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. ⁱ 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.ⁱⁱ 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 ⁱⁱⁱ 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.^iv

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. ^v

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.^vi 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 NorthError! Bookmark not defined. 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. ^vii 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 ^viii was written before Darwin’s Origin of Species ^ix 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.

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 features. The Black adoption of famous Europeans as their own does not end with Cleopatra or Hannibal. They have even gone so far as to ludicrously allege Ludwig van Beethoven was Black, and for that matter anyone with curly hair and swarthy is claimed by afro-centrists desperate for validation.

Liberal historians act as if civilization and advanced nations represent some cosmic accident. To them, successful nations are just lucky, and but for luck one people could be either illiterate or poor, or cultured and rich. Yet the world has abundant examples of ecologically rich nations that are culturally and economically destitute and of resource-poor nations that are culturally enlightened and economically rich. Nations can be found with long histories that are now either progressive or backward. Short national histories can herald great success or abject failure. Societies can be religiously devout or ambivalent. There are poor devout nations, rich agnostic ones and vice-versa. Constitutions and laws on the books do not really tell us how free or law-abiding a nation is, but race usually tells us a lot. There are relatively isolated nations that are wealthy and advanced, and ones in the thick of cultural and economic traffic that are poor.

Is there one sizable well-run all-Black nation where the crime rate is low, the schools good, the government free and uncorrupted? Is there one with high longevity rates and low infant mortality, or with low illiteracy and a high standard of living?

The impact of race on history and contemporary social conditions can be well illustrated by comparing two nations: Haiti, and Iceland. Iceland sits inside the Arctic Circle. It has perhaps the most inhospitable geography of any populated nation on Earth. It stands isolated and endures winter conditions that last almost three-quarters of the year. No forests grow there, and thus it has no wood or paper products. There is no oil, no natural gas and no coal. Much of the land is volcanic desert and glaciers so foreboding that the U.S. space program did training there for their lunar landings. Farming is almost impossible because of the rock-filled soil, snow-covered mountains and short growing season. Few tourists visit the little island in the north Atlantic. It’s a land of clouds, little sunshine, and long winter nights. Iceland’s only resource is the fish they harvest on the great cod banks in competition with many other nations. They also have natural volcanic geysers that they ingeniously use to heat their homes and businesses.

Compare this island to the island of Hispaniola and the nation of Haiti, the second oldest republic in the Western Hemisphere. It is a huge island rich beyond the dream of a poet’s fancy. Warm and beautiful, with beaches, mountains and clear waters, the topography is a tourist’s fantasy. It is one of the gateway islands to the Caribbean, the United States, Mexico and South America — a natural place for thriving international trade. Thick forests and rich mineral resources bless the island. The seafood in the waters around the nation is plentiful and valuable. Mild weather gives the island long and productive growing seasons and lush soil.

In the 18th century Haiti was the largest sugar producer in the world. Universities and other centers of higher learning kept the island abreast of the world’s progress and advances, and it became one of the richest of France’s overseas possessions — richer than any of the 13 original American colonies. Haiti came to be called the Jewel of the Caribbean.

All this ground to a halt in the late 1790s, when the egalitarianism introduced by Whites fresh from the French Revolution precipitated a Black revolt in which, ultimately, the Black revolutionaries murdered nearly every one of the 40,000 White men, women, and children on the island. In the 200 years since the revolution, under one corrupt and tyrannical regime after another, Black Haiti has become one of the most dangerous, superstitious, and backward places on Earth. The vast majority of the people are illiterate, and less than 3 percent finish primary education. It has one of the lowest per capita incomes on Earth, endemic crime and drug problems, wholesale destruction of the environment, negligible education, high infant mortality and primitive health care, and its dominant religion is voodoo.

The efforts of American missionaries and educators have proven futile. And repeated military incursions have also failed. Three times in this century U.S. Marines were sent to bring “democracy” to Haiti. The first mission began in 1915. Marines remained for 19 years, building hospitals, power stations, schools, and modern telephone exchanges, and more than 200 bridges and 1,000 miles of paved roads. Upon their leaving the island reverted back to complete ruin and despotism. In 1958 Marines returned and began the whole process over again, with the same results.

In 1994 Americans again returned to Haiti, this time with 23,000 troops as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. At least 500 troops are expected to remain until at least the end of the century to prevent Haiti from reverting to its old ways. Even with this modern force and accompanying massive U.S. and U.N. aid, Haiti is politically corrupt, wracked by AIDS and other diseases, and chronically criminal. As Haiti approaches the end of the 20th century, the capital, Port-au-Prince reeks of human waste and rotting garbage.

At the beginning of the 20th century, a British member of the Royal Geographic Society, Hesketh Prichard, traveled to Haiti to study the effects of an entirely Black-ruled country. Upon his arrival he had strong sympathies with the natives, and he wanted to see how they fared in response to the introduction of White civilization, but without Whites ruling over them. He found that although Haiti had French laws and the workings of a civilization on paper, it was all an illusion of style without substance. The Haitian army, for instance, had 6,500 privates but the same number of generals, all with pompously adorned uniforms. They had hospitals with mud floors, train stations and tracks but no working trains, power-generating plants that generated no power, courts and laws and constitutional rights but only corruption and despotism. There were Catholic churches, but they were encumbered with primitive voodoo and animal sacrifices. Although Prichard regarded the natives as generally jovial, he found them prone to the cruelest human tortures and atrocities.

Prichard concluded that to Haitians the veneer of civilization is as important as its substance. If they could dress and speak like a European and have institutions that in form seemed like that of the European, then they viewed themselves as equal to the European.

In asking the fundamental question “Can the Haitian rule himself?” Prichard writes the following:

The present condition of Haiti gives the best possible answer to the question, and, considering the experiment has lasted for a century, perhaps also a conclusive one. For a century the answer has been working itself out there in flesh and blood. The Negro has had his chance, a fair field, and no favor. He has had the most beautiful and fertile of the Caribees for his own; he has had the advantage of excellent French laws; he inherited a made country, with Cap Haitien [A once beautiful town on the north coast of Haiti] for its Paris. . . . Here was a wide land sown with prosperity, a land of wood, water, towns and plantations, and in the midst of it the Black man was turned loose to work out his own salvation. What has he made of the chances that were given to him? . . .

At the end of a hundred years of trial how does the Black man govern himself? What progress has he made? Absolutely none.^x

Iceland, on the other hand, even with all her disadvantages, is one of the best places to live on Earth. The nation publishes more books and journals per head of population than any other country in the world. It has some of the highest literacy rates and lowest infant mortality rates, lowest crime and drug rates, highest standards of living, best medical care, and the longest standing freely elected Parliament in the world: the Althing.

Suppose that by some incredible act, all the Icelanders were taken to Haiti and all the Haitians taken to Iceland. In five years the Icelanders in Haiti would be living in a paradise they would have built, while in Iceland…I suspect that most Haitians would be dead.

I came to the conclusion that the liberals were in a way right about the impact of environment on the individual and groups. Environment has shaped us, but the environment that gave us the genetic code that so deeply influences us came not in the evolutionary millisecond of the individual’s short life span, but over thousands of years. That is why well-meaning efforts to improve some races of man through his environment invariably fail. And efforts to oppress other races, such as the nationalities in the former Soviet bloc, also fail in the end.

There have been many uncivilized areas of the globe that rapidly flourished to economic, social and scientific achievement after having just the slightest contact with civilization. Conversely, other areas on the borders of civilization for thousands of years never could adopt and sustain its most rudimentary characteristics. A perfect example is the traditional Sudan, an area that stretches across northern Africa just south of the Sahara. Rich in grasslands, minerals, forests, swamps and even natural seaports in the east that brought trade and the learning of the civilized world, Sudan’s only historical bright spots were as colonial outposts of the Egyptians, Arab Muslims and then later the modern Europeans. Contrast the Sudan of today to the descendants of Rome’s colonial forays in Britain and France. Not only did those nations adopt the attributes of Roman civilization; they eventually far exceeded them.

In the Sudan, after at least six thousand years of contact, it is little better off than it was in the times of the Pharaohs, in fact it is arguably a lot worse. In the last thirty years since colonial independence, the quality of life has rapidly disintegrated as the institutions and organization set up by the west have been abandoned. The character of genes is much stronger than the institutions of mankind, for institutions come and go, while the genes are forged over millennia.

It is the genes themselves that construct the very character of the societies in which they thrive. Every nation rises or sinks according to its genes. Over time, genes override every advantage or impediment. Human genes can make nations with the poorest of resources rich, or the richest poor. They can inspire great universities or make ruins where greatness stood. They can erect tyranny over once free men or resurrect freedom from the worst of oppression. Social structures created by race can be imposed on another, but in time the genes, if preserved, will assert themselves. The power of the gene is the source of space travel or of squalor, of civilization or the jungle.

The great U.S. Senator from Mississippi, Theodore Bilbo once wrote that if a foreign nation conquered America and enslaved its people, destroyed its buildings, its crops, its schools, its farms and its economy, that as long as our White heritage remained intact — we could build it all back even better than before. But he warned that if our heritage was lost, than our nation would be forever lost as well.

It is true that when I write of the things I love and cherish that I can only be subjective, for my values are the values of my own people. Some men even dispute the virtue of civilization itself. Freedom, beauty, love, achievement, they are all subject to the eye of the beholder. An Indian American living wild and free in the American forests and grasslands had his own idea of what is good, and that concept is certainly far more sublime than the mass alcoholism found in the Indian community of today. The African’s rhythmic pounding of the drum, his sexual and physical bliss, bare feet against the warm soil, and his sound sleep beneath the open stars have always answered the needs of his soul. Could anyone deny that such may certainly answer a young Black man’s heart better than imprisonment in the jails of America, or the slavery of crack and heroin, or gunshot wounds suffered in the night?

Those nations left to determine their own destiny will always live more in consonance with their natural abilities and spirit. In the end genes will out. Europeans create and maintain European standards of civilization; Africans create societies much different. By our Western standards those societies do not measure up, but if Blacks are allowed to do so, they will create a society reflective of the spirit inside them, and as such can only be truly appraised by their own people. An old European proverb states, “man is happiest at home.” I believe that such is true for all men and all races of men.

At the time of the French Revolution, Ernst Arndt, a German patriot seeking to resist the imposition of revolutionary-egalitarian ideology, wrote in his Catechism for the Teutonic Armyman that freedom was the right to live in one's own homeland in accordance with the laws and traditions of one's ancestors" (Hans Ghnther Religiosity of the Indo-Europeans).

Going through some of my old notebooks from college, I found some aphorisms that I had written on the subject of race and history. I think they are as pertinent today as they were then.

• People make nations. They make it in their genetic image. They compose the music, write the constitutions, create business and the economy, give it its soul and its spirit.

• In the battle between genes and culture, genes will win out.

• In the struggle between the influence of heredity and environment, in the long run, heredity will always prevail except when the environment destroys the one thing that man cannot restore: his genetic oblivion.

• If a folk is genetically constructed to be free, no period of tyranny can ever permanently suppress them.

• If they are genetically amenable to live in tyranny, democracy can be imposed on them. But left to themselves, they will eventually revert to their natural state.

• Human ecology is as important a concept as Nature’s ecology.

• Races have the capacity to create great social environments, but great social environments can never make great races.

• Intelligent peoples make great schools and universities. Higher institutions of learning can only reflect the quality of the people.

• The only ultimate way to improve a society is to improve the genetic capabilities of its people. The surest way to destroy a society is to have programs and policies that systematically favor higher reproduction of the genes of the least capable over the genes of the most capable.

• It is the sin against the quality of the flesh that causes the sin against the spirit.

• Widespread race-mixing is genocide.

• Low birthrates is race suicide.

• Massive immigration of alien races ultimately means genocide.

• Integration of the races is rapid genocide.

• Geographic separation creates races and supports their survival.

History and geography spoke to me. It was not as though all these ideas were original to me, for writers and travelers from the earliest civilizations wrote and contemplated these truths, as well as many of the great thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries. I now saw a racial picture entirely different from when I started my inquiry. America and most other White nations are following a similar course to the failed civilizations of the past and the failing racially-mixed societies of the present. When previous White empires degenerated and dissolved into the cacophony of racial mixture, there were always our racial homelands from which would come new generations to build and create civilization anew.

This time, though, the homelands of our people — all the critical fountainheads of our gene pool — are at risk. If all of Western civilization succumbs to the dark genetic flood, there is no more womb from which our people can again be born. I realized that we are in a battle not only for our own civilization this time, but also for the preservation of our expression of life on the planet.

Now it was time for me to look into the, social, economic, and political impact of race on my own nation.