of what the results of intermixture would be, and believe in the fantasy that even with large-scale intermixture the different races, including the Nordish race, will still continue to exist without significant change. In this common fantasy, which seems to be the dominant ? and politically correct ? senseless mindset of the popular culture, racial intermixture would not cause a racial shift and would not result in any racial types being lost or even becoming much less common. This ignorance of the most basic racial reality is so serious that it could prove fatal to the racial preservationist cause, a fatal fantasy that prevents awareness of the racial destruction that is even now taking place in front of our eyes, to which we are all witnesses, by denying its possibility.
I believe that anything that exists in physical reality can be measured and calculated. Real world physical actions have real world physical effects and results that can be accurately described. Acting on this belief, I developed a scale of Nordish racial assimilability to calculate the results of racial intermixture on the Nordish race. (http://www.racialcompact.com/averageisdestiny.html) The scale is much more accurate with population averages than with individuals, and the larger the population the more accurate the average. But after the first generations of interracial crossing have passed, and the blend becomes more stabilized with each generation, with ever less individual variation, the scale would become increasingly accurate in calculating individual results as well. Mr. Rienzi objects to my scale, not on the grounds that my calculations, estimates and predictions are inaccurate, nor that my scale is flawed in design, but on the grounds that the very concept of being able to calculate or predict the genetics of racial intermixture is invalid. In attacking the validity of the concept he basically adopts the obscurantist position that the effects of intermixture are unknowable. This is inconsistent with our long experience with the genetics of animal husbandry and stock breeding, in which the genetic and phenotypic effects of intermixture can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy. Though there is a normal aversion to admitting it, the same genetic principles that govern the mixture of animals govern the mixture of humans as well, and the results can be calculated with the same degree of accuracy. This too is part of racial reality. The effects of racial intermixture are governed by physical reality, not fantasy.
Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani object to my use of phenotype to define race. Phenotype is the totality of our physical or morphological traits or characteristics. As the definitions of race in most dictionaries show, physical traits are the recognized and customary means of determining, identifying and defining race. As the great anthropologist E.A. Hooton wrote in Up From the Ape, ?The classification of organisms has to begin with phenotypes (p. 439).? Phenotype is nature?s method of racial and species identification. It consists of everything we experience with our senses ? odor, feel and sound as well as sight. Every living creature, from insects to man, distinguishes and recognizes its own kind based on phenotype, by what they experience with their senses. This is most critical in the selection of mates, and in general nature has been very successful in enabling every species to almost unerringly identify its own kind by phenotype in the selection of mates. It is also the means we all use to identify race.
All of us, in our everyday lives, beginning in childhood, have racially classified or identified many tens of thousands of persons, most of it automatic, unconscious and involuntary, taking no longer than a split fraction of a second, including people we pass in the mall or on the street, in our schools, in social settings, in every event we attend and everywhere we go. For nearly all of us, every single one of those classifications was by phenotype, using an important ability with which we are equipped by nature. How many people have any of us racially identified by genetic sequences? How many by anthropometric measurements? For nearly all of us, the answer to these two questions, regarding the other recognized methods of racial identification other than phenotype, is zero. Mr. Rienzi disparages phenotype as a method of racial identification. How many thousands of people has he racially identified by phenotype? How many by other methods? Has he ever racially identified anyone by methods other than phenotype? If so, he is one of a very few, as only biologists and physical anthropologists with specialized training and equipment are able to identify race with means other than those with which nature equipped us, and those other means are not necessarily more accurate.
Mr. Torriani suggests cultural artifacts as a means of racial identification, but culture is not race and the two should not be confused. A person of any race could adopt the culture and artifacts of any other race, as many millions of Africans and Asians have adopted the culture of the West, but they are still not of that race.
I do not ignore genetics or ancestry as a means of racial classification, but consider them to be supplemental to phenotype, not a replacement for it. I think my critics create a false dichotomy between phenotype and genetics and ancestry. In my opinion, phenotype is normally consistent with genetics and ancestry, being their physical expression, and indicating them with a high degree of accuracy. Phenotype is adequate for racial classification. There is no need for genetic testing that would impose such huge political costs that suggesting them is likely to be a common obstructionist tactic.
And what would genetic testing and ancestry research reveal? Actresses Kim Bassinger and Farrah Fawcett are reported to be 1/8th Amerindian in ancestry. They are distinctly Nordish in phenotype, so the genes that determine their phenotype have been almost totally inherited from their seven Nordish great-grandparents, although some other genes they inherited from their one Amerindian great-grandparent might be the ones measured by genetic testing, classifying them as Amerindian. There are probably other persons who are 1/8th Amerindian in ancestry whose genes for phenotype are predominantly Amerindian (an example of the individual instability of early generation crosses), but the genes that would be tested would be European, classifying them as European. According to the Nei and Roychoudhury study cited by Mr. Rienzi in note 7 the Finns are essentially the same genetic distance from the Mongoloid Japanese (.054%) as are the Italians (.055%). Yet Mr. Torriani agonizes over the implications of a study that finds a ?substantial? (?) portion of Finnish Y chromosomes are of Mongoloid origin. What importance should we give to the origin of Y chromosomes, or any other single genetic sequence that might be measured, as a determinant of racial identification if inconsistent with phenotype? I say none, and thus see no need to develop policies to deal with them, so Mr. Torriani can stop agonizing over hidden genes and their implications and focus on what can be seen, as nature intended.
Phenotype is central to race. It is racial identity. A race is more than phenotype, but it is nothing without its phenotype. A race is not a disembodied thing without face or form. Phenotype is its physical body, its face and form. The devaluation or denigration of phenotype is a devaluation and denigration of race. The delegitimization of phenotype as a matter not worthy of concern is a delegitimization of racial preservation as a matter not worthy of concern. The belittlement of phenotype and the denial of its importance are a central part of the logic and argument of anti-preservationists, and a clear indication of opposition to racial preservation.
We live in a world of phenotypes, of tangible physical being. Phenotype is what we directly experience and perceive with our senses. It is what we are attached to. It is what we love. It is what we want to preserve. And its preservation is consistent with, and necessary for, the preservation of everything else associated with our race and every other part of its being. So as a racial preservationist, seeking to preserve the Nordish race, I will continue to work for the preservation of the Nordish phenotypes and advocate the measures required for their preservation.
References
Baker, John R. Race, Oxford University Press, 1974.
Coon, Carleton Caravan, Henry Holt & Co., 1951.
Coon, Carelton The Races of Europe, MacMillan, 1939.
Hooton, Earnest A. Up From The Ape, MacMillan 1931 (Revised 1946).[/justify]
A Rejoinder to Torriani & Rienzi
by Richard McCulloch (From The Occidental Quarterly, Summer, 2002; Vol. 2, No.2)[/center]
[justify]Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani make some specific criticisms of my article ?The Ethnic Gap? in the Fall 2001 issue of The Occidental Quarterly and some broad criticisms of my work in general as found on my website (http://www.racialcompact.com). Before addressing the specific criticisms, I think I should address the fundamental issue that underlies their general criticism and disagreement with my work.
I am an American of Northern European ancestry and race. I love my race and I want it to continue to exist. In normal times this would not need to be said. But these are not normal times. After over 5,000 years of existing without any danger to their existence the peoples of Northern Europe, and the populations of Northern European ancestry and race in America and Australia, are being destroyed. I do not want them to be destroyed, so my efforts have been directed toward their preservation.
Racial preservation has to be based on racial reality. It has to face the facts, ask the right questions and provide the right answers, however difficult they may be. What is destroying the Northern European peoples? How can they be saved from destruction? How can they be preserved? What is required for their preservation and what needs to be done to achieve it?
The Northern European peoples are being destroyed by multiracialism, the condition of different races existing together in the same territory and society. Their destruction is an unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. They simply cannot continue to exist in a multiracial society. This is a fact of racial reality, a reality of race, of what a race is.
The traits by which we define and identify race are not just individual traits but the traits of a population. A race is a stabilized breeding population, consisting in each of its generations of different individuals who are the passing components in the continuum of its potentially immortal existence. So long as each generation passes on its genes proportionately to its next generation the gene pool, and thus the race as a whole, does not change, but remains the same in each generation, although the individuals composing its population will vary. So long as the genes remain the same and other genes are not introduced from outside the population to change it ? either by changing the proportions of the existing elements or, more drastically, by adding entirely different elements ? the race will remain the same and be preserved in its entirety.
The concept of racial environment is critical to the understanding of racial reality. The racial environment consists of the types and proportions of racial elements within a stabilized breeding population. It is presumed that the different racial elements in a given society, sharing the same space, will eventually intermix, forming a single breeding population and gene pool. A race is created and preserved in a certain racial environment, a range of certain racial types in certain proportions, and this is the environment required for its preservation or continued existence. If the racial environment is changed the gene pool is also changed and the race cannot continue to exist in the same form, but will be transformed or shifted in the direction of the new racial environment. A change in the racial environment eventually causes a corresponding change in the racial gene pool, and this in turn causes a corresponding change in the race, a racial shift toward the traits of the new elements.
As my critics note, I use the term ?Nordish? to refer to Northern Europeans, which I will begin to do at this point, for stylistic reasons that should be obvious. (I do not, however, use Mr. Rienzi?s term ?Nordishist.?)
The Northern European or Nordish racial types evolved and have existed for over 5,000 years in a particular racial environment in which certain proportions of a certain range of racial types have maintained a stable balance or equilibrium. This is the racial environment in which the Nordish racial types evolved, and it is the racial environment that is required for their continued existence or preservation. If the racial environment is changed by the introduction of outside elements the racial proportions within the population will be changed, upsetting and destabilizing the racial balance. The introduction of less distinct Nordish types will cause a decrease in the proportions of the more distinct types and ? if the change is great enough ? their eventual extinction. The introduction of totally new and incompatible non-Nordish, or even non-European, racial types upsets the balance in the population even more drastically, destroying the racial environment that is required for Nordish racial preservation. This results in the extinction of the more distinct Nordish types first and eventually the general extinction of the entire Nordish population. This is what is now happening to the Nordish peoples of Western Europe, America, Canada and Australia. Their racial environments, which they require for their continued existence, are being destroyed ? or have already been destroyed ? by the introduction of different racial elements. They have been changed into multiracial environments in which the Nordish racial types cannot continue to exist. The destruction of the Nordish racial environment by multiracialism eventually means the destruction of the Nordish race.
The underlying reason for the general objection of Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani to my work, if we cut to the chase, is that I make a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. If not for that I suspect they would find little to disagree with in my work, but for that they broaden their criticism to include almost the entirety of my work.
My reason for making this distinction is basic Nordish racial preservationism, as plain and simple as it gets. Racial reality is either-or. You cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. You can either preserve the Nordish race or mix it with other races, but you cannot have both. Extensive intermixture with Mediterraneans will have consequences that cannot be responsibly evaded or denied. The consequence is a racial shift away from the Nordish types and toward the Mediterranean types. The greater the extent of intermixture the greater will be this shift. The most distinct Nordish phenotypes would be the first lost as a result of this shift, followed by the less distinct types. Eventually, if the extent of intermixture and the resulting racial shift is great enough, only the more generalized Nordish types might survive in any significant numbers. There are no studies detailing the specifics of this process (at least not in humans), and no figures are maintained on the Nordish phenotypes in the population. Thus there are no means to rigorously track, document or study any racial shift, including the shift that has already occurred due to the blending of Northern and Central Europeans, and to a lesser extent Southern Europeans. But any person with a modicum of racial sense and sensibility must be sensible to the fact that it would occur.
My own racial sense and sensibilities inform my belief that a general intermixture of Northern and Southern Europeans would be sufficient to make the more distinct Nordish types effectively extinct, and the less distinct types much less common. As a Nordish racial preservationist I therefore want to prevent a general intermixture of Northern and Southern Europeans, and as a racial realist I know that the only effective way to prevent intermixture is separation. And that is the rub, the heart of the matter, the general point of disagreement between Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani and myself. And it is one that I cannot change consistent with racial reality, and cannot yield on without surrendering the very essence of the Nordish race, and defeating the very purpose of Nordish preservation.
Admittedly, the racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans seem minor, some would say even trivial, compared to the differences between Europeans and the races of sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia. Certainly they are only a fraction of these differences, and certainly there is even a degree of racial overlap between the native populations of Northern and Southern Europe. But the racial reality is that the differences are great enough, even more than enough, to cause the extinction of the more distinct Nordish types if there is sufficient intermixture between them. The denial of those differences, and their effects, would prove fatal for the distinct Nordish types.
What is the extent of the racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans? Would anyone have difficulty distinguishing the native population of Stockholm from that of Naples, of Copenhagen from Madrid, of London from Seville? As indicated above, there are varying degrees of racial overlap or similarity in the individual members of the different populations of Europe. Some members of the Austrian and Italian populations ? for example ? resemble each other, yet the populations as a whole do not overlap, but are clearly distinct. If you took a group of 100 individuals from each European country, with each group being representative ? in types and proportions ? of their respective populations, the average person would have no difficulty distinguishing between the Italian group and the Austrian group, as each group would have a large proportion of individuals of racial types that are either completely absent or very rare in the other group.
However, if the two groups were mixed together the average person, or even an expert, would be less than 100% accurate in sorting the 200 individuals into their respective population groupings. This is because there is an overlap in the racial composition of the two populations. There is also an overlap between the Italian and British populations, only the differences are greater and the extent of overlap smaller. There is even less overlap between the native Scandinavian and Italian populations, so that a mixed group of representative individuals could probably be sorted with well over 90% accuracy. Each population forms a breeding group in which the proportions of the different types are stabilized in a balance that can continue indefinitely, maintaining the racial continuity of the population, so long as the proportions are not changed by the introduction of elements from outside the stabilized population.
The chart below is my attempt to provide an admittedly rough estimate of the phenotypic composition of the native European populations. The reader may disagree with my estimates, and I assume they are not precisely accurate, but I believe the concept is valid, and I assume the estimates are sufficiently accurate to give a valid illustration of the concept.
Phenotypic group A consists of the most distinct Northern European phenotypes found only in Northern Europe (represented on this chart by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, and northern and central Germany).
Phenotypic group B consists of the most common Northern European phenotypes which can still be regarded as distinctly Northern European although they are also found as minority elements in Central Europe (represented by southern Germany, Austria and northern France).
Phenotypic group C consists of generalized phenotypes that are common throughout Northern and Central Europe and are also present as a minor element in Southern Europe (represented by Italy, Spain and southern France).
Phenotypic group D consists of more generalized phenotypes that are found throughout Western Europe but are most common in Central Europe.
Phenotypic group E consists of phenotypes that are common throughout Southern and Central Europe but are absent or very rare in the native populations of Northern Europe.
Phenotypic group F consists of phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present in small numbers in Central Europe, but absent from Northern Europe.
Phenotypic group G consists of distinct ?Mediterranean? phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present as a minority element in North Africa, but absent from the native populations of Northern and Central Europe.
Phenotypic group H consists of more distinct ?Mediterranean? phenotypes that are common in both Southern Europe and North Africa.
Phenotypic group I consists of the most distinct ?Mediterranean? phenotypes found among the native populations of Southern Europe, but more common in North Africa and the Middle East.
In my partition proposal phenotypes not normally found in the native populations of Northern and Central Europe would be separated from the Nordish population. This racial dividing line would run through the F group of phenotypes in the above chart. Yet even in this proposal the long-term survival of the more distinct Nordish types in the Nordish-American population would be far from certain, and if they did survive they would certainly be much less common. The resulting racial environment would represent a considerable racial shift away from the one in which they existed for the last 5,000 years. There are always racial costs involved in any significant racial shift, and those costs have their greatest effect on the most distinct side of the racial range.
In Northern Europe itself, the racial dividing line should be based on the native populations themselves, and be stricter than the standard applied in the U.S. The immigration of additional generalized C or D phenotypes from Central or Southern Europe into Northern Europe would upset the balance of the racial environment, lowering the proportions of the more distinct Northern European types and, if sufficient, threatening their continued existence. This is true even though the native populations already contain those phenotypes, as a change in the proportions of phenotypes causes a change in the racial environment and gene pool, and thus a racial shift away from the more distinct types. Also, it should be noted that the generalized C and D phenotypes of Central and Southern Europe are not genotypically equivalent to the C and D phenotypes of Northern Europe. The native C and D phenotypes in Northern Europe usually carry recessive A and B genes in their genotypes, whereas this is usually not the case with C and D phenotypes in Central or Southern Europe.
Unfortunately, there are political costs incurred by racial separation, just as there are racial costs incurred by the lack of separation. The groups selected for separation from the Nordish population can generally be expected to oppose the separation. That is why I separated Northern and Central Europeans (NCEs) from other ethno-racial groups in my discussion of the prospects for building a pro-Nordish political movement in ?The Ethnic Gap,? as it could not be assumed that the non-NCEs would support the ultimate Nordish interest in separation. And that is why Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani oppose my proposal, and the reason for their general criticism of my work.
Both political and racial costs should be minimized to what is absolutely necessary, but if costs there must be, as a racial preservationist I am much more willing to incur political costs than racial costs, which involve a racial shift away from what I wish to preserve. Racial costs involve our being, what we are, and once incurred the political costs of reversing them (if it is still possible to reverse them) are usually prohibitive, and certainly far greater than the costs of preventing them. Should we sacrifice part of ourselves, lose the most distinct parts of our race, for political reasons? For me there is no political interest so compelling as to justify the extinction of the most distinct Nordish types, and no political cost so great as to compel me to accept racial policies that would have that result.
Is there anything we could offer the groups selected for separation that would significantly lessen their opposition to it? What could be done to accommodate those groups, to lessen their opposition to separation, and possibly even gain some measure of support? Certainly whatever could be done within reason, that does not defeat the purpose of Nordish racial preservation or sacrifice the legitimate interests of the Nordish-American population, that would be worthwhile and not in vain, that addresses legitimate concerns without catering to obstructionism, should be done.
It is my hope that we could be partners rather than adversaries in this enterprise, and that the interests of all could be adequately served and protected. But to the extent that interests do conflict, the primacy of the Nordish peoples in North America should be an established principle. Their interests should have priority and be given precedence. They have a much greater interest in North America, having committed a far greater part of their existence and being to the continent, than any other people. Until a little over a century ago it was clearly their country, and in spite of the ongoing process of their dispossession since that time they still have far more at stake in it than do any others. As a Nordish-American, my ancestors? vision and realization of a transcontinental nation is still my vision of what Nordish America should be, and what I want a post-partition Nordish America to be.
Turning to some of the specific criticisms, the term ?Nordish? simply means ?Northern European? when used in the racial sense. The racial term ?Northern European? in general usage refers to all the native peoples of Northern Europe, not distinguishing between Nordics, Borrebys and Brünns, but, in Mr. Rienzi?s terms, lumping them all together as I do with the term ?Nordish.? That said, I have found that the people who object to the term ?Nordish? are those who object to any distinction being made between Northern and Southern Europeans, or to any semantic tool that makes it easier to make that distinction. The same people also tend to object to the use of the racial term ?Mediterranean,? in general usage referring to all the native peoples of the Mediterranean region, as it also makes a distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans.
Regarding the contention that modern Nordics are more closely related to Mediterraneans than to their Brünn and Borreby countrymen, general usage ? including anthropology and genetics ? does distinguish between Northern and Southern Europeans, but does not distinguish between the Nordic, Borreby and Brünn types of Northern Europe. There is a very simple reason for this. Most people, including most scientists, have never heard of the Brünn and Borreby types, are unaware of their existence, and do not know how to distinguish them from each other or from Nordics. Some who are aware of them do not believe they represent different racial types but only normal individual and regional variation within the Northern European population.
Certainly John Baker was aware of them, yet he makes no mention of them in his 1974 work Race (pp. 217-220), referring only to ?Nordids? in Scandinavia and northern Germany, although he does clearly differentiate between ?Nordids? and ?Mediterranids.? And there is good reason for this, for whatever the prehistoric origin and derivation of these types might be, the overriding fact is that for the last 5,000 years they have been part of the same populations, blending together to the extent that few people can distinguish them either by phenotype or genotype. I think almost everyone, including Mr. Rienzi, would be able to distinguish the predominantly Nordic populations of Oslo and Stockholm from the Mediterranean populations of Naples and Madrid very easily, but would have considerable difficulty distinguishing them from the predominantly Borreby populations of Stavanger, Malmö and Copenhagen.
In my opinion Carleton Coon?s classic 1939 work The Races of Europe presents the most accurate and detailed description and classification of the modern races of Europe that I have seen, but I have never thought of it as the last word on European prehistory and racial origins. This area of study is still very open and the subject of considerable debate. In the past few years several genetic studies have contributed some insights. For example, a genetic study reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of Nature, ?Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome? (p.199) had findings suggesting ?that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans,? and asked, ?What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently re-colonized by a small number of founders.? This report received considerable publicity in the popular press, often distorted and falsified with a multiracialist bias. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:
All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men ? perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 ? researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA. The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa.?
This genetic study clearly does not differentiate between Nordics and other Northern Europeans, but assumes a common ancestry for all Northern Europeans going back 15,000 years or more. It also indicates a much earlier date of divergence, and more distant relationship, between Northern and Southern Europeans than is often supposed.
The following quotes might help to clarify Coon?s opinion on the relationship between modern Nordics and Mediterraneans. From Coon?s 1951 work, Caravan: the story of the Middle East, (p. 154):
Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations. In a dark-skinned and finer-boned form they are also found as the major population element in Pakistan and northern India.
(It should be noted that the modern Nordic homelands are not included in this description of the geographic distribution of the Mediterranean race.) From Coon?s 1965 work, The Living Races of Man, (p. 54):
Mediterranean and Nordic populations may be distinguished both in Europe and in West Asia during the span of the Mesolithic. It is a moot point whether the Nordic skeletal type of Neolithic Northern Europe came from the West or the East, or from both.
This indicates that Nordics and Mediterraneans were already distinguishable from each other at least as early as the Mesolithic, and that Nordics were already in Northern Europe at least as early as the Neolithic. And given that, with regard to the racial affinities of the modern Nordics I think that we can join Coon in saying that it is really a moot point where they came from, because they have been Northern Europeans for at least 5,000 years.
One of the most serious problems facing racial preservationism is ignorance of the consequences of multiracialism, and specifically of the effects of racial intermixture. Not only do many people still believe in the fantasy that multiracialism will not result in large-scale racial intermixture, they and many others are unaware of what the results of intermixture would be, and believe in the fantasy that even with large-scale intermixture the different races, including the Nordish race, will still continue to exist without significant change. In this common fantasy, which seems to be the dominant ? and politically correct ? senseless mindset of the popular culture, racial intermixture would not cause a racial shift and would not result in any racial types being lost or even becoming much less common. This ignorance of the most basic racial reality is so serious that it could prove fatal to the racial preservationist cause, a fatal fantasy that prevents awareness of the racial destruction that is even now taking place in front of our eyes, to which we are all witnesses, by denying its possibility.
I believe that anything that exists in physical reality can be measured and calculated. Real world physical actions have real world physical effects and results that can be accurately described. Acting on this belief, I developed a scale of Nordish racial assimilability to calculate the results of racial intermixture on the Nordish race. (http://www.racialcompact.com/averageisdestiny.html) The scale is much more accurate with population averages than with individuals, and the larger the population the more accurate the average. But after the first generations of interracial crossing have passed, and the blend becomes more stabilized with each generation, with ever less individual variation, the scale would become increasingly accurate in calculating individual results as well. Mr. Rienzi objects to my scale, not on the grounds that my calculations, estimates and predictions are inaccurate, nor that my scale is flawed in design, but on the grounds that the very concept of being able to calculate or predict the genetics of racial intermixture is invalid. In attacking the validity of the concept he basically adopts the obscurantist position that the effects of intermixture are unknowable. This is inconsistent with our long experience with the genetics of animal husbandry and stock breeding, in which the genetic and phenotypic effects of intermixture can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy. Though there is a normal aversion to admitting it, the same genetic principles that govern the mixture of animals govern the mixture of humans as well, and the results can be calculated with the same degree of accuracy. This too is part of racial reality. The effects of racial intermixture are governed by physical reality, not fantasy.
Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani object to my use of phenotype to define race. Phenotype is the totality of our physical or morphological traits or characteristics. As the definitions of race in most dictionaries show, physical traits are the recognized and customary means of determining, identifying and defining race. As the great anthropologist E.A. Hooton wrote in Up From the Ape, ?The classification of organisms has to begin with phenotypes (p. 439).? Phenotype is nature?s method of racial and species identification. It consists of everything we experience with our senses ? odor, feel and sound as well as sight. Every living creature, from insects to man, distinguishes and recognizes its own kind based on phenotype, by what they experience with their senses. This is most critical in the selection of mates, and in general nature has been very successful in enabling every species to almost unerringly identify its own kind by phenotype in the selection of mates. It is also the means we all use to identify race.
All of us, in our everyday lives, beginning in childhood, have racially classified or identified many tens of thousands of persons, most of it automatic, unconscious and involuntary, taking no longer than a split fraction of a second, including people we pass in the mall or on the street, in our schools, in social settings, in every event we attend and everywhere we go. For nearly all of us, every single one of those classifications was by phenotype, using an important ability with which we are equipped by nature. How many people have any of us racially identified by genetic sequences? How many by anthropometric measurements? For nearly all of us, the answer to these two questions, regarding the other recognized methods of racial identification other than phenotype, is zero. Mr. Rienzi disparages phenotype as a method of racial identification. How many thousands of people has he racially identified by phenotype? How many by other methods? Has he ever racially identified anyone by methods other than phenotype? If so, he is one of a very few, as only biologists and physical anthropologists with specialized training and equipment are able to identify race with means other than those with which nature equipped us, and those other means are not necessarily more accurate.
Mr. Torriani suggests cultural artifacts as a means of racial identification, but culture is not race and the two should not be confused. A person of any race could adopt the culture and artifacts of any other race, as many millions of Africans and Asians have adopted the culture of the West, but they are still not of that race.
I do not ignore genetics or ancestry as a means of racial classification, but consider them to be supplemental to phenotype, not a replacement for it. I think my critics create a false dichotomy between phenotype and genetics and ancestry. In my opinion, phenotype is normally consistent with genetics and ancestry, being their physical expression, and indicating them with a high degree of accuracy. Phenotype is adequate for racial classification. There is no need for genetic testing that would impose such huge political costs that suggesting them is likely to be a common obstructionist tactic.
And what would genetic testing and ancestry research reveal? Actresses Kim Bassinger and Farrah Fawcett are reported to be 1/8th Amerindian in ancestry. They are distinctly Nordish in phenotype, so the genes that determine their phenotype have been almost totally inherited from their seven Nordish great-grandparents, although some other genes they inherited from their one Amerindian great-grandparent might be the ones measured by genetic testing, classifying them as Amerindian. There are probably other persons who are 1/8th Amerindian in ancestry whose genes for phenotype are predominantly Amerindian (an example of the individual instability of early generation crosses), but the genes that would be tested would be European, classifying them as European. According to the Nei and Roychoudhury study cited by Mr. Rienzi in note 7 the Finns are essentially the same genetic distance from the Mongoloid Japanese (.054%) as are the Italians (.055%). Yet Mr. Torriani agonizes over the implications of a study that finds a ?substantial? (?) portion of Finnish Y chromosomes are of Mongoloid origin. What importance should we give to the origin of Y chromosomes, or any other single genetic sequence that might be measured, as a determinant of racial identification if inconsistent with phenotype? I say none, and thus see no need to develop policies to deal with them, so Mr. Torriani can stop agonizing over hidden genes and their implications and focus on what can be seen, as nature intended.
Phenotype is central to race. It is racial identity. A race is more than phenotype, but it is nothing without its phenotype. A race is not a disembodied thing without face or form. Phenotype is its physical body, its face and form. The devaluation or denigration of phenotype is a devaluation and denigration of race. The delegitimization of phenotype as a matter not worthy of concern is a delegitimization of racial preservation as a matter not worthy of concern. The belittlement of phenotype and the denial of its importance are a central part of the logic and argument of anti-preservationists, and a clear indication of opposition to racial preservation.
We live in a world of phenotypes, of tangible physical being. Phenotype is what we directly experience and perceive with our senses. It is what we are attached to. It is what we love. It is what we want to preserve. And its preservation is consistent with, and necessary for, the preservation of everything else associated with our race and every other part of its being. So as a racial preservationist, seeking to preserve the Nordish race, I will continue to work for the preservation of the Nordish phenotypes and advocate the measures required for their preservation.
References
Baker, John R. Race, Oxford University Press, 1974.
Coon, Carleton Caravan, Henry Holt & Co., 1951.
Coon, Carelton The Races of Europe, MacMillan, 1939.
Hooton, Earnest A. Up From The Ape, MacMillan 1931 (Revised 1946).[/justify]