3,973 words
A recent debate on X brought back intense memories from my days in academia. The discussion surrounded race, racism, averages, and outcomes. One of the few genuinely open-minded liberals in the debate implored me to read a lengthy article in The New Yorker about a woman named Kathryn Paige Harden, who researches behavioral genetics and psychology. After reading The New Yorker piece, I found my copy of Scientific American magazine issue titled “The Science of Overcoming Racism,” from a special summer 2021 edition (volume 30 – number 3). The two works, taken together, go a long way to survey the modern left-wing notions of what I call scientific antiracism: the pseudo-academic study of how race matters, yet is also a fake category.
The post on X dealt with race and literacy in the USA and worldwide. In short, higher IQ groups tend to have higher literacy rates. During the debate, I came across two main types of liberals, the first of whom denied this relationship existed at all. The second would admit to the difference, but explain it away with ideas such as systemic racism, colonialism, white supremacy, and other specters.
Earlier in history, professors, researchers, and students of various disciplines studied humans very differently than today. Studying human races, their differences, and categorizations was a prominent field in the United States and Europe. Studying race fell between eugenics (as opposed to dysgenics), biology, anthropology, and early conservationism. It was often a multi-disciplinary field with organizations, books, journals, pamphlets, essays, and overall a strong academic presence. The ideas expressed in the twentieth century were mainly before the Second World War and could be traced back to antiquity.
I do not wish to spend much time on the topic of race science itself other than to say it was once a bona fide field of academic study that came under heavy assault by a mix of Jewish and liberal egalitarian academics. The work of figures such as Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Trofim Lysenko, Stephen Jay Gould, Ashley Montagu, and Abraham Jacobi was to undermine and derail the study of race, inspired mainly by the fear of racial realities being used to justify illiberal policies and practices. The authentic works of Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Hans F.K. Günther, their predecessors, contemporaries, and organizations all have been cast aside entirely. Racial science has been not only formally discontinued by the liberal order, but current views of race are often radically ahistorical. More than merely “setting back,” the study of human differentiation, much of what we knew and accepted as truth, things we all can see daily, have been rewritten in favor of bumper sticker slogans like “race is a social construct,” and “we are all one race, the human race.” Historically, during the earliest study of race, no serious student of the subject ever believed those trite catchphrases to be acceptable. Those who outright denied any possible relation between race and literacy, or anything for that matter, assured me that race is a social construct (as does Scientific American on page 1), the data had to be wrong or old, that it had some English-speaking bias, or that there was simply no causal relationship between race and any other metric, even if they happen to be strongly correlated. The phrase “correlation does not equal causation” was used repeatedly in this debate and my time in academia. This phrase is interesting; there is a tacit admission that they correlate with race and other things, even if they quickly assure us that cannot be the case.
Of those who believed there was a relationship between race and outcomes, they would argue it was the fault of “lack of resources,” “racism,” Jim Crow laws, redlining, or general poverty.
In The New Yorker and Scientific American pieces, several analogies were used to describe the nonwhite experience in America: In Scientific American, taken from “Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”, one example they give of racism is like walking on a moving walkway in the airport but going in the wrong direction. In The New Yorker, two examples to describe racism are cited; one proposes a thought experiment where all red-headed children are prevented from going to school, and over time, people would likely come to associate red hair with not being educated and even surmising that there is a genetic cause for both red hair and low intelligence or education. The other example was from geneticist Richard Lewontin, who asked us to image a bag of seeds, and we planted one handful of seeds in nutrient-depleted soil and the other in nutrient-dense soil. Seeds with the same DNA will thus have different outcomes due to their soil.
These examples all assume a base level of sameness, entirely unsupported, and then posit outcome differences are due to some event happening later in life, walking on the wrong side of the walkway (seems like a choice here to me), or not having proper education or resources.
On page 19 of Scientific American, Katherine Phillips notes that although corporations spend billions annually to promote and manage diversity, the leadership remains primarily white and male. She then argues, “Being around people who are different from us makes us more creative, more diligent, and hard working.” Her article mentions over and over how diversity makes work environments better and more creative, and she likens the pains of diversity to the pains of exercise and muscle growth. Phillips cites university studies such as one that found academic papers with a more diverse group receive more citations and another that found people prepare more for debates with somebody with opposing political views than when trying to convince a person with similar views. For additional evidence, Phillips posits that large companies that add women and nonwhites to leadership roles outperform companies that do not.
The number of citations on a paper is an odd argument. It means little and has no relation on the real world or accuracy of the findings. Companies tend to add women and diversity once the company is built and mature. This point always compares the largest companies in the world, who can afford to add in useless diversity hires for public relations, and compare them to smaller startups. The real test would be to compare how many companies founded by diversity go on to become large, compared to those started by white men.
Further, I found many papers like “Does Labor Diversity Affect Firm Productivity?” that study efficiency and productivity in a company or firm, and they found while diversity in education backgrounds is helpful, greater diversity in ethnic and racial backgrounds was correlated with lower efficiency and productivity.[1] Studies like this go to prove companies that make more money adding in diversity are doing that in-spite of the added diversity, not because of it.
In an essay in the magazine titled “How to Unlearn Racism” by Abigail Libers, a Jewish woman, appears on page 26, and is wildly disjointed, filled with tropes and outright lies. Libers writes that racial classifications were only seen in the 16th and 17th centuries and that biology has shown no genetically distinct races.[2] Libers talks about Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s work in racial classifications, only to dismiss his work outright because “some prominent scientists dismissed a biological basis for race.” Yet Libers turns around two paragraphs later and extols the work of Janet Helms and Petty McIntosh! Quoting McIntosh discussing white privilege, an “invisible package of unearned assets[…] White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks.”
On page 31, Libers writes, “As both a white person and a Russian Jew. Our Country prides itself on being a melting pot.”
Page 32 opens with this:
When’s the last time a stereotype popped in your mind? If you are like most people, the authors included, it happens all the time. That doesn’t make you a racist, sexist or whatever-ist. It just means your brain is working properly, noticing patterns and making generalizations.
Continuing the discussion of bias on page 34, an essay on “Neuroimaging Our Unconscious Biases,” opens by talking about rock climber Alex Honnold and how his brain scans show almost no amygdala activity, leading to his total lack of fear climbing 3,000-foot rock faces without a rope. The amygdala is responsible for threat detention and our disgust response. Its function is crucial to keep humans safe and alert them to dangerous things before our conscious brain can understand why. Page 35 accurately states that human amygdala activity is more active when looking at photos of other races than their own; even as babies, we are hardwired to trust those who look like us and are wary of outsiders.
The very next page of the magazine states, “Research suggests that racism is not hardwired,” and again affirms higher amygdala activity when people view members of another race. These two statements cannot both be true.
Page 48 features an essay called “Microaggressions: Death by a Thousand Cuts,” where Derald Wing Sue posits small statements and actions make nonwhites feel marginalized and cause them “real psychological harm.” Examples of microaggressions are single white women not wanting to ride an elevator with or sit near black men on public transit or Latinos feeling like a “perpetual alien in their own country” due to any comments that highlight their differences. Sue notes that those dealing with microaggressions face “racial battle fatigue.” Well, we have our own sort of fatigue. And I can cite hundreds of cases of white women being killed by diversity doing inane things like sitting on a bus.[3] It happens thousands of times per year.
The following several articles in “The Science of Overcoming Racism” issue deal with race and health, specifically, the poor overall health of blacks in America compared to whites. I found these articles among the most interesting because of the strong link between health and genetics that mainstream academics accept. An essay called “Born Unequal” says blacks have higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and low birth weights. Environmental or social explanations were offered, primarily higher rates of poverty compared to whites and the stress of needing to pay bills. “Racism, Not Race, Is the Danger,” is the next essay offered. The American Public Health Association named “racism” as a “direct threat” to public health. One of the examples of racism blacks face is “fast-food swamps,” similar to the idea of a food desert, where the lack of healthful options in a community is to blame for the poor health of those living in the area. No mention of the fact that nice restaurants and grocery stores cannot make it in black areas due to the crime and theft of the black community.
An interesting quip from page 78 notes maternal mortality among black women is a “risk equally shared by all black women regardless of income, education, or geographical location.” Then, black maternal mortality in the USA is compared against predominantly white countries in Europe, such as Switzerland and Iceland, to “prove” there is some racism particular to the USA causing black women to die. We are to believe poor outcomes for blacks is something socioeconomic, except when it’s not, then it’s just vague “racism,” and not something genetic. We will learn later in this issue that black women also tend to have more health issues overall than whites, could this be related to the higher rate of maternal mortality?
The final essay dealing with health appears on page 82 with “The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity.”
Black women have also been identified as the subgroup with the highest body mass index in the U.S., with four out of five classified as either overweight or obese.
The following paragraph:
This heightened concern about their weight is not new; it reflects the racist stigmatization of black women’s bodies. Nearly three centuries ago, scientists studying race argued that African women were especially likely to reach dimensions that the typical European might scorn.
Next paragraph:
In the eyes of many medical practitioners in the late 19th century, black women were destined to die off along with the men of their race because of their presumed inability to control their ‘animal appetites’ – eating, drinking, and fornicating.
Then comes the structural explanation:
Living in racially segregated, high-poverty areas contributes to disease risk for black women. […] Further, these neighborhoods typically have a surfeit of fast-food chains and a dearth of grocery stores offering more nutritious food choices. Food insecurity, which is defined as the lack of access to safe, affordable and nutritious food, has a strong association with chronic illness independent of BMI.
Concluding this essay, the authors state the chronic health issues blacks face are mislabeled as “lifestyle” diseases or choices but are not the central problem. The predominant reason black women get sick is because their lives are “often stressful and their neighborhoods often polluted,” “not because they eat the wrong things.” The final remedy offered? “Tackling racism, sexism, and weightism.”
“Racism in Medical Tests,” is an opinion piece that is so bizarre it was difficult to follow the overall thesis. Yet, it provided another perfect example of the impossibility of being “scientifically anti-racist.” Racism, as defined by modern parlance, is more or less noting any difference between races. Left-wing academics need “the science” to show near total equality, at least to the point environmental and “cultural” factors can be attributed to outcomes. On page 84, the idea of innate biological differences among races is called a “long-debunked premise” and a ”social contract,” then the very next line says:
It is true that some populations are predisposed to certain medical conditions – the BRCA mutations associated with breast cancer for instance, occur more frequency among people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage. However, such examples are rare and do not apply to broad racial categories such as black or white. The mistaken conflation of race and genetics is often compounded by outdated ideas that medical authorities (mostly white) have perpetuated about people of color.
On the bottom half of the same page (84), the following opinion essay is titled “Clinical Trials Need More Diversity.” Well, what do we have here? It opens with,
Nearly 40 percent of Americans belong to a racial or ethnic minority, but the patients who participate in clinical trials for new drugs skew heavily white – in some cases, 80 to 90 percent. Yet nonwhite patients will ultimately take the drugs that come out of clinical studies, and that leads to a real problem. The symptoms of conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, as well as the contributing factors, vary across lines of ethnicity, as they do between the sexes. If diverse groups aren’t part of these studies, we can’t be sure whether the treatment will work in all populations or what side effects might emerge in one group or another.
Again, we are told to believe that race is a social construct, but that somehow racial diversity is important for medical studies. And certain conditions like Tay-Sachs or sickle cell are what then? Social constructs?
The final two sections of the magazine deal with policing and environmental racism. Most notable is a study on page 92 that analyzes the Chicago Police Department’s patrolling. Black and Latin cops made few arrests for drug possession and tended to be more lenient towards suspects of their race when it came to stops and arrests. The conclusion is always white racism. Not that non-white police take it easy on their own, letting criminals off easy.
A quip on page 102 was rather funny: the author discussing inequality wrote living in Bangladesh “left me with the indelible understanding that human societies cannot be neatly summed up by population or per capita data.” She discussed the harms of income inequality without noting the known relationship between corruption and income inequality in nations. Perhaps we cannot “neatly” sum up a population based on population and per capita data, but we can get a pretty good idea of how nice a place is or not. They are seeing it first hand, but not believing their eyes.
If I made up two fictional islands and told you one was filled with old-stock Bavarians and Gauls and had a GDP per capita of over $100,000. The other Island was inhabited by Haitians whose ancestors participated in their revolution, Indians, and Somalis who participated in the Ogaden war, with a GDP per capita of around $2700, you could quite literally just guess what their crime, corruption, life expectancy, social trust, and hundreds of other metrics look like. And you’d be right.
A few data points stuck out to me about race and environmentalism; one is that “income inequality” is strongly correlated to endangered animals more closely than population density or environmental laws. Next is that nonwhite people are more exposed to air pollution; from page 105, “In Delhi, whose residents breathe some of the world’s dirtiest air, the poor live in some of the most polluted neighborhoods.” Finally, a study on page 110 says that even accounting for income, nonwhites install fewer solar panel facilities than whites.
The obvious explanation is that brown folks do a lot of animal poaching and create filthy cities. Also, even when they have the money, they don’t bother with ways to make anything better.
“Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?” is The New Yorker essay, at nearly 5,000 words, that deals with the work of a behavioral geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden who finds it difficult for her work to be accepted by liberal academia.[4] Harden’s position seems to be genetics do matter, but on some very particular, individual level, and that they really cannot or should not be further expanded to a group or group averages. Paige believes genetics matter, but they act as a sort of lottery, almost showing up at random, and of course, interact with environmental factors. To square the idea that genetics matter, but cannot be applied accurately to groups, she offers a variation of a common fallacy, oddly named after Richard Lewontin, the geneticist who argued that race must not be relevant because there are larger variations within a group than between those two groups. Overall, I found The New Yorker piece to be another collection of data that affirms my position. It was interesting to see the struggle a liberal academic had with other liberals and the way they shun anything or anybody who might do anything to undermine their idea that race is a social construct.
Whenever a range is compared with an average, the range will be more significant, as we are comparing two entirely unlike things. There is a reason why statistics include adjustments such as per capita, ANOVA test, and t-test to compare unlike things. For example, if I want to compare the weights of male German Shepherds and female German Shepherds, I need to compare the range to the range and the average to the average. Suppose male German Shepherds range from 65-90 pounds, and the females weigh 50-70 pounds, with an average of 75 pounds and 60 pounds, respectively. In that case, the fact that the average has a 15-pound difference between the males and females, which is smaller than the 20+ pound range within the sexes, is not relevant to the fact that overall, the males and females of the breed have different weights. The existence of a female dog weighing more than a male counterpart of the breed also does not disprove the idea that males are heavier on the whole. It would be absurd to argue there is no such thing as “male or female” or that it was impossible to differentiate them just because the possible range is larger than the average variance, as that is the very nature of ranges compared to averages.
As far as policies that are deemed racist, how does not being allowed at a white lunch counter or white neighborhood affect literacy or crime? Regarding the “resources and racism” discussion, I find both lacking, particularly in the face of other more obvious explanations. In African countries where they were more or less left to their own devices for all of known history, their life outcomes are worse than when Africans are around whites.
In European countries that did not have a history of segregation, Africans fare about the same as in America in terms of income, crime, rates of fatherless homes, and health. In America, we upended our entire society in an attempt to accommodate blacks. We passed constitutional amendments and laws, bused kids across towns to forcibly integrate schools, used federal programs to get more blacks into white neighborhoods, started programs for education, ended freedom of association, showered their schools with funding, we moved mountains just to try to bring their standard of living up, at great expense to white taxpayers, white schools, and white neighborhoods. In majority black Baltimore, the city schools spend over $22,000 per student per year, about $10,000 per student higher than the national average. Yet the black students of Baltimore City Schools remain at the low end of reading and math proficiency. Baltimore is not an anomaly or outlier datapoint, merely the best example of the trend.
There will almost always be a debate about human behavior and society that features some version of nature vs. nurture, structure vs. agency, base and superstructure (to a lesser extent), or similar ideas of interactions and effects between a person and their environment. There are also evolutionary theories that can be added to the discussion of group behavior, intelligence, temperament, social psychologies and so on. As with the previous discussion on race science, I do not wish to go too far off trail, but touch on enough to comment on modern scientific antiracism.
The left views racism as something to be “overcome,” as the issue of Scientific American suggests. In reality, racism is so natural that infants show a preference to members of their own race. As they should, people who look most like us, are the ones we are most likely to be related to, and such, more likely to be in our in-group, more likely to care about us, and understand us. The more alien somebody looks to us, the less likely we are to be related, to share any ideals or culture, and the more likely there is to be hostility. I view “racism” as something natural that should be embraced and understood. There are reasons we are different; those differences matter when building and understanding societies. Without understanding race, the reason Haiti is awful and the Dominican Republic is much nicer, makes little sense. They share the same island, but one country’s population is made up nearly entirely of sub- Saharan DNA, while the other’s has a heavy percent of European admixture.
Left-wing scientific antiracism will persist, but not forever. As more people offer more obvious explanations to questions like the Hispaniola issue, fewer people will accept the left-wing sentiment. With that said, it will not happen without the efforts of people like us, as well as restoring our positions in society, academia, and the government. Liberals navigate a tightrope of praising racial diversity while saying they believe the races are more or less fundamentally equal. They will say race is merely about skin color, while advocating for increased diversity. As they do, we will be there to push them off the tightrope into the chasm below, right where their ideas belong.
Notes
[1] Pierpaolo Parrotta, Daria Pozzoli, and Mariola Pytlikova. “Labor diversity and firm productivity.” European Economic Review. Volume 66, February 2014, Pages 144-179.
[2] Ancient Greek and Roman writings from more than 2,500 years ago mention “blacks” and other skin tones and physical differences.” Aethiopia appears in Homer’s Odyssey.
[3] Connor Lomis and Akim Powell. “Ukranian woman who moved to the US to escape war stabbed to death at train station, family says.” Live 5 WCSC. August 29, 2025. [https://archive.is/zNO7N]
[4] Gideon Lewis-Kraus. “Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?” The New Yorker. September 6, 2021. [https://archive.is/mwn0Y]
28 comments
…“invisible package of unearned assets…
Great article! I am still waiting for my package to arrive—guess it got lost in the mail. 🙃
I was supposed to be born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but after all these years, customer service never got back to me about that.
My invisible package includes a strong sense of responsibility and punctuality.
“The other example was from geneticist Richard Lewontin, who asked us to image a bag of seeds, and we planted one handful of seeds in nutrient-depleted soil and the other in nutrient-dense soil. Seeds with the same DNA will thus have different outcomes due to their soil.”
Environmental factors do matter!
they do matter, but we are not all the same seeds.
Naturally, to claim otherwise is to deny the teachings of ecology. Even in scenarios that resemble sameness, i.e. identical twins (who as a result of developing from a single fertilised ovum, are alike in all genetic characteristics (including sex) and typically very similar in appearance) do we find both similarities and differences. Although similarities in habits have been found even in cases where siblings have been separated at birth, which is a strong argument for the validity of genetics. But even in the above mentioned example will seeds with the same DNA (and in the same soil) grow to become individual plants that look different from each other, which further emphasises the variation in nature.
I think environment matters, but only in the extreme of malnourishment, severe sensory deprivation, or complete lack of education. Blacks have more than enough education access to achieve simple literacy.
More and more, I feel that white Europeans are the only group who give a fig about the environment, animals, or any sort of preservation. No other group represents a significant body of literature on that topic. White nationalism is more or less synonymous with ecology.
good article though. I couldn’t imagine reading through the scientific American articles like you did.
Good article!
Strange that the same people who promote the idea that race is a “social construct” also say companies who adopt diversity benefit from the competition and creativity from different groups. We’re really the same, but we also benefit because we are different?
Also, you wrote:
“Suppose male German Shepherds range from 65-90 pounds, and the females weigh 50-70 pounds, with an average of 75 pounds and 60 pounds, respectively. In that case, the fact that the average has a 15-pound difference between the males and females, which is larger than the 20+ pound range within the sexes, is not relevant to the fact that overall, the males and females of the breed have different weights.”
Shouldn’t the second sentence read “In that case, the fact that the average has a 15-pound difference between the males and females, which is smaller than the 20+ pound range within the sexes…” ?
Yes! thank you for catching that.
Social mobility is failing for blacks.
The goal of anti-racist research then turns to comparing poor blacks to “rich” (ie middle class) whites since they are assumed to be of equal capabilities.
If they ever did apples-to-apples with poor whites they would lose all their funding because the answer would be obvious.
There are comparisons. In SAT data the lowest socioeconomical group of whites outperforms the most affluent set of blacks! We’re talking about your meth heads and people with profound social problems here.
The Bell Curve did go into all that. The short answer is that race does matter.
My experience has been that the very same people who insist that race doesn’t exist when discussing intelligence will adopt racial determinism without a hint of irony when attributing positive traits to blacks. The idea that blacks are more athletic, for example, is deeply engrained culturally and can be asserted without controversy in any setting.
“White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks.”
Yes, but White people put those things in the knapsack.
When one side keeps throwing disingenuous arguments again and again, that’s a pretty good sign that they’re liars and there’s no reason to believe anything they say.
The strongest argument against liberal black-slatism and the narrative that colored folx are basket cases because they were hated on in various ways is the fact that history did not begin in the 1500s. The Romans were building aqueducts millennia ago without any NGO help and with Gauls and Carthaginians player hating on them. Sometimes the Greeks even called them “barbarians” which was a microaggression.
Meanwhile modern Africans can’t even build their own wells despite being lavished with aid.
A fine article. I’ve always wondered why it was that blacks were foisted upon white kids and families by integrating schools and cities? If the goal was to try to create the greatest amount of hostility between the groups, then it’s been a roaring success. There’s magic dirt in our suburbs like there is at the border. I get the distinct feeling that all of these contributing authors have never spent any significant time around poorly educated and fat blacks, male or female. If they had they would understand far better why we’d prefer our own spaces and group. When you are looking at statistics they don’t present a full picture. But the black with an education and mixed blood doesn’t want to live in the average black neighborhood either. He’s not stupid. But he shouldn’t have to live with us either. There are nicer black areas they should expand rather than insist on moving near us. Blacks moving into white areas only hurts both groups.
They need look no further than the racist babies and dogs too. I didn’t teach my Scottish terrier to dislike blacks, but she still growled at them if we passed on the street. Could have been a protective instinct, but only towards blacks. There’s no diversity that can logically be said to be a strength. Who coined that idiocy?
Yeah, all Diversity means is less-White. I don’t see any great strengths there.
🙂
I believe some people honestly promoted this with good intentions, at least at first, then backed away, maybe told themselves, “We did it wrong. Too quickly. Or these class sizes of over 20 are just too large.” (Sort of like, Communism’s never really been tried.) But don’t dismiss the likelihood of evil intent.
In most instances over the last 60 years, I’d guess the children didn’t integrate, even badly. Maybe they didn’t live in an area with a lot of nonwhites. Or they switched to a different school: special public, private, parochial. School districts responded to pressure and created special alternative schools. Magnet schools, charter schools. Meanwhile that white school that got integrated became a black-school hellhole.
Commonly, a family would just move away to a safe area. This is when the real estate agents started to say, “Oh and we have very good schools.”
Back in the 60s in the South, they’d set up low-tuition private schools and call them something like “Barnwell Christian Academy” even though they were nondenominational. This is one of the reasons many years ago that public schools started to become dependent upon and directed by the Federal government. It may well have been the main reason for the Department of Education, and it’s felt to be so necessary for the Federal government to take over the responsibility of the state.
There’s a bit of racial science coming out of China now, and they universally approach it from the race essentialist point of view. As far as I’m aware, race denialism isn’t even engaged with seriously in the far east.
Which means we have to ask the question. If race is completely invalid as a category, why then are the Chinese having zero problems operating under the essentialist paradigm? I do think as the years tick by, contrasting the situation here with China will help us shed light on how ideologically constrained the west is.
I remember when my last workplace became more ‘diversified’. Management had to put signs up in the toilets telling people to flush after they’d finished and a sign at the drinking fountain telling people not to wash their hands in it, or spit in it. Needless to say, these directives were not a result of the behaviour of an influx of Finns.
Great article, may I add!
An essay called “Born Unequal” says blacks have higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and low birth weights.
So perhaps we should be a little less scathing that they compensate later in life.
Race is a “social construct” is BS of course; nevertheless, I don’t want that “social construct” sitting behind me on a city bus, if you know what I mean.
In the end it is all politics. If the left thought that telling the truth about race would help them win political power, then they would change their narrative just like that: for the good of the cause.
So you’ve spent decades importing the Third-World and are now complaining that your towns & cities are Third-World lawless shitholes…. If only someone had warned you eh?
With love,
Enoch Powell.
We need to focus on building our very own 100% communities. Ozarkia, RTTL, Orania, etc. are but a few examples. Trump is not saving us. Whomever occupies the White House fades in the rear view mirror. We have no choice. We are transitioning from a hated majority to a hated minority.
Europeans created & built South Africa, only to get murdered & having to leave. Anyone thinks it cannot happen here? Well, it is already happening & will get worse. Where are we going to go?
We are going nowhere but standing our ground & reclaiming our homelands from Europa to Australia. We are breaking away. Embarking on our Breakaway Civilization in perpetuity as the nons are anchors tied to our ankles, albatrosses around our necks & they all have to go back as they have their own homelands. We will once again head back to the stars where we left off in 1972 as the explorers we are in our unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Forgot who coin the phrase “we were promised flying cars & instead got flaming cars”. Translation: we have & are wasting valuable time having to defend ourselves from the nons instead of advancing our knowledge. Advancing knowledge is difficult when so many of our people have been attacked, raped, killed, murdered, not to mention – are last to be hired in our own homelands.
XIV VERBA
I’m uninterested in mere breaking away. Whatever happened to reconquering and the most brutal revenge on these bastards? Iryna being the latest example of why I despise them and their enablers to the depth of my being. If pure hell to pay isn’t in the cards at some point, then what does it say about what eunuchs we have become? You do this to our people, to animals, and they think they can simply walk away with their balls intact, and the only punishment is turning the White tap turned off? No.
Agreed.
Racism is taking your own side in Darwinian struggle. Because a people that wont take their own side get replaced by those that do.
https://archive.org/details/the-death-of-fragility-2nd-edition
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.