Monday, 31 March 2014

Peter Tatchell paedophile or Misunderstood? You decide.

Written by Cigpapers-Additional material and photos by Watt Tyler

Peter Tatchell was born in Melbourne Australia on 25th January 1952, he moved to London in 1971 to avoid conscription.

In 1978, Tatchell joined the Labour Party and moved to Bermondsey, South East London.

Tatchell ran as the Bermondsey Labour Party candidate in the 1983 General Election. Despite Bermondsey being a Labour stronghold he lost to Liberal candidate Simon Hughes. In February 2000, he left the Labour Party for unknown reasons.

In 2004, he joined the Green Party and was chosen to be their candidate for Oxford East in the 2010 General Election, however for some reason he withdrew his candidacy in 2009.

Peter Tatchell (the UK’s most prominent homosexual activist and a favourite of the BBC) has done more than demand the abolition of the age of consent; he has broken the law on the age of consent in Britain at least once.

Peter Tatchell is a regular on the BBC. The BBC have refused to state whether he appears as a human rights activist, homosexual campaigner or paedophile apologist. They have also refused to state how much they have paid him for appearances.

As a gay 18-year-old Australian anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and lived with a 16-year-old boy in London. The homosexual age of consent in England at the time was 21. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. What will he want after that?

When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16, an Outrage (Tatchell’s organization) banner said “16 is just a start” – it didn’t state what the end goal was.

Mr Tatchell criticises the age of consent laws. Here is a quotation from his own website:

“Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at 12; others not until they’re 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn’t take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances“.

Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent” for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways “to make paedophilia acceptable“.

This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (B.O.Y.), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.

Stephen Green, anti-paedophile campaigner wrote: “The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent,  destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children.“

In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that the age of sexual consent is “Reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era“.

Tatchell often ambushes public figures who don’t support the homosexual/paedophile agenda. The MSM and especially the BBC usually give him great publicity for these stunts.

He was not on his own in this belief. Many of his fellow socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same:

Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. Gay people and children should have the right to live together. It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who “related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six“.

The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn’t sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books.

Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalizing and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.

He has prepared a standard self-defence, which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, but it’s not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is “There’s probably no God – now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: “The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write.”
Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities.

In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell’s protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.

Are you aware that Tatchell contributed a chapter to this book?


The contents and contributors of The Betrayal of Youth:

Chapter 1: ‘Incest’ by Clive Coliman: Described as “An ardent supporter of the children’s rights movement.”

Chapter 2: ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’ by Richard Green: Illustrator for the Paedophile Information Exchange magazine under the pseudonym “Dominik”

Chapter 3: ‘Child Prostitution’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.

Chapter 4: ‘Gender Differences’ by Liz Holtom and Kathy Challis: both from the anti-Christian Peace News.

Chapter 5: ‘Power and Consent’ by Eric Presland: Homosexual activist. Contributed also to the American paedophile book “The Age Taboo.”

Chapter 6: ‘Love and Let Love’ by Tuppy Owens, Editor of the Sex Maniac’s Diary, and Tom O’Carroll: ex-Chairman of P.I.E. who was convicted in 1981 of conspiracy to corrupt public morals by sending out a paedophile contact list.

Chapter 7: ‘Children and Sex’ by Fr Michael Ingram: Catholic priest, defender of paedophilia.

Chapter 8: ‘The Paedophiles’ by Beatrice Faust: militant feminist & civil libertarian.

Chapter 9: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’ by Peter Tatchell.

Chapter 10: ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable?’ by Roger Moody of Peace News: “One of the most outspoken advocates of children’s rights in Britain .” Well-documented as a ubiquitous paedophile intellectual.

Chapter 11: ‘Socialism, Class, and Children’s Rights’ by John Lindsay: “ardent supporter of children’s rights.” Member of the Socialist Workers’ Party. Homosexual activist, hates the institution of the family.

Chapter 12: ‘Childhood Sexuality and Paedophilia: Some Questions Answered’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.

Chapter 13: ‘The Oppression of the Young: An Inside Perspective’ by Jeff Vernon: Involved in Gay Youth Movement and Campaign for Homosexual Equality.

Appendix 1: “P.I.E., from 1980 Until its Demise in 1985″ by Steven A. Smith: ex-chairman of P.I.E. Fled to Holland in 1984, became “active in the Dutch crusade for children’s rights,” was deported back to the UK in 1991 and sentenced to 18 months for sending indecent articles through the post.

Appendix 2: “The Uranians” by Timothy d’Arch Smith: Bookseller. Author of “Love in Earnest.”
Peter Tatchell’s self-defence begins with:

“Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes.”

These are blatant falsities. It wasn’t many Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies About The Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.

Peter Tatchell and his homosexual/paedophile allies often attacked the Christian Church for having Christian values. There is no record of him bursting in to a synagogue or mosque to protest against their religious values.

Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone. Tatchell and his friends in the mainstream media (especially the BBC) think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it’s true.
But blaming the Church whenever you’re in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own deviations from the norm. It’s worked so far so why shouldn’t it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.

The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there’s more.

Look at his defence of the book Dares To Speak:

“Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.”
Leaving aside the irony (probably lost on humourless Tatchell) about his using a “former editor of a Catholic newspaper” as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers. The book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.

Before it was quietly removed, this was Wikipedia’s entry for the publication:

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of paedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-paedophile activists.
After the normalization of homosexuality, we’ll have the normalization of paedophilia.

Here is Tatchell’s letter to the Guardian dated 26th June 1997 (a few weeks after Labour’s General Election win) which he denied writing when I asked him about it. However, I can find no record of a complaint to the Guardian, the Press Complaints Commission or any lawsuit for libel:

'Ros Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.

Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Peter Tatchell.

Source -

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Cultural Marxism - Terror in Academia

Cultural Marxism Terror in Academia:

By Tim Haydon.

For most of recorded history, no one doubted the existence of innate differences between individuals and thought nothing of saying so. People were miserly or generous or pleasant or cunning or good-hearted or wicked or hard-working or lazy or greedy and so forth. They were these things ‘by nature’.  Men and women were also perceived as having different natures, just like the animals previous generations were so familiar with. The bull in the field behaved differently from the cows. The cockerel’s nature was not that of its hens; the stallion’s ways could not be mistaken for those of mares. And so it was with men and women.

It was also mostly accepted that the races of the world tended to behave in different ways according to their respective inherited natures. It was ‘in the blood’.  Of course, our forebears’ generalisations about the races were sometimes off the mark.  But in the main, their common sense observations, uncluttered as they were by obfuscating ideology, did a pretty good job.
All that changed with the 1960’s.  Intellectuals began telling people that they shouldn’t believe the evidence of their own experience. They should instead listen to the dictates of philosophy which said that all their observations were mere illusions and that the truth was that there was no difference between individuals or men and women or the races. If there seemed to be, this was only because of the different ways in which these had been nurtured and the learned attitudes of people who thought this. From that time, the common-sense observations of ordinary people began to be scorned as ‘bigotry’ and ‘prejudice’ and condemned as  ‘sexist’ or ‘racist’ or some such term of abuse and remarking on them began in some cases to be criminalised as ‘hate speech’.

Now though, research into genetics is beginning to confirm the truth of much of the common-sense observations of yore. That this is so is filling the scientists and ‘intellectuals’ who bought into the intellectual fashions of recent decades with a kind of dread – dread of what further investigations are likely to reveal. Their response has been to try to deny the validity of what has been already uncovered, to vilify and to gag those who have undertaken this work and to try to deny any funding for further scientific explorations.

The hysteria of their condemnations so far reveals the depths of their fears that they have been terribly wrong and that the people they have smeared as ’bigots’, ‘racists’ and so forth, have been right all along. What follows is a run-down of what has happened at their hands to some of the brave researchers in the fields of truth.
J. Philippe  Rushton who died in October last year, was the Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Toronto who was responsible for perhaps the most striking theory of human development in recent years. In his ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ (1995)  the results of wide-ranging biometric and other studies of three racial groups, Whites, Blacks and East Asians are synthesised with the r-K Life History Theory.
Rushton’s master-stroke was to realise that the many human characteristics he identified that grouped themselves around the three racial groups he concerned himself with; African Blacks, Whites and East Asians, reflect different reproductive strategies. At one end of the spectrum are the East Asians, who are the most intelligent, have the largest brains, show the most sexual restraint, develop most slowly, live the longest, and are the most law-abiding (or conformist, if you like). This is consistent with having few children but taking very good care of them. At the other end of the spectrum are black Africans, whose behaviour is consistent with less investment in larger numbers of children. On virtually every scale of r-K behaviour (that is, on a scale of high-investment versus low-investment child-rearing), whites fall somewhere between Asians and Blacks, but are much closer to the Orientals than to the Blacks.
Rushton’s PhD at the London Institute of Psychiatry (He was also later awarded the senior doctorate DSc degree) was overseen by one of the most formidable psychologists of the 20th Century:
Hans Eysenck. Eysenck made significant contributions to many areas, particularly the study of personality (He was responsible for the tender minded –tough minded spectrum theory), but was the object of leftist vilification when his ‘Race, Intelligence and Behaviour’ came out in 1971. Rushton was present at a lecture in 1973 which Eysenck came to deliver at the (leftist) London School of Economics on ‘The Biological Basis of Intelligence’. Rushton wrote, (‘A scientometric appreciation of H J Eysenk’s contributions to psychology’. Personality and Individual Differences.
‘Unfortunately for Hans, the entire first row was made up of Maoists proudly sporting red Mao-Tse-Tung badges in their lapels.  As Hans began to speak, these Maoists jumped forward in unison and physically attacked him’.
Eysenck was marked by courage. He ‘stood firm on the race-IQ issue. He stood firm on the genetics of crime. He stood firm on the issue of sex differences, on the poverty of psychoanalysis.
Little did I know then, sitting with a friend in the eighth row, that not 20 years later, I would experience the same primal encounter.’
Rushton’s own encounter with the leftist / ‘liberal’ determination to shout down, physically repress and otherwise allow ‘no platform’ to any scientific (or actually any) opinion contrary to their own preferred view occurred even before the publication of his book, ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ in 1995, after the Toronto Star began a campaign in 1989, joined by the rest of the Canadian media, to get him dismissed from his professorship at the University of Western Ontario, accusing him of “racism.”
He wrote, ‘Students and activist groups .. daily demanded a public forum to air my iniquities. Newspapers ran cartoons of me with a Ku Klux Klan hood on and having a telephone conversation with a delighted Adolf Hitler. The Premier of the Province, while acknowledging that he did not have the power to do so said that he would fire me if he could..…..It bordered on becoming a witch-hunt and I was the centre of media and political attention for many weeks.’
Rushton was subject a police criminal investigation for the promotion of “hatred against any identifiable group.”(He was cleared, the Attorney General of the Province saying that his views were ’loony, but not criminal’). He was assaulted by leftist thugs and forced to confront his accusers in a university hall packed with hostile students and activists. (This piece of organised intimidation can be accessed on YouTube). In return, Rushton never showed anything but patience and courtesy.
William Shockley. Shockley (1910-89) was the Nobel-Prize winning co-discoverer of the transistor and sole discoverer of the junction transistor. However, he became interested in eugenics in his later career, considering it more important than his work in physics. He was outspoken and forensically analytical in his view that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites and that people of lesser intelligence should be discouraged from having children.
Of course, such views were criticised, not because they were incorrect on the basis of the evidence, but on ideological grounds as ‘racist’.  However Shockley was not intimidated, merely reasserting that the future of humanity was threatened because people with low IQs were having more children than high-IQ people. In a 1980 interview, when asked if his views amounted to racism, he famously answered “If you found a breed of dog that was unreliable and temperamental, why shouldn’t you regard it in a less favorable light?”
Such coldly clinical, not to say brutally honest attitudes, did not go down well with a public which preferred its illusions, so he got nowhere when, in 1982, he stood for the US Senate on a platform calling for sterilization of people with IQs lower than 100. He was ostracised by the scientific community and in his later years was picketed whenever he spoke at an event.
Larry Summers:  Summers was President of Harvard, possibly the USA’s most prestigious university, when in 2005 he dared to suggest that women were underrepresented in the top echelons of the Hard Science Faculties in Universities, not because they were discriminated against but because that compared to men, they simply weren’t good enough. His ‘best guess’ was that ‘in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude.’ Women had ‘different availability of aptitude at the high end.’
He called for clear thinking on these matters. But there is no room for clear, rational thought and freedom of speech where Cultural Marxism is involved. You simply can’t say these things, even if you are President of Harvard. Under the presiding Cult of Equality, heretical thoughts about the non-Equality of the Races, the Sexes, Religions and Cultures are simply not tolerated, regardless, or even because of the evidence.  Summers paid the penalty for his candour. He subsequently ‘resigned’ from his position. He was though appointed as an economics advisor by Obama and is currently being talked of as the successor to Bernanke at the Federal Reserve.
James Watson: Watson is the Nobel-prize-winning co-discoverer of the structure of DNA who suggested in 2000 that dark- skinned people had stronger libidos than lighter-skinned ones. This suggestion has been confirmed by the research of the National Cancer Institute, Jan; 76(1):45-8, which wanted to know why blacks have a prostate cancer risk twice that of white males at age 45. Young black males have testosterone levels up to 19% higher than whites (21% higher free testosterone). Even when adjusted for various factors such as weight, height, drinking habits etc, black levels are up to a statistically significant 15% higher (13% higher free testosterone).
This is in line with J. Phillippe Rushtons r-K theory which accounts for greater sexual activity amongst blacks, as broadly do the finding by Richard Lynn ( Personality and Individual Differences 2012) that while British men have a penis length of 5.5 inches, for the Congolese it is 7.1 inches. Other lengths were; Ecuador 7, Ghana 6.8, Colombia 6.7, Iceland 6.5, Italy 6.2, South Africa 6, Sweden 5.9, Greece 5.8, Germany 5.7, New Zealand 5.5, UK 5.5, Canada 5.5, Spain 5.5, France 5.3, Australia 5.2, Russia 5.2, USA 5.1, Ireland 5, Romania 5, China 4.3, India 4, Thailand 4, South Korea 3.8, North Korea 3.8
The high sex drive and aggressive masculinity of blacks commensurate with their high testosterone levels and their longer penis length might help to explain the attraction that some white females, especially lower IQ, lower class ones, appear to have for black men. The fact that black women have higher testosterone levels than white females (ie they are more masculine) might help to explain why white men do not on the whole find them sexually attractive, except in the absence of reasonable white alternatives. (One can observe in the street that black /white couples comprise as much as 70%-90% black males / white females.) That at least is the theory of Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, (See under) which does not however take into account the whole story of Racial Inclusiveness / Fitness.
Watson said that extracts of melanin – which gives skin its colour – had been found to boost subjects’ sex drive. “That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.” On October 25, 2007, Watson had to resign from his position as head of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York after he was reported as saying ‘I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa (because) all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.’ Watson had apparently made similar remarks about women, without it seems quite realising how much such suggestions are a heresy against the Cult of Equality, punishable by excommunication.
Watson got his ideas about sub-Saharan Africa after Richard Lynn sent him a copy of his book ‘The Global Bell Curve’. Following the Watson incident, the BBC made a TV programme which attempted to discredit the work of Rushton and also Lynn and Arthur Jensen.
(No surprise there. The surprise would have been if the BBC had been biased in the reverse direction, or had tried to be even-handed).
These researchers were given just a few minutes each to put their cases, which were then dismissed as ‘unscientific’. The presenter, the Somali Rageh Omar, rather gave the game away about the otherwise obvious bias of the programme when he indicated that he was concerned about their findings because blacks were ‘my people’, an odd remark in a programme dedicated to the proposition that racial differences do not exist. This programme can also be accessed on YouTube.
E.O. Wilson. Wilson is the famed ‘Father of Sociobiology’ which has been defined as ‘the scientific or systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, in all kinds of organisms including man, and incorporating knowledge from ethology, ecology, and genetics, in order to derive general principles concerning the biological properties of entire societies’ and is a Harvard Professor. He was an advocate of “multi-level selection theory”, a development of the idea of “kin selection”, which holds that other biological, social and even environmental priorities may be behind the process, but now favours ‘group selection’, the view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms.
Wilson attracted great opprobrium from the usual quarters when his book ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis’ was published. In it, he reduced complex behaviour in animals to patterns with a genetic basis and  extended that analysis to humans.  Wilson wrote that humans always have been characterized by “aggressive dominance systems, with males generally dominant over females.” He argued further that, “Even with identical education and equal access to all professions, men are likely to continue to play a disproportionate role in political life, business and science.”
Naturally, feminists, who like other proponents of the egalitarian agenda seem to think that scientific findings should conform to their ideological wishful thinking rather than the other way around, were seriously aggrieved by this, as were those who saw an ethnocentric or racist basis to his judgments about the determination of behaviour.
Wilson was shouted down at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1978 and had a pitcher of water poured over him. Two of his colleagues at Harvard and other scholars signed a letter of protest, and there were public protests on his lecture tours.
Thomas Bouchard. Bouchard, a professor at the University of Minnesota, was responsible for The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA), which perhaps more than any other has destroyed the left-liberal assumption that intelligence and other characteristics are independent of heredity; that on the contrary any differences are entirely due to the environment and so are infinitely malleable.
This assumption is responsible for the injustice of our social policies which are predicated on the basis that, if (say) there is underrepresentation of women or some racial group in any walk of life, this must be entirely due to ‘oppressive’ social structures which can be rectified by political management. These policies sail on regardless of such studies because it is very difficult for the ruling cliques which worship in the cult of equality and their fellow travellers who pander to this or that group which benefit from such policies to accept that their sweeping assumptions of equality are fantasies.
MISTRA was designed to determine the extent that genetic inheritance is responsible for various human characteristics, and how much can be attributed to environment. Monozygotic twins are genetically identical. If they were separated at birth and reared in different environments, the respective input of genetics and environment in the outcomes can be assessed.
The first pair of such twins that MISTRA evaluated was particularly striking. The two men met when they were 39, and found that both had been in law enforcement but were now working as firemen. Both had loved math in school and hated spelling. Both did woodworking as a hobby, and their favourite vacation spot was Pas Grille Beach in Florida. One had named his son James Alan and the other had named his James Allan. They looked very much alike, had the same smoking habits, and always held a beer can with a pinky under the can. Both had put on 10 pounds at the same age for no apparent reason.
Of another pair, one twin was reared in Germany and the other in Trinidad, and they had never met before they came to Minnesota for testing. When they arrived at the airport each was wearing a light blue shirt with epaulettes, and wire-rimmed glasses. They both collected rubber bands, which they wore around their wrists, and washed their hands both before and after using the bathroom. Both liked to startle people by sneezing loudly in elevators.
In another case, both of a pair of MZA women wet the bed until age 12 or 13. When they were teenagers they started having nightmares about the same things: fishhooks and doorknobs. Both had problems with nightmares for more than ten years.
Another pair of MZA men had been overweight until middle school and then became quite thin. They had speech problems for which they received therapy in kindergarten or junior school. Both were diagnosed as hyperactive at about the same age, and both were actively and openly homosexual.
A pair of female MZA twins from Australia found each other because of a case of mistaken identity. They both worked as fashion buyers for competing department stores, and a customer accused one of moonlight for the competition. They were both very elegant, dressed with the same style and the same kind of jewellery, smoked the same cigarettes, and had the same hairstyle, posture, tastes, and speaking voice. One MZA pair of male twins were both fitness fanatics who ran their own body-building gyms. MZA twins generally have the same posture, arrange their hands and legs in the same way and have other similar personal tics while DT (fraternal) twins do not.
MZA twins were so remarkably similar that MISTRA attracted a lot of media attention, but this did not lead to the funding needed to keep the programme going. There was in fact intense resistance to research that contradicted the orthodox belief that in the right environment we can all be made happily equal and equally happy. One grant-application reviewer for the USA National Science Foundation wrote that MISTRA would “fan the controversy regarding heritibility [sic] of intelligence . . . rejection is the only intellectually defensible course for NSF.”
However, the USA Pioneer Fund, which also supported such scholars as Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn (Rushton actually ran the fund for a period), provided much of the funds that were needed. Critics complained that Pioneer money was “tainted” because they associated it with right-wing attitudes, but these critics of the Pioneer Fund were really critics of the research itself.
Herrnstein and Murray. These researchers were of course the co-authors of perhaps the most famous book on racial difference in recent decades, ’The Bell Curve’. This book argues that those at the top of US society, the “cognitive elite”, owe their position to their high largely inherited IQ’s and that others owe their lower status to their lower ones. These latter include blacks who on average are less intelligent than whites. Nearly all inequality between Blacks and whites is due to racial differences in cognitive ability (IQ), not to racism or “ethnic oppression.” American society is threatened by strong “dysgenic” pressures, meaning that low IQ people, especially blacks and immigrants, are out- breeding everyone else.
Herrnstein and Murray’s book was attacked, not because of the lack of coherence of its arguments as such, but in an ad hominem sort of way as it were, fundamentally on grounds of its ideological unacceptability. It was ‘academic Nazism’ and ‘viciously racist.’ It was claimed that there was no scientific basis to its arguments and that these relied on “tainted” sources. Thus in the New York Review of Books, (12/1/94), Charles Lane tried to dismiss their work by tying them to writers who had edited and contributed to the journal, ‘The Mankind Quarterly’ which was apparently some kind of sin since it is not left-liberal and had received research money from the Pioneer Fund.
Linda Gottfredson. Gottfredson is a professor of sociology at the University of Delaware. She has straightforwardly stated that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and have diminished capabilities in work and educational settings. As a result of her open honesty and plain speaking, her University rejected a $174,000 Pioneer fund grant toward her work, citing the fund’s racist history.  Gottfredson had to sue, claiming she was a victim of political correctness (She was), and the school eventually backed down to avoid a protracted legal battle.
In 1990 Gottfredson and J Philippe Rushton, together with Harry Weyher, the president of the Pioneer Fund, wrote a letter to the ‘The Independent’ in Britain saying that “governments that want ‘effective’ public policies must listen to scientists who say blacks are genetically less intelligent than other races.”
Gottfredson, who seems fearless, also ran into flak from leftist batteries because she supported the conclusions of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in ‘The Bell Curve’.  In 1994, she drafted the letter Mainstream Science on Intelligence to the Wall Street Journal, which was a public statement signed by 51 university professors specialising in intelligence and related fields on the validity of the concept of intelligence and IQ testing. This was thought necessary in view of the media hostility to ‘The Bell Curve’ and what were considered the misleading reports in them regarding academic consensus on the results of intelligence research. This letter was subsequently reprinted in 1997 in a special volume of the American Journal, ‘Intelligence’.
Kevin B. MacDonald:  Macdonald is a professor of psychology at California University, Long Beach. Using evolutionary psychology, he has developed a theory of Judaism as a “group evolutionary strategy.” According to this theory, traits attributed to Jews such as higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentrism have eugenically evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America. The latter, he insists, Jews seek to dispossess, working indirectly through such ideologies as neo-conservativism which, like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism, uses arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to Jewish interests.
MacDonald questions claims that racial differences are unimportant or illusory and that racial and cultural assimilation will be an easy process. He believes that blacks and Latinos are by and large genetically intellectually inferior to whites and Asians. He stated in connection with mass immigration that:
‘The alternative (to having an ethno state from which non- Europeans are excluded) faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans’ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness—an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.’
Many might think that this sums the situation up very neatly. Unsurprisingly in the present climate, the University Senate and his colleagues in the university’s psychology department have formally dissociated themselves from his work. The Senate described his views as Anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric. Apart from this condemnation on the grounds of Cultural Marxism, no substantive criticism of the correctness of his opinions appears to have been offered. Apparently, while Macdonald’s work may be described as ethnocentric and anti-semitic and justify attempts to gag and possibly to remove him from his post, the theory that Jews are anti –white and ethnocentric is either dismissed out of hand or is beyond criticism.
Arthur Jensen:  Jensen, who like J Philippe Rushton died in October last year, was rated as one of the 50 most significant psychologists of the 20th Century. He was a major proponent of the heriditarian position in the nature / nurture debate. He concluded from his studies that the Head Start programmes designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in his estimation, heritability of IQ was over 0.7 of the within-race IQ variability, and the 0.3 left over was due to non-shared environmental influences. ( With J Philippe Rushton, he established that there have been no black gains in reading and mathematics in five decades). The vast amounts of public money poured into this scheme and other ‘affirmative actions’ on the assumption that American blacks and Hispanics are equally intelligent to whites and to other races and that their poor relative performance is due to racial discrimination has been largely wasted.
After Jensen’s paper was released, students and faculty staged large protests outside his University of California Office at Berkeley. He was subject to abuse and to threats of violence. He was denied reprints of his work by his publishers and was not permitted to reply in response to letters of criticism—both extremely unusual policies for their day.
Jensen’s 1998 ‘The g factor: The Science of Mental Ability’ suggests that a genetic component is implicated in the white-black difference in IQ .
In 2005, Jensen’s article, co-written with J Philippe Rushton named ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability”, was published in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law. They present ten categories of evidence in support of the notion that IQ differences between whites and blacks are partly genetic in origin.
Glayde Whitney: Glayde Whitney was a behavioural genetics and psychology professor at Florida State University. Whitney drew the wrath of the liberal establishment when in his Presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association in 1995 he suggested that there was a need to investigate the possibility of genetic factors behind the high incidence of black crime in America.
Whitney caused further controversy when he wrote a sympathetic foreword to David Duke’s autobography, ‘My Awakening’. He described it as ‘’a painstakingly documented, academically excellent work of sociobiological-political history … provid[ing] on the order of a thousand references and footnotes.’ He wrote,” I discovered that Duke’s ‘racism’ was not born of hatred, but of science and history. In reading Duke’s work, Whitney noted, “As the hard scientific data came in, it became more certain that genetic differences (heredity) played a large role in the discrepancy. But in public it became politically incorrect to even to acknowledge that there was a difference.”
Whitney argued that opponents of genetic research into racial differences are positioned against the scientific tradition of open inquiry, maintained even when one detests another’s subject. When he received death threats he stated that “races are different for many genetic systems that influence everything from behavior and psychology to physiology, medicine and sports. Screaming nasty words does not change the reality.” Whitney’s views regarding race and intelligence prompted the Florida Senate to pass Resolution 2742 in 1999, “condemning the racism and bigotry espoused by Florida State University Professor Glayde Whitney.”
Chris Brand: Brand was a lecturer in Psychology at Edinburgh University. After an almost year-long investigation by the University, he was sacked from this tenured post which he had held for 27 years because of his views on Race, IQ and women and because of remarks he made about paedophilia.
His 1996 book ‘The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications’ led to accusations of ‘scientific racism’ and sexism and his lectures were protested and closed by the Anti Nazi league of Edinburgh. Brand describes himself as a ‘race realist.’
Geoffrey Sampson: Sampson is Professor of Natural Language Computing in the Department of Informatics, University of Sussex. He was elected as a Tory to Wealdon District Council in 2001. In 2002 he resigned having been attacked by Labour Party and Lib Dem ministers and councillors for publishing an article on his website, ‘There’s Nothing Wrong with Racism (Except the Name)’. The Conservative Party Central Office endorsed his resignation saying that it was “in the best interests of all concerned …the Conservative party is opposed to all forms of racial discrimination”.
Satoshi Kanazawa: Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. He got himself into serious trouble when he published a paper alleging that African states were poor and suffered chronic ill-health because their populations were less intelligent than people in richer countries. Kanazawa was accused of ‘reviving the politics of eugenics’ by publishing the research which concluded that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. His paper, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, compared IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claimed that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.
‘The Guardian’ said that ‘the reaction to Kanazawa’s paper would ’reopen the simmering debate about whether academics are entitled to express opinions that many people may find offensive’. No surprise there. The (’Liberal’) Guardian will always be opposed to the expression of scientific opinion if it is less than flattering to some non-white male group which will be ‘offended’ by it. Apparently truth should be concealed or never revealed or isn’t truth, if this is the case. It’s called sweeping unpleasant facts under the carpet; deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room, etc etc. If you buy The Guardian, you won’t get the whole picture. So why bother?
Kanazawa also found himself in hot water because of his research into the attractiveness of the women of different races. ‘Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races…women with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive,’ he wrote. His article, published on the U.S.-based website Psychology Today, caused international outrage.
Professor Paul Gilroy, a sociology lecturer at the LSE, said: ‘Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution’.
Again, it is, it seems, not so much the correctness or otherwise of such research that matters to the likes of Gilroy, but whether or not it is politically acceptable.  As Kanazawa  says himself, ‘The only responsibility scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they create.’
Kanazawa, Richard Lynn, J Philippe Rushton and Helmuth Nyborg (with Jim Flynn of the Flynn effect) once posed for a photograph with the caption, ’The Four most hated psychologists in the world.’
So far despite investigation by his University and letters written to newspapers signed by many academics, Kanazawa has survived, quite possibly because, not being white, he has been held to be less guilty than if a white person had made the same arguments.
Armand Leroi: Leroi is Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology at Imperial College, London. He attracted much hostile attention when in 2005 he published an article ‘A Family Tree in every Gene’ which underlined the importance of gene expression in confirming the reality of Race. Naturally, any scientific work which serves to deny that race is merely a ’social construct’ must be not just wrong, but evil, because leftist ideology says it is. So far, Leroi has survived academically.
Frank Ellis: Ellis is the lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies at Leeds University who dared to support the ‘Bell Curve’ theory. This theory of course holds that black people are less intelligent than whites – enough to have Ellis figuratively burned at the academic stake. But Ellis also believes that women did not have the same intellectual capacity as men and backed the ‘humane‘ repatriation of ethnic minorities. Whilst the University appeared initially to have tried to back Ellis, in the end, it seems, it failed to hold out against the pressure from protesting students and teaching staff. Ellis took early retirement.
David Coleman: Coleman is University Professor of Demography at Oxford. He helped to found MigrationWatch. His researches include ‘the comparative demographic trends of the industrial world, particularly the reasons for the persistence of substantial international differences in birth and death rates and in family structure. .. Also immigration trends and policies and the demography of ethnic minorities and….. housing policy.’
Coleman’s warnings about the immigrants’ takeover of Britain through their differential birthrates have, like the work of the other academics mentioned here, attracted hostile criticism from the usual quarters. When a University immigration group wrote to the University authorities demanding Coleman’s sacking, he said, ‘It is a shameful attempt of the most intolerant and totalitarian kind to suppress the freedom of analysis  and informed comment that it is the function of universities to cherish’ .
Like the others mentioned above he has been the victim of academic gagging.
Richard Lynn:  Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster is currently probably the most prominent British Scientist in the field of IQ and other racial differences. Among his writings are ‘IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Human Evolution, Behaviour and Intelligence)’ co-authored with Tatu Vanhanen), ‘The Global Bell Curve’ and ‘Race Differences in Intelligence.’
It is no coincidence that Lynn’s prominence in this field arose after his retirement from the University with the honorific title ‘Professor Emeritus’. As with others mentioned here (those who have not been sacked or who thought it best to leave their posts, that is) Lynn was gagged from discussing racial matters whilst actually in post. Like J Philippe Rushton, he has only managed to get his work known through small private Publishers and through the support of the Pioneer Fund.
Helmuth Nyborg: Nyborg, Professor of Developmental Psychology at Aarhus University is probably Denmark’s best known and most controversial Psychologist. He has identified a 5-point average IQ difference in favour of men. Through research, Nyborg has also concluded, inter alia, that white people tend to be more intelligent than blacks. Nyborg has also warned about the decline in Western IQ brought about by mass immigration from low IQ countries.
In 2005, Nyborg published his paper, ‘ Sex-related differences in general intelligence, brain size, and social status’. Even though this passed peer review in an expert scientific journal, Aarhus University investigated accusations of scientific fraud in the results. The resulting report concluded that there although there was some statistical errors (which were not in fact of major significance in the results) there was no evidence of fraud. Notwithstanding this, the University reacted to the report by suspending Nyborg in 2006.
And so on and on.
What do we gather from all of this?  That in highly important areas of research the claims of Academic Freedom are either under serious and sustained threat or are actually dead in the era of Cultural Marxism oppression. Just as the freedoms of ordinary people are barely alive in a society where who they must mix with and what they must not say are dictated by law.
And that if highly important and respected Scientists like those mentioned above can be attacked, sacked, vilified and silenced in the way they have been for pursuing lines of research which conflict with the doctrines of the cult of equality, it is certain that there are many, many more in the shadows who substantially agree with their views but who lack their courage and determination, preferring a quiet life and living with its perniciously evil lies.
Even given understandable fears of what an exclusive emphasis on race differences can lead to, what we have now is censorship and oppression, pure and simple and the result is not the oppression of women and /or racial minorities but the oppression of the rest.


Cultural Marxism is the ideological driver behind Political Correctness. It is the destructive criticism and undermining of all institutions of Western civilization and the traditional values underpinning it.

Shortly after the Russian Revolution, in 1919 the Bolsheviks founded Comintern (the Communist International) to “fight by all available means … for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie for the creation of an international Soviet republic.” 

Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary, concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. Gramsci said that Christianity had corrupted the working class and the West would have to be de- Christianized by a “long march through the culture” – starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and the presentation (and revision) of history.

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary, by undermining firstly Christian sexual ethics among children, then the hated patriarchal family and the Church.  He launched sex lectures in the schools and graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.

In 1923 Lukacs established the Institution for Marxism in Frankfurt – later known as the Frankfurt School. Lukacs said “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution.  A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

The Frankfurt School spawned Critical Theory - THE DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF WESTERN CULTURE, including Christianity, Capitalism, Authority, The Family, Patriarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity,
Ethno-centrism, Conservatism.

Critical Theory repeats over and over this mantra of alleged Western evils: Racism, Sexism, Colonialism, Nationalism, Homophobia, Fascism, Xenophobia, Imperialism, and of course Religious Bigotry (only applied to Christianity).

During the Second World War, the Frankfurt School relocated to various campuses in the USA.  In 1950, Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School proposed the idea of the ‘authoritarian personality‘ – claiming that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist, and everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism or free markets needs psychological help.

The Frankfurt School were frustrated at the persistent lack of interest by the Western working class in revolt. Herbert Marcuse asked the question: Who could substitute for the working class as the agent of revolution?

His answer was:  marginalized groups, including black militants, feminists, homosexual militants, the asocial, the alienated and third world revolutionaries represented by the mass murderer Che Guevara.
Cultural terrorism – now called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – was to be waged against white, Christian, capitalist, heterosexual males.

So VICTIM GROUPS were to be defended:  Blacks, women, also now Muslims as alleged victims of “racism“ and “genocide”  and also, more recently, the environment (being raped by white capitalists).   Together, these constitute THE POLITICALLY CORRECT COALITION.

Marcuse’s book ‘Eros and Civilization’ (1955) promoted Free Love and the Pleasure Principle – giving rise to the mantra of the late 1960s onward of “Make love not war” and “If it feels good, do it”. This in turn led to the drug counterculture of the 1970s – “turn on, tune in, drop out”. This is very subversive of traditional values like the work ethic and the pursuit of excellence. These Victim Groups are the basis of the Gay studies, Black studies, Women’s studies, Peace and Conflict studies, etc departments now infesting universities, along with the “Green Left”.  None of these departments encourages genuine critical thought: they peddle only a one-sided agenda of destructive pessimism about Western culture.

Cultural Marxism now riddles the institutions of Western society – universities, and especially the public media.  Its tactic of Political Correctness – linguistic fascism – now intimidates and suffocates much public discourse.  It afflicts both the major parties, not only the Left.

The advance of Cultural Marxism has been hugely helped by the spread of postmodernist nihilist ideas, including the denial of absolute truth; denial of absolute standards; cultural, religious and moral relativism; assertion that life is meaningless; “tolerant” non- judgmentalism (which means refusing to defend any standards!); and a deterministic view of life.

Cultural Marxists teach that truth and morality are relative; that the end justifies the means; that the bedrock institutions of society are merely “power relationships”; and that people’s status and fortune in life is determined by class, gender, etc and that they have no free will or ability to take moral responsibility for their own life decisions.  This promotes a “victimhood” mentality and encourages parasitic dependency.

The “social justice” agenda bought by so many people from Cultural Marxists is a smoke screen.   When hardliners and their “useful idiots” talk in the schools and elsewhere about social justice, they’re not teaching about free enterprise and capitalism and individual responsibility and all the things that made America and Britain and Australia great. They’re promoting all the things that made the Soviet Union, leftist Europe (eg France) and China so bad.

A short definition of Cultural Marxism

The destructive criticism and undermining of all institutions of Western civilization and the traditional values underpinning it

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.


©2009 Dr. Trayce Hansen. All rights reserved.

Friday, 14 March 2014

The Myth of 'Diversity'

The Myth of Diversity

Seldom have so many pretended to believe something so absurd

Jared Taylor

The idea that "diversity" is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.

The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May, 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, "The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great." A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, "With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us." In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.

In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, "The expedition that Columbus ... began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492."

Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, "And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever."

Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February, 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. "We didn't have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today," said Mrs. Clinton. "I'm sad we didn't have it, because it would have been a great value, as I'm sure you will discover."

Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity -- at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting -- is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.

Nevertheless, there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. -- a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.

The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because skepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."

Of course it is only white societies -- and white groups within multi-racial societies -- that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.


Despite President Clinton's view that "diversity" started with Columbus, for most of its history the United States was self-consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ."

This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, nor was Jay an eccentric. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were all explicit about wanting the United States to be a white country, and in 1790 the first federal naturalization law required that applicants for citizenship be "free white persons." Until 1965, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to the United States and become citizens (an exception being made for the descendants of slaves). Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep the United States a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.

Once the country made the fatal assumption that race was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow. Congress abolished not only Jim Crow and legal segregation but, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, put an end to free association as well. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all nations, was a grand gesture of anti-racism, a kind of civil rights law for the entire world.

As has been pointed out in such books as Lawrence Auster's The Path to National Suicide and Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation, the backers of the immigration bill were at pains to explain that it would have little effect on the country. "Under the proposed bill," explained Senator Edward Kennedy, "the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area." The senator suggested that, at most, 62,000 people a year might immigrate.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power."

The point here is not that the backers were wrong about the bill -- even though in 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. The point is that "diversity" of the kind that immigration is now said to bless us with was never even hinted at as one of the law's benefits.

No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in California by 1998. In 1965, before the discovery that "diversity is our strength," most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.

Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. "Racism" looms ever larger as the greatest moral offense a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be "racist." There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1965 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become a "strength," despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.

This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.
Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for "inclusiveness" almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against "lookism," and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel-chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.

Occasionally a mainstream author sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to his professional respectability, columnist Scott McConnell of the New York Post has pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. "Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?" he asks.

Advantages of Diversity

On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America?If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports.
The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy -- and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.

Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter.

The fact that millions of Mexicans now live in the United States does not make our products more attractive to anybody -- certainly not to Mexico, which already has plenty of the things Mexicans know how to make. "Diversity" adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.

Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary Americans remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1965. Perhaps they have now heard of the Cinco de Mayo festival, but even if they live in California or Texas how many Americans know that it commemorates a Mexican military victory against the French?

Immigrants do not teach us about Cervantes or Borges or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artifact immigrants bring with them is their language -- which increasingly becomes an Americanized farrago that would astonish their countrymen -- but the so-called "culture" of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, and truculence.

High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized American city has an opera company but it wasn't established by Italians.

What, in the way of authentic culture have Miami's dwindling non-Hispanic whites gained from the fact that the city is now nearly 70 percent Hispanic? Are the art galleries, concerts, museums, and literature of Los Angeles improved by the fact that its population is now nearly half Hispanic? How has the culture of Washington, D.C. or Detroit been enriched by majority-black populations? If immigration and diversity bring cultural enrichment, why is that the places being the most intensively enriched are the places where whites least want to live? Like the trade argument, the "cultural enrichment" argument collapses with a pinprick.
It is true that since 1965 more American school children have begun to study Spanish, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.

Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even William Clinton would claim that getting an authentic Thai restaurant in every city is a major national objective.

Public Services

At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Hispanic officers patrolling black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across America it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force -- touted as one of the wonders of diversity -- becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.
The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Hispanic judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary "role models" for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multiracialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.

Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organizations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Hispanic, and even white officers.

Many government agencies and private companies hire professional "diversity managers" to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is a strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about which management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.

Maria Riefler has trained Nestle, Walt Disney, Chrysler and Chevron. She likes to divide employees into groups that represent the body and the "triune brain." This is supposed to help them understand how "stereotypes are hidden deep within the primitive part of ourselves."

It is a very peculiar "strength" that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighborhoods, "diversity training" is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.

This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.

These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. American companies are hard-headed about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that "diversity" improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.

Just how big a headache diversity actually is for companies is clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination. In just one month -- November, 1996 -- "diversity" made quite a lot of news. Texaco agreed to spend $176 million on black victims of company "racism," and lawyers for the firm that sued Texaco were getting about ten calls a day from people asking how to file for discrimination settlements. Just a few days later, 22 former employees of the nation's largest printing company, R.R. Donnelley and Sons, sued over what they claimed was $500 million worth of racism.

In the same month, both the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms settled multi-million dollar class action discrimination suits brought by blacks. Likewise in November, three blacks brought a class action suit against an Avis Rent-A-Car franchise with outlets in North and South Carolina, claiming they had been turned away because of race. Within the month, the owner of Avis said it would break its contract with the franchisee, and hired a law firm to check up on other Avis operators. Every one of these cases, which are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging, is a consequence of racial diversity -- and these were just the cases that made the news.

It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organizations that exist in the United States only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and every state and local equivalents of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other "diversity" issues.

Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and mayoral commissions fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these would be necessary in a nation of a single race. There must be tens of thousands of Americans consuming hundreds of millions of dollars every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.
Indeed, Tom McClintock, a former candidate for controller of the state of California estimated that before the 1996 state ballot initiative was approved to abolish racial preferences, the annual cost just to administer California's affirmative action programs was from $343 million to $677 million. This figure did not include the cost of private preference programs or the cost of state and local anti-discrimination machinery, none of which was affected by the 1996 measure.

If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of "civil-rights" law that Americans show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.

Other Races

Generally speaking, whatever timid opposition to diversity that ever arises is characterized as the whining of resentful, ignorant whites. Non-whites are thought to have a better appreciation of the importance of inclusiveness. This is just so much more nonsense. Now that immigration has added Hispanics and Asians to the traditional black-white racial mix, fault lines are forming in all directions.Though we are told over and over that it is ignorance and lack of contact that cause antipathy, it is groups that have the most contact that most dislike each other. This is why "outreach" and "bridge building" do not work, as even the New York Times unintentionally revealed in a June 18, 1990 headline: "Ethnic Feuding Divides Parade for Harmony."

The idea that hostility is cured through contact is now enshrined as part of the diversity myth. George Orwell touched on this in his essay "England Your England": "During the war of 1914-1918 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired."

In America one need not go overseas to have contact with foreigners. What has been the result? In Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City, blacks have tried to drive Korean merchants out of their neighborhoods. They firebomb stores, assault shop keepers, and mount boycotts against "people who don't look like us." In Los Angeles, relations were so bad that in 1986 a Black-Korean Alliance was formed to reduce tensions. It staggered on uselessly until late 1992, when it was dissolved in mutual recrimination and accusations. The more blacks and Koreans talked to each other the angrier they got.

There are now schools and school districts completely dominated by blacks and Hispanics, which have race wars involving no whites at all. Some examples? Locke High School in Los Angeles is almost exactly half-black and half-Hispanic. In February, 1996, 50 police officers had to be called in to break up a pitched battle involving hundreds of students. After order was finally restored and school dismissed, police in riot gear had to keep students from rejoining battle in the streets. What touched off the battle? Hispanics were annoyed -- certainly not "enriched" -- by the February observances of Black History Month.

A similar incident took place at Los Angeles' North Hollywood High School, when it took police in riot gear to calm a melee that started when an estimated 200 to 700 black and Hispanic students pitched into each other. The spark was reportedly a clash over what kind of music to play at the homecoming dance, neither side having felt particularly "inclusive."

Norman Thomas High School is located at Park Avenue and 33rd Street in Manhattan. In 1992, tension between blacks and Hispanics erupted into a free-for-all involving both boys and girls. "The only thing people cared about was skin color," explained one 16-year-old. The New York City Board of Education has "rapid mobilization guards" for just such emergencies.

Farragut High School in Chicago is two-thirds Hispanic and one third black. Recently, racial tension built up to what the principal called "total polarization," and it became dangerous to let students mix without police supervision. At the height of the tension, extracurricular activities were canceled for 30 days and the school's homecoming football game had to be played without a single student in the stands, for fear they would attack each other.

In Huntsville, Texas, Hispanic students say they need to arm themselves against violent blacks. In Dallas, Hispanic parents say their children are afraid to go to school for fear of attacks by blacks. Tensions of this kind are usually reported only in local newspapers, and are probably quite widespread.
There is the same racial animosity in jails. Guards keep some cell blocks in a near-constant state of lock-down because blacks and Hispanics kill each other if they are allowed to mingle. Life in prison is more intensely integrated than anywhere else in the country. If diversity is such a good thing why is racial segregation always one of the top demands when prisoners list their grievances?

Of course, high-school fistfights and jailhouse brawls are nothing compared to what can happen when diversity really goes wrong. In the summer of 1967, 83 people were killed and nearly 2,000 injured when blacks rioted all across the country. The national guard had to be called out to stop violence in Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, northern New Jersey, and Detroit.
Nor are race riots a relic from the 1960s. The single worst outbreak in the nation's history was in Los Angeles in 1992, when rioters killed 58 people and injured more than 2,300. They also burned 5,300 buildings, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage. There was smaller-scale violence -- all of it directed at whites -- in Atlanta, Las Vegas, New York City, and Richmond and San Jose, California.
The Los Angeles riots showed that Hispanics can behave as badly as blacks. Although the grievance was ostensibly about a miscarriage of justice for the black criminal, Rodney King, more than half of the 15,000 people arrested for looting were Hispanic.

"Diversity" can pit one set of Hispanics against another. Puerto Ricans in Miami have rioted, claiming to have been excluded by the city's Cuban power structure. "Cubans get everything; we get nothing," explained one rioter. The greater the diversity, the more varied the possibilities for disaffection and violence.
There has been a Sahara of hot air about why blacks riot, with the official pronouncement on reasons dating back to the Kerner Commission Report of 1968: "[T]he most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of white Americans toward black Americans." Whatever one may think of this finding, there is one conclusion no one can deny: Race riots cannot happen without racial diversity.

An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit the United States is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to "diversity," that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.
Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, Americans have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy. Unlike language or religion, race cannot change. Differences between men that are written deep into their bodies will always be a source of friction.

The Diversity Double Standard

Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of "racism" cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California is only a little more outspoken than most when its students meet every morning and pledge to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations -- Canada, the United States, and Australia -- that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.

Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better-run and more successful than its West African neighbors, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.

Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.

Hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans sneak into the United States every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central Americans, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegals. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.

Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in America, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.

Of course, in a world-wide context, every human group is a minority. There are many more of everyone else than there are Hispanics or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.

It is only whites who have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites who think it may be "racist" to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of biology, the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.

E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, "two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area." (emphasis in the original.) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: "To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other."

Human nature is part of animal nature. Racial diversity, which only whites promote -- and always at their own expense -- is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group's fate will be the "disaster and oblivion" Prof. Hall so confidently predicts.

American Renaissance (July-August 1997).

Return to Main IndexReturn to Racialist Texts


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...