Moviegoers who saw Cats and Dogs when it played in theaters during its summer 2001 release were subjected to an advertisement, shown before the previews, that boldly proclaimed, “Wake up. Race is a myth. Racism is real. www.endracism.org.” The effect was surreal. How could this Orwellian falsehood be on the screen? Examples of racial denial have been around for a while, but mostly on the fringes, in obscure publications unaccessible to the masses. But such a blatantly ideological message on the silver screen indicates the extent to which anti-racial egalitarian propaganda has become so mainstream, so acceptable, and so normal.
Racially conscious Americans of Northern European ancestry, who love their race and seek its preservation, have long been concerned by its declining prospects. But moviegoers could very well wonder whether the continued existence of their race seemed more uncertain than ever, for nothing is more certain than that the political purpose of race denial is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the end, if not of every race, most certainly of Northern Europeans. How can our racial existence, the continued survival of our kinship, which many wish to preserve, be so flagrantly denied in this mainstream setting? How can it be possible that middle-American audiences are exposed to such a powerful and destructive message? That the object of our love and devotion does not exist, is not real, and that it is not acceptable to believe that it does exist? How did this come to pass?
The denial of racial realities is nothing new. It has been around at least since the time of Franz Boas. It is the degree of denial that is new. Denying racial reality has taken many forms over the last century, escalating in degree as the cultural dominance and control of its promoters has grown. Denial of racial differences has taken many forms over the years, especially denial of mental differences that cannot be seen but only measured indirectly. There has been denial of the scope and magnitude of racial differences in an attempt to minimize them, and denial of the consequences of multiracial conditions, particularly racial intermixture and its racially destructive effects. Now it is the very reality and existence of the different races, of tangible things that can be seen, that is denied.
Given the history of escalating race denial over the preceding century, we should have expected this development; we should have seen it coming. Perhaps when first encountering a claim that races were not real, we incredulously dismissed it as nonsense not worthy of concern or response, as something no one would take seriously. But we should have taken it seriously. Now it is approaching a position of politically correct dominance in the media and academia, with all that that means. The very belief in the existence of different races is now in some quarters being equated with racism, and thereupon reductionist logic and causation link it ultimately with genocide. In such quarters they beg their argument by explicitly stating that the reality of race must be denied in order to end racism and prevent genocide.1 (A number of discussions, debates or arguments concerning the reality of race are posted on my website [www.racialcompact.com] and have appeared there since it was launched on the Internet in early 1998. Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European extinction.2)
The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of all one’s physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of classification.
The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from the race deniers’ argument, either because they do not know how to define it, or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have been created, they merely reject the concept of race. But if you press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of races—the apparent focus of their argument—but the issue of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue is the same for race deniers as it is for racial preservationists: the continued existence of Northern European peoples and their racial types. The difference is that deniers are against the continued existence of the racial distinctiveness that differentiates Northern European peoples from other populations, whereas preservationists favor the survival of these racial traits and qualities.
A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof. Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race. Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an effective refutation of race denial arguments. So, what is this thing called race?
To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical appearance or phenotypes. Race thus refers both to populations and to the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply, those populations and phenotypes to which it refers.
Ironically, race denial is racially motivated. Its source and base of support is among the non-European ethno-racial groups. It is they who seek the dispossession, replacement, and destruction of the Northern European race, even in its ancient homelands. It is they who benefit from it, they who are the dispossessors and replacements. The existence of the other races is not threatened by race denial, so they can promote it from a position of racial immunity. It is the European races, and only the European races, and above all the Northern European race, who are threatened with extinction, and whose destruction is assisted by racial denial. Race denial is anti-Northern European in the most extreme sense of the term, as against the very existence of the Northern European race. Thus race denial is itself a part of the racial competition, and a product of the racial dynamics, the racial dialectic, of multiracialism and the process of racial destruction that it promotes. It might appear to be a political phenomenon, with political motives, but it is actually a racial phenomenon, with racial motives—motives much stronger and deeper than politics, which is only the means to serve racial ends. It serves as a cover for those racial ends. It hides the process of racial destruction behind the protective cover of a false dogma that says that the race being destroyed does not really exist, thus nothing real is being destroyed, and there is no valid reason to resist or oppose the destruction. But the race that is being destroyed, the population and its traits that the race deniers are trying or helping to destroy, are real, and they are mine. They are the object of my love and devotion, the center of my concern. They are all the people of Northern European ancestry and type, in their many millions, whose existence is being denied, and under the cover of that denial is being destroyed.
1. See Glayde Whitney’s review of The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium by Joseph L. Graves, Jr., in the Winter 2001 issue of The Occidental Quarterly (Vol. I, No. 2). Graves’s claim that race is not real is explicitly motivated by his opinion that the belief in race is an obstacle to “social justice” and the elimination of racism.
2. The substance of some of these exchanges can be found on my website at http://www.racialcompact.com/reality_of_race.html
3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.
4. The methodology that shows a human-chimp genetic difference of about 1.6 percent shows a genetic difference of less than 0.2 percent between the human races. Feng-Chi Chen of National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan and Wen-Hsiung Li of the University of Chicago (2001) put the human-chimp gene difference at only 1.24 percent. Prof. Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology, using a very different methodology, puts the figure at 5.4 percent (2002). This raises the obvious question regarding the difference between the human races using this same methodology. Would it also be more than three times as great?
5. Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury, “Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Sept. 1993 (pp. 927-943):
http://www.molbiolevol.org/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%29&gca=10%2F5%2F927.
It is unfortunate that no Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian), Slavic, or Arab populations were included in this study, and that the English, German, and Italian groups were not divided into regions. It is possible that an east English group would be genetically closer to a Danish or northwest German group than to a west English group.
6. These genetic studies are based on nuclear DNA, the genes that are actually responsible for racial variation. Other studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), such as that of Jody Hey and Eugene Harris (1999), show a difference between the human races that is about 4 percent of the difference between humans and chimpanzees.
7. http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007/. Neil Risch et al., ”Categorization of humans in biomedical research: Genes, race and disease,” Genome Biology, 2002, 3(7): comment 2007.1-2007.12. Published 1 July 2002. This article is an excellent scientific summary of the evidence from genetic studies for the reality of race.
8. http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm. This is a tutorial page on the website of the Behavioral Sciences Department of Palomar College, San Marcos, California, authored by Dennis O’Neil. Paloma College is a public two-year community college with about 30,000 students. The views expressed on this page are probably representative of what most social science students are currently taught about race. This should have probably been a predicted and expected result of multiracial education, with its chilling effect on racial research, where racial truth is the first casualty.
9. John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press, p. 100.
10. Risch et al., ”Categorization of humans in biomedical research.”
11. Robert Boyd, “Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep,” The Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996), p. 14A.
12. For a detailed examination of this subject see Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998.
13. Doug McAdam, in “Picking Up the Pieces,“ part 5 of the PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties, televised January 23, 1991. It can be assumed that in the context of this racial Marxist debate at the Weatherman convention it was understood that the term “white“ did not include Jews.
14. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html.
15. Risch et al., ”Categorization of humans in biomedical research.”