Chapter 11:
Race History 
The racial question is the key to world history…all is race, there is no other truth — Benjamin Disraeli. 
Science moves inexorably toward the truth of Race. Race is simply genetics as applied to the breeds of mankind and it speaks to us in blood types and genotypes, in physical traits and mental abilities, in behavior and temperament, in human achievement and human failure. It tells us more about human life than cultural characteristics do because it is the engine that makes our cultures what they are. Culture is simply a veneer reflecting the deeper genetic makeup of people. Race bequeaths diversity to the planet that affects all aspects of life. As the voices of science become more articulate on race — history and social studies speak to us just as powerfully on the subject.
 Recently, a distraught friend called me and told me how Jimmy, his first-grader, had come home from school eager to tell his father that he had learned where civilization came from. The 7-year-old boy led his father to his lighted globe and immediately pointed to the heart of the African continent. He proudly announced, “That’s where Black people and the first civilizations came from!” Stunned by his answer, my friend asked his child, “Jimmy, can you tell me where White people came from?” “I dunno,” said the little blue-eyed boy.
The ultimate determinant of fitness for civilization is not IQ tests or psychological studies but the straightforward barometer of historical performance. Even back in the time of my initial racial awakening, there was some laughed-at babble about “great Black civilizations.” Obscure Afrocentrist claims looked upon as ludicrous in the 1960s are now frequently taught in public schools.
Afrocentrism, or the idea that civilization originated in Black Africa, thrives although there is not a shred of evidence that even a single Black civilization ever developed in sub-Saharan Africa. Even ancient Egypt is being claimed as a Black civilization, despite the fact that the oldest Egyptian mummies found are distinctly Caucasian, classed as such by innumerable anthropologists and archeologists. Any modern medical investigator, such as those who identify badly decomposed human remains, would immediately deem them as White. Even the fact that prominent-nosed, fair-skinned and straight-haired Whites are the subjects of the art and hieroglyphics of the Egyptian tombs has not deterred egalitarians from desperately clinging to fantasies that ancient Egypt was an example of Black historic achievement. They have gone so far as to depict Queen Cleopatra, who was wholly of Greek lineage (the last of the Ptolemies, who ruled from 330 to 30 B.C.), as an afro-wearing Black woman. Some of the purveyors of “Black history” solemnly allege that the Greeks stole philosophy and civilization from Africa. One would be hard pressed to understand how one steals civilization. If a nation copies another’s inventiveness or ideas, does that stop the originator from using it? And if a people are gifted enough to create a great civilization, art, philosophy, and mathematics, what keeps them from continuing to replenish the fountainhead of human accomplishment? 
The inescapable fact is that Black Africa has neither created nor even been able to sustain a high civilization. One of the most respected historians of the 20th century, Arnold Toynbee, listed what he calls 33 historic civilizations. Most are European, some are Asian but none are Black.
Poor Black historical performance correlates with the evidence of marked differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites. In America, school children are taught relentlessly about the great achievements of Black Americans. With a straight face, teachers recount the most important Black contributions to the modern world, and then give examples such as the traffic light and the paper bag. 
The very fact that these things are listed as great Black achievements betrays their paucity. No Black is to be found in Michael Hart’s The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.  Perhaps even more telling is that not even one Black achievement is found in Issac Asimov’s listing of 1,500 great attainments in his Chronicle of Science and Discovery. Far from being a racist, Asimov publicly expressed a belief in racial equality and was a self-described liberal.
Can the invention of the traffic light or the paper bag remotely compare to the development of the Pythagorean Theorem, the invention of the first airplane or the first steam engine, the engineering of the Pyramids, the architecture of the Parthenon or the Roman aqueducts, the invention of the printing press, the development of the smallpox vaccine, the creation of genetic engineering, the invention of the transistor, or the mathematics and genius that took men to the moon? Such comparisons surely do not demonstrate racial equality. Instead, they suggest a disparity that goes far beyond the differences in intelligence indicated by mere IQ tests. It must be remembered that almost all of the great achievements of mankind were the products of the most intelligent four or five percent of the population. As The Bell Curve  and every other IQ study have shown, if one group has an average IQ about 15 percent lower than another, it does not mean that the lower group will have 15 percent fewer geniuses than the smarter group. The percentage of geniuses will differ by a rate of more than 44 to 1 in favor of the more intelligent group. Some researchers say it is closer to 100 to 1, depending on how high the genius IQ level is set. 
The standard response of racial egalitarians to the fact that Blacks’ account for only a small percentage of great achievements is that Black societies were not advanced enough or because their societies were “oppressed.” Of course, such an argument is only begging the question, for what could have caused this lack of advancement or habitual “oppression” over thousands of years? If the capabilities for what we call civilization are the same among the races, why did Blacks not develop even one? In all of Black Africa beneath the Sahara, they never developed any writing and never used the wheel! There is today only one vibrant nation, the Republic of South Africa, a nation now heading rapidly to the same fate of the rest of Black Africa with the ongoing removal of White leadership and skills.
Whites dominated investment, government, education, medicine, training and communication in Africa for 200 years. But in the 40 years since the departure of Europeans, almost every Black African nation has steadily declined in its income, education, health care, sanitation, civil rights and other societal levels. The disintegration in some nations such as the Sudan and Zaire has been slowed only by the fact that once they have fallen to such low levels, there is simply little room for further decline. In their utter despair, the struggling remnants in many African nations have actually invited Europeans back, and the increased Western investment and aid should improve, even if only marginally, the current appalling conditions.
Africa’s social disaster cannot be blamed on lack of resources. The continent is the greatest source of untapped resources in the world. In an age where many First World nations have exhausted their resources, Africa has had an excellent opportunity, which it has squandered. From the early 1970s to the 1990s, Black Africa’s share of world trade has fallen 50 percent, its gross national product has declined about 2 percent per year, food production has declined almost 20 percent, malnutrition has increased, genocidal warfare has increased, and the continent has even less a semblance of democracy than it had just 25 years ago.
Skyscrapers built and once maintained by Europeans in Nigeria now have intermittent electricity and toilets that overflow. Sanitation, hospitals, power generation and telephone services all depend on financial aid and imported Europeans must keep them running even at the most minimal levels. European colonialists who once curbed the bloody tribal warfare were no longer present to stop the Hutus and the Tutsis from murdering between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people in Zaire.  European colonialists who outlawed slavery in Africa over 100 years ago are no longer present in great enough numbers to stop the enslavement of tens-of-thousands of Africans today. Slavery is technically outlawed in every country in the world, but in Africa it is still widespread. It is present to a degree in almost every African nation. Sudan, Ghana and Mauritania, in particular, are acknowledged as world leaders in the slave trade. In the Nuba Mountains of Sudan alone, 30,000 African children were sold into slavery in the mid-1990s for the price of two chickens each. 
Racial Egalitarians blame Europeans and White racism for the African disaster. Some have argued that the Europeans did not adequately prepare Africa for independence. Yet while the decolonization went on, some European nations adamantly maintained that more time was needed to develop the African nations before their independence. Such claims were dismissed by White liberals in the West and by African tin-pot revolutionaries as racist and patronizing. Of course, the very idea of a need for preparation for independence begs the question, for who prepared the European nations for their independence?
Of course egalitarians always have an excuse for Black historical failure. The latest apologia for the lack of African culture argues that climatic and ecological factors facilitated development of civilization in Eurasia but prevented it in Africa. Jared Diamond though, does not answer the question of why successful colonization by the Arabs preserved civilized qualities for centuries (until the colonist’s race was subsumed by the native Black population), and why the spark of civilization in Africa only burned when the European was there to nurture and sustain it.
Race and Nation
When the race is good, so is the place – Ralph Waldo Emerson
As I became more aware of the profound biological differences between the races and better understood the impact of these differences on education, crime, poverty, and other societal areas, I began to read about the historical realities of race and culture. 
If racial composition can have great impact on a school, how much does it have on a nation? Can race be instructive about the development and conditions of nations? One of my friends in high school, George Cardella, came from Colombia. He spoke to me at length about the conditions of his own and other South American lands. Often his revelations of the low living standards and crude human values startled me. He was conscious of his light eyes and European Spanish ancestry and talked frankly about the racial realities of his and other South American nations. 
In geography class my teacher pointed out that South America has more potential resource development than NorthError! No bookmark name given. America. It is larger in temperate land area, richer in resources, more varied in climate and topography, and had quite a head start being intensively settled and exploited earlier than North America. The question naturally arose, “Why then are the countries south of the Rio Grande usually so much poorer, more unhealthy, less educated, and less free than those in the United States and Canada?” 
South America had substantial settlements, and in some places — even universities, before the rudimentary outposts at Jamestown and Plymouth. Spain and Portugal, nations with a rich European cultural heritage, settled the region. The modern-era discovery of America by Christopher Columbus occurred the same year as the victory over the Moors, finally expelling them from all of Spain after a struggle lasting hundreds of years. The Spanish conquistadors were fit and fearless, forged by the crucible of war and a fight for freedom that spanned generations. Suddenly the national unity and purpose born of the victorious war with the Moors shifted to conquering and civilizing a new land in the New World. It wasn’t long until the auburn-haired, green-eyed Isabella ruled Spanish possessions larger than the size of all of Europe.
The Spanish and Portuguese ruthlessly exploited the native population of the Americas, and those aboriginals they did not kill in war, disease often dispatched. The discovery of precious metals such as gold and silver and the vast tracts of land then in possession of the Spanish throne encouraged the Spanish to integrate with and use the native population to develop the resources. Spanish rulers were spread thin in the immense empire, a tiny minority in a sea of color. Because the physical and psychological character of the Indians adapted poorly to servitude, in some regions, to satisfy their need for laborers, they imported Black slaves from Africa. 
Whether conquistador or priest, their primary task was exploitative in nature: the conquistador to cultivate the land’s riches, the priest to harvest the inhabitants’ souls. Living in a land with few White women but ample Indian maidens and Black slave women, mixed liaisons and marriages were common, although such unions were looked down upon by the more aristocratic classes, who often sent their sons and daughters home to Spain to find a husband or wife.
The Spanish built Mexico and their other colonies throughout the Caribbean, Central and SouthError! No bookmark name given. America in their own image. They established schools, government buildings and churches and carried the art, technology and culture of European civilization to the New World. In addition to Spain and Portugal, Great Britain, France and Holland also had colonies and possessions in the Western Hemisphere. In this vast expanse, only the 13 American Colonies and Canada had White majorities. 
In North America, where there was a presence of non-Whites, whether slave or free, social intercourse among Europeans was exclusively White. In North America, Europeans came over by the hundreds of thousands, bringing their families with them, and the farming lifestyle made large families desirable, causing little shortage of women, except at the frontier. Thus America and Canada became overwhelming White nations, while the Caribbean, Central, and SouthError! No bookmark name given. Americas remained mostly non-White, except for a veneer of White leadership and control. 
It seemed obvious to me that the overwhelming difference between the Canadian and American colonies, and the rest of the Americas was simply that of race. I discussed some of these facts with my geography teacher in high school, Mrs. Weir. She was a dyed-in-the-wool egalitarian who blustered that there were other factors that I failed to consider in my hypothesis. Her first counter argument was that North America was mostly Protestant and thus driven by the work ethic intrinsic to that denomination. My retort was easy: the Renaissance of Western civilization itself began in northern Italy, an exclusively Catholic society. And Quebec, a North American city, was not Protestant but had living standards far more similar to Protestant America than to Mexico or Brazil. 
Next she tried to argue that it was simply the democratic traditions of North America compared to the autocratic ones of South America that have made such pronounced differences. I pointed out that history is full of examples of both tyrannies that had become democratic and democracies that had lost their freedoms. The aristocracies of Europe certainly became great and modern nations. Many of the governing constitutions of the Middle- and Southern-Hemisphere nations were modeled directly on our own U.S. Constitution, but those instruments of law did not save them from poverty, massive corruption, tyranny and assassination, continuous revolution, illiteracy, disease, and primitive lifestyles and conditions.
I asked her, “When one considers that there are dozens of nations in the Caribbean and the Americas, and there have been hundreds of revolutions and marked political changes over the centuries, are we supposed to believe that none of them ever got it right?” In response to her silence, I blurted out, “Perhaps the thing that really makes or breaks a nation is not its institutions but the race of its people. “
Race can also be seen in the differences that exist among the many different nations of the Americas. Costa Rica is readily acknowledged as the most advanced nation in Central America. It has a reputation as the least corrupt government and the highest living standard and literacy rate in the region. It also prides itself on being the Whitest nation of Central America. The most advanced nations of South America are Argentina, Uruguay and Chile — the nations with the continent’s highest percentages of Europeans. The racial truth can also be seen even within nations themselves. Brazil, for instance, is much like two different nations when one considers the backward Black regions in the north and the more European-like ones in the SouthError! Bookmark not defined.. When I visited Brazil in 1991, I readily noticed how the population became Blacker and poorer as one neared the traditional lands of the Black slave plantations and whiter and wealthier in the more mountainous regions. (The same is true for the old plantation “River parishes” of Louisiana as compared to the Whiter ones)
It became obvious to me that if America’s demography changes into one resembling that of South America, we will become like those societies. We will lose our precious heritage and way of life. I became convinced that race is the dominant force of society, influencing every aspect of our lives. Even if a society does not overtly state it or even acknowledge it, race imprints nations — just as it does individuals — with characteristics and traits that egalitarianism cannot explain away.
The lessons of race taught by the history of the Western Hemisphere are pertinent to the history of all nations and all cultures. One can even examine prehistory and find that there have always been tribes that shared a particular gene pool and common characteristics that distinguished them. Nations arose from people who shared a common heritage. They have not always been monoracial, but they were always formed by a dominant people that made the country in their own image, their own culture, values, language and artistic tastes. Nations were not determined strictly by geography, as borders were often poorly defined and amorphous, but by the people who populated them. For instance, whether the people were Assyrians, Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, or the French, nations arose out of the races or subraces that composed them. The term France, for instance, came from the name of the people who rebuilt the country after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Franks. One can trace the history of nations in the racial history and character of its inhabitants. 
One of the first history books my father gave me to read in grade school was H. G. Wells’ classic The Outline of History.  Its theme is the rise and fall of nations. A great people arise having intelligence, strength and ambition. They create a powerful society and conquer their less fit neighbors. And then begins a process of absorbing the conquered in their nation-state. The traits that originally led them to victory and dominance are lost as they gradually absorb the defeated population. Invariably the process begins again, and another people come on the scene and conquer, only to once more be absorbed by those they had vanquished. Such a pattern was obvious to me in studying the Americas, but now, as I read more history, it became obvious to me that the race factor is present in the rise and fall of every civilization. In fact, in every fallen civilization there had been a racial change from the original founding population. The only real justification for the survival of a nation is a racial one — the survival of that specific population as a distinct genetic entity, as a source for the next generation. Otherwise, such a nation would not be worth defending in a world of many nations.
Historians such as Toynbee, Durant and Spengler have chronicled the emergence and decline of nations. Interestingly, every great civilization that has graced the Earth fell into decay and destruction. Ours is simply the last of many civilizations that have risen only to subsequently decline. The ultimate question of the historians is why civilizations have this cycle. There are many theories on why civilizations decline. Some argue economic downturns, some say political corruption, some argue military weakness and defeat, some simply say moral decay from the breakdown of religious tradition, some argue class warfare, some say wealth always breeds degeneration. There are as many theories as there are historians, but one factor is present in the rise and fall of every civilization known to man: the race factor. The racial group that built the original civilization lost its dominance, often even its genetic integrity.
Before I learned about race, I too had my theories, based on what I had read. Mine were based purely on the symptoms of the decline rather than on the underlying factors causing the symptoms. A book written over a hundred years ago by a French scholar, Count Arthur de Gobineau, proposed a hypothesis on the decline of civilization that had me thinking about the issue for weeks, and it ultimately led me to my world-view on the race issue. De Gobineau’s Inequality of the Races  was written before Darwin’s Origin of Species  and long before many of the modern principles of biology and psychology, but it put forth the startling propositions that populations were undergoing change in their biological character, and that civilization was ultimately the product of biology: the racial characteristics of its founders. 
De Gobineau claimed that civilizations declined because the inherent makeup of its creators had changed. The racial quality of the people had declined. He saw it as an intra-racial and inter-racial weakening of the culture-creating race. It was inter-racial in that the cosmopolitan nature of the empire caused racial-mixing with alien peoples and declining birthrates among the founding race accompanied by overpopulation of the mixed multitudes. De Gobineau also recognized a decline intra-racially in that, he saw among the ruling race, the most intelligent and productive citizens had the fewest children, while the lower elements were extremely prolific.
De Gobineau wrote during the mid-19th century, before modern biology, which meant that his book was bound to contain errors. Yet the many principles that he got right were astounding. De Gobineau was well traveled for his time, and he had the power to dispassionately observe and interpolate what he encountered.
Once one understands race, it is easy to recognize the racial component in the history of nations and its role in contemporary societies around the world. A classic example of race history is the study of the Egyptian civilization. Purveyors of “Black history” make the ludicrous claim that Egypt was a Black civilization. They point to some Negroid features in the last of the Pharaohs as proof of this contention. It is indeed true that the last Pharaoh may have been part Black. At the end of 3,000 years, there might have been intrusion of some Black genes into the ruling family. That fact does not make the basis of Egyptian civilization Black anymore than Jesse Jackson becoming president of the United States would make the signers of our Declaration of Independence Negroes. Black genes in the Egyptian royal family signified the end of the Egyptian civilization (just as Jesse Jackson being elected president would be an epitaph for America). 
There are thousands of surviving hieroglyphics depicting the builders of the Egyptian civilization as White people (some with reddish hair and light eyes). The oldest recovered mummies show the remains to be White. Egypt had a civilization in some way reminiscent of the Old South. As the aristocratic White society of the South bought Black slaves from the African slavetraders, Egyptian Whites brought Black slaves up for labor from the lower Nile. Over thousands of years licit and illicit sexual contact between the races eventually carried Black genes even into the royal family. The completion of that process coincided perfectly with the demise of the longest enduring set of dynasties the world has ever seen and the collapse of the Egyptian civilization. 
Egypt today has a varied population, from the purest of Blacks to a vast mixed population and even a small White minority. The lighter elements are the educational, scientific, political, and business elite. 
Few peoples have fallen as far as the once great Egyptians have. The Egyptian nation is one of the poorest on Earth, with rampant poverty and crime. There are an estimated 60,000 street beggars in Cairo alone, and thousands of infants are purposely blinded or crippled and put on the street to beg, filling the coffers of cruel masters.
The racial story of Egypt is a clear and dramatic one because of the obvious racial impact of the admixture of the Black race. Even civilizations that underwent less dramatic racial mixing than did Egypt lost the impetus of their cultures.
Ancient Greece was probably the most culturally and artistically advanced civilization the world has ever seen. Probably 98 percent of Greek art has been lost over the last two millennia, yet we still marvel at the magnificence of their architecture, sculpture, paintings, poetry, songs, plays, philosophy, and literature. Not only were the Greeks great thinkers and artists, they were also great warriors, having conquered almost all of the known world. Alexander the Great, actually an Aryan Macedonian, at one time in his short life had even expanded the Greek empire as far as the plains of India. The Greeks accomplished all this although the total population of Athens and Sparta combined never exceeded 250,000 people. 
Greek civilization is called the Golden Age, and the Greek people were described as a golden people because of the presence of so many blondes. Greek literature is full of descriptions of fair-complected, light-eyed people. Their sculptures record their physical traits, for they were a tall, magnificent people who attended to the health and beauty of their bodies just as they did to their creative minds.
The Greeks, much as the Spanish in SouthError! No bookmark name given. America, were few in numbers but conquered and administered over vast populations and land areas. Alexander decided to deal with the problem by urging his soldiers and sailors to marry the ruling-class women of the countries Greece ruled. On one occasion, 10,000 Greek soldiers married 10,000 Persian women in a mass ceremony. Although those unions were later voided, they symbolized the Greek strategy for their imperialism. Alexander thought he was binding the loyalty of the nations he subdued and simply creating more Greeks. Other Greeks came home with their foreign brides initiating a process that undermined their whole civilization. Non-Greeks from all over the Mediterranean world immigrated to Greece for the same economic and social reasons that Mexicans cross the Rio Grande. Much like the great trading cities of the world today, Greek cities became a melting pot of diverse races. Over the centuries few Greeks retained the physical characteristics described in the Odyssey and captured for eternity in their preserved sculptures we marvel at today. A people were lost in an alien genetic flood, and the vitality of the civilization ebbed away, only to be found in the writing, remnants and ruins of the past.
Since the fall of the Greek civilization, the peninsula has been replenished frequently by migrations from the north, and there are still genes of the original Greeks in some of its citizens today. The nation, though, is a shadow of the splendor of what once was, and still finds its highest meaning in its glorious antiquity.
In many ways the great Roman civilization resembled that of the Greeks. The founding Romans were called patricians. Random House Webster’s Electronic  Dictionary defines patrician as follows:
patrician n.
1. a person of noble or high rank; aristocrat.
2. a person of breeding, education, and refinement. 
3. a member of the original hereditary aristocracy of ancient Rome, having such privileges as the exclusive right to hold certain offices.
4. (in the later Roman and Byzantine empires) a nonhereditary honorary title or dignity conferred by the emperor. (emphasis mine)
As Rome ruled the known world, the city of Rome itself became the New York City of the ancient world. Roman chroniclers talked about walking in the streets of Rome in its declining period as if it were a foreign land filled with alien appearances and languages. One can trace the decline of Roman power directly with (as the fourth definition shows) the transition of the patrician from a hereditary title to an honorary one. Another sign of the genetic basis of the original Roman civilization can be found in the common Jewish word gentiles, which originated from the Roman term gens, a term used to denote the true Roman families that built and for a time ruled the Roman empire. To the Jews of those days the gens or gentiles represented the enemy that had conquered them in Palestine. The very term Gens is the root of words such as gentleman, gent, genes, genetics, genocide, genus, and other terms of heredity.
gens ( jenz), n., pl. gentes 
1.	a group of families in ancient Rome claiming descent from a common ancestor and united by a common name and common ancestral religious rites.
2.	Anthropol. a group tracing common descent in the male line; clan.
3.	gens race, people. See GENUS, GENDER 
gentleman n.
1.	a man of good family, breeding, or social position.
Rome never sank to the level of modern Egypt because the racial change was far less dramatic than in that north African nation, but it certainly declined. Luckily Italy enjoyed the fresh, hardy European genes of the northern barbarian invaders and conquerors who were not as culturally advanced but who had the same genetic potential as the original Romans and their patrician standard-bearers. Barbarian is a term that poorly describes these invaders, for they had a strong moral fiber and family life and a rich cultural heritage, as well as the intelligence and planning in war to defeat the schooled and experienced Roman armies.
When the Renaissance finally laid the cornerstones of our modern Western civilization, it found its impetus primarily not from the great city of Rome with all its history, centers of learning, and advantages, but from the northern Italian cities of Florence, Padua, and Venice. Rome still contained a lot of original Roman blood, but it was no longer the Rome of the Romans, it was now an international city, a melting pot of races from around the known world, including even some Germanic blood, Egyptians, Semites, and others. The Renaissance found its driving force where the original Roman genes still dominated. Even today, the Northern provinces are the most economically sound and robust parts of all Italy. By itself the per capita GNP of northern Italy is equal to that of the strongest economies in Europe.

The new version of Hannibal being taught in American schools

One can see the racial expression of the Renaissance in Michaelangelo’s masterful fresco of an Aryan depiction of God and Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Falsifying history has become a full-time occupation for many in the educational and cultural establishment of America. Not only has Cleopatra become Black, it appears that the great Carthaginian general Hannibal has begun to take on a decidedly Negro appearance. Budweiser Beer did a poster and “educational” series called “The Great Kings of Africa” in which it depicted Hannibal as resembling Black boxing promoter Don King. 
Of course, Hannibal was White. Contemporary sources described him in terms that leave no doubt that he was as White as the ancient Carthaginian people he led. What’s more, his death mask shows the thin nose and lips and high forehead of the Caucasian. The mask bears no Negro