A Troublesome Inheritance

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, May 6, 2014

Nicholas Wade’s blasphemous book officially goes on sale today.

Today is the “publication date” for A Troublesome Inheritance, which means it should be in stores, and reviews should begin to appear. Only a handful of mainstream publication have noticed it so far, but when I checked a moment ago, the book was already the 51st best seller on Amazon.com. The next month or two will determine whether Nicholas Wade manages to move the debate or is shoved offstage.

Why are we so interested in the fortunes of this book? All it does is report the latest genetic evidence for what our grandparents took for granted: Race is real and races are different. And even the genetic evidence Mr. Wade reports is easy to find if you do a little digging at a few specialized websites. What is more, Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran covered a lot of the same ground in what I think is a better book: The 10,000 Year Explosion.

We care about A Troublesome Inheritance because our rulers have driven our grandparents’ common sense underground and have built an orthodoxy that is slowly destroying us. We care about this book because it might–just might–hole that orthodoxy below the waterline. No single book will sink it, but this is a well-aimed shot by exactly the right man. Nicholas Wade is a science writer at the New York Times with an archive of more than 1,800 articles, and has written other well-regarded books on science and evolution. He will be hard to ignore.

John Derbyshire, who reviewed A Troublesome Inheritance for VDare.com, thinks the book will cause casualties: “Ultimately, fantasy must yield to reality, falsehood to truth, superstition to science. Nick Wade’s calm, brave assault on the enemy’s lines will likely be repulsed, but not without enemy losses, making the next assault more likely to break through.”

Steve Sailer, in his review, makes no predictions about the book, but points out that Mr. Wade has been writing sensible science for years without changing the minds of anyone who matters: “The inability of a first-rate reporter like Wade, ensconced in the seeming bully pulpit of the New York Times, to make much of an impact makes for a fascinating case study of the zeitgeist’s power to cloud the minds of men.”

Last Friday, Charles Murray dealt orthodoxy a mighty blow with an enthusiastic review in The Wall Street Journal. “It is hard to convey how rich this book is,” he wrote, adding that real scientists will be able to say out loud what until now they could only whisper. However, he notes, the social “scientists” will fight back: “I expect that their resistance to A Troublesome Inheritance will be fanatical, because accepting its account will be seen, correctly, as a cataclysmic surrender on some core premises of political correctness.” They will be vicious: “Before they have even opened A Troublesome Inheritance, some reviewers will be determined not just to refute it but to discredit it utterly—to make people embarrassed to be seen purchasing it or reading it.”

Dr. Murray also knows from his experience with The Bell Curve 20 years ago that vitriol can smother science. If that happens yet again “it will be seen a century from now as proof of this era’s intellectual corruption.”

A hard-headed British author, Ed West, has written a good review for the Spectator of London. He presents Mr. Wade’s arguments fairly and, after a bit of worrying, comes down solidly on the side of truth:

This book’s ideas are indeed fraught but beyond carefully explaining the dangers of misusing science, the consequences are not for scientists to ponder, but rather lawmakers and others of influence; they can choose either to consider the evidence and make things work as best as they can, using what knowledge we have, or they can continue to ignore the ticking of Darwin’s unexploded bomb, punishing anyone who raises the subject.

People who understand race are clearly rooting for this book. What about the trade press, which writes short, unsigned reviews for librarians and publishers? Kirkus Reviews warns that Mr. Wade “strides into the political minefield of genetic influence on racial differences,” but calls the book “a freethinking and well-considered examination of the evidence ‘that human evolution is recent, copious, and regional.’ ” That is much more than I expected from Kirkus.

Publishers Weekly also frets that Mr. Wade “ventures into territory eschewed by most writers: the evolutionary basis for racial differences across human populations,” but it does not shriek. The book “argues persuasively” that there are biological racial differences and “makes the case that human evolution is ongoing and that genes can influence, but do not fully control, a variety of behaviors that underpin differing forms of social institutions.”

Just today, Real Clear Science posted a review that is likely to be typical of people who understand the science but are afraid. Robert VerBruggen points out that the Left insists that even noticing race is wrong. He then concedes Mr. Wade’s thesis by adding that “since human evolution has indeed been ‘recent, copious and regional,’ we are seeing that what we’ve been taught is ‘racist’ is actually just true.” Mr. VerBruggen then makes an unnecessary fuss: “One would hope an author presenting these theories at length would carefully explain how to stop this kind of information from causing great harm.” It is Mr. Wade’s job to write the truth as he sees it, not to treat readers as if they were children.

The priesthood has been strangely silent so far but not completely inactive. Just yesterday, the American Anthropological Association held a “webinar” debate between Mr. Wade and a true-to-the-faith disciple, Agustín Fuentes. Prof. Fuentes, who teaches anthropology at Notre Dame, is best known for Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You, in which he pushes the usual silliness: race does not exist, and men and women are largely interchangeable. You can stream a recording of the webinar here.

My prediction–and I hope I’m wrong–is that A Troublesome Inheritance will have no more effect on policy than did a whole host of irrefutable books, going all the way back to Carleton Putnam’s 1961 Race and Reason. I also predict that the priests will have learned from their tantrum over The Bell Curve: When they hurl thunderbolts at blasphemy, the noise attracts attention. It is far better to look piously the other way.

This is not to say that A Troublesome Inheritance will do no good. It will seduce a certain number of new readers to the troublesome truth. It will add another well written and highly credible volume to the library available to those who stumble onto dissent by some other route. It will be part of the growing and unbridgeable gap between what Americans believe and what they pretend to believe, and it will surely hasten the day when the ugly edifice of deceit really does come crashing down and or rulers finally admit the truth.

What follows is the first review ever written of A Troublesome Inheritance, posted here on March 2.

Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History, Penguin Press, 2014, 266 pp., $27.95.


“Human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.” With these heroic words, New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade opens fire on two of the obligatory myths of our time: that there is no such thing as race, and that human evolution stopped in the Stone Age.

It is gratifying to see someone firmly planted in the mainstream poke the regime in the eye, and the regime’s reaction will be a diverting spectacle. Bravo Mr. Wade, and we wish him a thick skin—though we wish he had not been quite so circumspect on certain matters.

 Race is real

Mr. Wade notes that the early peddlers of race-is-a-myth, such as Ashley Montagu (the stylish name British-born Israel Ehrenberg chose for himself), were clearly trying to distort science for political purposes, and that more recent peddlers, such as Jared Diamond and Steven Jay Gould have done the same thing.

The physical differences we see in human groups reflect separate evolutionary paths that led to unmistakably biological differences. Hunter-gatherers left Africa about 50,000 years ago, and once they wandered into all of earth’s habitable spaces, they stayed put and bred with their neighbors. DNA testing shows there was essentially no crossing until the modern era. For tens of thousands of years, independently breeding populations developed distinct genetic patterns.

Mr. Wade explains that the physical traits of populations are dramatically and consistently different even though there are very few alleles, or gene variants, that occur exclusively in only one group. This is because most traits are influenced by many genes. Norwegians, for example, need have only a preponderance of Norwegian-style alleles in their genes in order to give birth exclusively to Norwegians—and never to Malays or Pakistanis. As Mr. Wade puts it, “The fact that genes work in combination explains how there can be so much variation in the human population and yet so few fixed differences between populations.”

Mr. Wade also spends a few pages batting down some of the other side’s silly arguments. He patiently explains that, yes, there are mixed-race people but they do not disprove race. There can be mixed-race people only because there are races. He also explains that disagreement about the number of races does not disprove their existence either. Different people just draw lines at different places.

Most importantly, Mr. Wade points out that “brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene.” And since human evolution is “recent and copious,” the brains of different populations function differently. This is the book’s main heresy: After the races separated, they evolved different mental patterns that gave rise to different social patterns.

 Social behavior evolved

The idea that human races have been evolving right up until the present is not new. The 10,000 Year Explosion, written in 2009 by Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran, is the best introduction to this subject, and explains why evolution has been roaring along 100 times faster during that last several thousand years than it did during the Stone Age.

Mr. Wade goes over some of the same ground, pointing out how dramatic a change it was for our ancestors to switch from nomadic hunting to settled agriculture. For the first time, something more than bare subsistence became possible. This led to trade, wealth and poverty, government, taxes, con men, priests, etc.—an evolutionary environment completely different from the African savannah. As Mr. Wade notes, new circumstances produced new people:

As soon as the mode of subsistence changes, a society will develop new institutions to exploit its environment more effectively. The individuals whose social behavior is better attuned to such institutions will prosper and leave more children.

Some old habits were no longer useful. Farmers had to think ahead and save seed corn, whereas hunters immediately gorged themselves on kills that would rot in a few days. Smash-and-grab made sense for fast-moving nomads but not for city-dwellers who had to live with neighbors. As a rule, the longer a population has been farmers, the more the hunter has been bred out of it. The last 10,000 years has therefore seen the domestication of what had been the equivalent of a wild animal.

Not all groups are equally domesticated. Tribes that have been nomads into modern times do not adapt well to settled life. The Kalahari Bushmen think of animals only as game, not as livestock, so if someone gives them goats to tend, they eat them. Australian aborigines have not adapted well, either.

The Yanomano of the Amazon are notoriously violent, not just against outsiders but among themselves. According to one anthropologist, Yanomamo men who have killed someone in battle have 2.5 more children than those who have not. The means the Yamomano are evolving towards more violence, not less.

Mr. Wade emphasizes that behavior of this kind is influenced by genes, although only a few alleles that affect social behavior have been found. One is MAO-A, the “warrior gene,” variants of which are clearly associated with a hair-trigger temper and violence. Maoris, for example, are warlike and crime prone—and they have a high incidence of this variant.

This, in fact, is Mr. Wade’s boldest assertion: that different races behave differently because they are genetically different and genetic differences give rise to differences in social institutions. He is at pains to argue that the genetic differences are small—so small that they are almost undetectable at the individual level—but that once a group has been nudged even slightly in a particular genetic direction it may be receptive to institutions that completely change the nature of society.

Mr. Wade cites one study that estimates fully 14 percent of the human genome has been under evolutionary pressure since the races separated, and that substantial differences are therefore inevitable. DNA studies show that Tibetans split off from Han Chinese only 3,000 years ago, so it must be only since then that Sherpas evolved their ability to function so well at high altitudes. Indeed, there are more than 30 lung- and circulation-related gene variants that are more common in Tibetans than in Chinese. Mr. Wade also notes that American blacks may already be less likely than Africans to have sickle cell anemia—because they live on a continent without malaria where there are no benefits to sickle cell alleles. Evolution is constant.

Mr. Wade makes the crucial point that what is known as “national character” is undoubtedly genetic, and that is why group behavior is consistent. Jews prosper everywhere they go. So do overseas Chinese. If the Malays and Indonesians envy the success of their Chinese minorities, why don’t they just copy their good habits? Mr. Wade argues that they can’t; they don’t have the genetic predisposition to act Chinese.

Africans likewise cannot maintain government institutions. Their colonial masters wrote nifty constitutions for them, showed them how elections work, and explained the importance of an independent judiciary. That all ended up in the ditch once Africans took over.

Mr. Wade repeatedly emphasizes the importance of public trust—the ability to deal fairly with people who are not kin or fellow tribesmen. If a race has not evolved this level of trust it will not get beyond tribalism. That is why Americans can’t get Iraqis or Afghans to behave like good democrats no matter how many of them we shoot. Middle Easterners don’t have the genetic capacity for republican government, so it is just as crazy to try to force our ways on them as it would be to try to turn Americans into tribalistic, cousin-marrying Afghans.


One of Mr. Wade’s lesser breaches of good manners is to note that Europe made crucial breakthroughs in civilization that many groups have yet to adopt: “Europeans, probably for reasons of both evolution and history, have been able to create open and innovative societies, starkly different from the default human arrangements of tribalism or autocracy.”

Academics have long chased their tails trying to explain why some countries are rich and others poor. Mr. Wade points out that their fatal blunder is to assume that all populations are interchangeable. He uses findings by the economic historian Gregory Clark to suggest that in Britain, where records go back far enough to make such studies possible, there was steady evolution towards the qualities crucial to the Industrial Revolution.

According to Professor Clark, who teaches at UC Davis, from 1200 to 1800, the British became less violent, more literate, more inclined to save, and more reliable workers. Prof. Clark’s ingenious studies also show that the rich, who were more likely to have these useful traits, had more children than the poor, many of whom were erased from the gene pool. This naturally occurring eugenics program laid the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.


Mr. Wade points out that most European populations had been evolving similarly, so were quickly able to industrialize as well. So, it turned out, were East Asians, with the Japanese first, followed by Koreans and Chinese.

Mr. Wade argues that science and industry did not first arise in China partly because of millennia of conformist pressure. Chinese were relatively meritocratic, with the Mandarinate open to anyone, but the examinations mainly tested rote memorization. Mr. Wade points also out that Chinese rulers showed an utterly un-European lack of interest in science and exploration, and argues that this reflected long-bred traits of conformity and submission to authority. Even today, Chinese have been unable to adopt one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization: the rule of law. Communists, just like emperors, routinely violate laws they force on others.

Mr. Wade concludes with this heresy:

It seems a fortunate outcome that the world’s dominant military power has turned out to be the West, with a system of international trade and law that offers benefits to all participants, and not a purely predatory and militaristic state like that of the Mongols or Ottomans, as might have been expected, or even a civilized but autocratic one like that of China.


This is all very fine, even courageous stuff. Any assault on dogma is welcome and laudable, and Mr. Wade will certainly take a beating for it. However, there is much waffling in this book, which was no doubt meant to ward off beatings but that, at least to undeceived readers, rings of timidity.

Mr. Wade has a whole chapter on the evils done in the name of race and genetics. We learn that the Comte de Gobineau, Herbert Spencer, and Madison Grant were rotten people, and that even the genius Francis Galton led us down “a dangerous path, to the proposal that human populations could be improved by controlling breeding, just like those of domestic animals.” There is also the obligatory salaam to the memory of the Holocaust.

None of this belongs in a book about science. It is a clearly an attempt to demonstrate virtue and avoid beatings, but it won’t work.

Even Mr. Wade’s angle of attack—social behavior—is a curious one. It is undoubtedly true that genes influence time preference, radius of trust, lack of aggression, and all the other qualities that make civilization possible, but these characteristics are not well studied and we don’t know much about the relevant genes.

Mr. Wade almost completely ignores the psychological trait that has been studied the most: intelligence. He goes into details about the codons and base triplets that result in interesting but peripheral racial differences in hair texture, ear wax consistency, and type of sweat glands, but completely ignores the genetics of intelligence. He even writes that no genes for intelligence have been found, but that is not true. In 2005, Mr. Wade himself wrote about the discovery of genes that are implicated in brain development, and researchers recently isolated a gene that appears to account for 0.5 percent of human variation in intelligence.

Mr. Wade includes a chapter on the superior intelligence of Jews—this is something people can write about without losing their jobs—but skips over the question of black intelligence. He has a very superficial account of the debate over the genetic contribution to black-white IQ differences, but then scuttles off to safer territory: “That issue needn’t be resolved here.” Does he really think he can write that Africa is stuck with tribalism for genetic reasons, but avoid a spanking because he refuses to commit himself on IQ?

Mr. Wade’s discussion of the MAO-A gene is even more contortionist. He concedes that American blacks are no less than 50 times more likely than whites to carry the variant most closely tied to violence, but says we must draw no conclusions. Why? Whites might have different, as yet undiscovered, alleles that would make them just as violent as blacks.

In his discussion of the evolution of racial differences, Mr. Wade notes that light skin may have spread rapidly through northern populations, in part because it was considered sexually attractive. But he can’t bear to stop there and risk leaving the wrong impression. Without one word about the millions of dollars Asians and Africans spend on skin lighteners or about the clear preference even of American blacks—the widespread preference for light skin—he suggests that tanning salons prove that dark skin is inherently more attractive.

Mr. Wade also assures us that whites will keep their scientific and creative lead over the Chinese for “many generations, barring some major setback.” This is because we are genetically less conformist and more open to new ideas. And yet there is no mental plague in China that even approaches the conformity and closed-mindedness Mr. Wade is trying to combat with this book. The ease with which our rulers have driven common sense about race, sex, and nation underground shows how cowardly and conformist the heirs to the Industrial Revolution have become. If the Chinese succeed in widespread embryo selection—an openly eugenic practice that terrifies Westerners—they will outstrip us in one generation. Meanwhile, the West is filling up with the very people Mr. Wade tells us are genetically limited—Amerindians and Middle Easterners—while China remains resolutely Chinese.

 Whistling past the graveyard

Mr. Wade writes that his book is an attempt “to dispel the fear of racism that overhangs discussion of human group differences and to begin to explore the far reaching implications of the discovery that human evolution has been recent, copious and regional.”

That’s not possible. If human differences have “far reaching implications” there is no way to “dispel the fear” of what goes by the name of “racism.” What, to begin with, are these far reaching implications? Mr. Wade himself manages to propose exactly one: that foreign aid is probably wasted because poor countries are not genetically prepared for the institutions necessary for wealth.

Mr. Wade even criticizes Steven Pinker of Harvard for thinking about implications. Mr. Wade accuses him of dishonestly running away from the idea of race differences because, in Professor Pinker’s words, “it could have the incendiary implication that aboriginal and immigrant populations are less biologically adapted to the demands of modern life than populations that have lived in literate societies for millennia.” That is exactly what Mr. Wade implies—but does not say.

The liberal façade is all of a piece. It cannot be punctured only in a few safe and convenient spots. That is why its guardians plug every chink with such bloodthirsty zeal. To accept what dissidents call human biodiversity would open the door to everything the regime most piously hates: immigration control, inequality, self-segregation, nationalism, mono-culturalism. Whether he knows it or not, and no matter how hard he denies it, Mr. Wade has lit a match to the entire liberal/modern world view. The next thing you know, someone might say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed or that women have no business on submarines.

That is why the reaction to this book, which goes on sale on May 6, will be so interesting. Lefties will not be placated by the back-cover assertion that “Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples.” They will realize that a very respectable figure is blowing a raspberry at their religion.

The smartest thing they could do is ignore A Troublesome Inheritance. The next-smartest thing would be to have truckling scientists calmly “refute” it by peeing on it from a very great height. Raging about “racism” would be stupid, and prove only that lefties are believers rather than thinkers.

Alas, it may make no difference what they do. As I wrote 20 years ago about a book that goaded the stooges into a record-breaking rage, “Unfortunately, the United States is probably capable of weathering a 90-day lather over The Bell Curve that leaves the country exactly as it was before.”

No one knows when sanity will return. Can this book break the logjam? Probably not. But all praise to Nicholas Wade and his publisher, Penguin Press, for trying.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • B.B.

    Jared Taylor said:
    What is more, Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochrane covered a lot of the same ground in what I think is a better book: The 10,000 Year Explosion.

    There is no ‘e’ at the end of Greg Cochran’s name.

  • cherrie greenbaum123

    Unfortunately this book will probably be dismissed as “raciss” with the white libs and blacks screaming that the information is biased.

    • Anna Tree

      “A troublesome Inheritance” is in public libraries.

      Positive start… maybe enough to kick off a cultural revolution…

      I mean it is not censored, is moreover from a mainstream author. I hope it can lead some to read Jared Taylor, Charles Murray, Phillipe Rushton etc

      • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

        That is my hope as well. This book, like The Bell Curve, is a good gateway book for fence sitters on the issue of race. If this is another gateway book that leads to reading Jared Taylor or Rushton for some readers, the author’s efforts will not have been in vain.

    • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

      They will indeed dismiss this book as “rayciss”, and that is just what needs to happen, as readers who find the assertions made in this text sensible and reasonable will be more likely to question the Liberal establishment, and conclude that Liberal beliefs on race are irrational. The Bell Curve gave scientific heft to the racial realist beliefs of many of us, heightening our courage and building our confidence, so as not to be bullied by Lefties. One has to be a maverick and independent thinker to be a White racial realist these days. When the Libtards casually dismiss a book like this as scientific racism, more than a few readers will begin to casually dismiss these Libtards whenever the speak, and begin to question the wisdom of social liberalism.

      • Anna Tree

        The liberal leftist religion is indeed a tower of cards! And it is more and more on the verge to just tumble down. Like other false ideologies before, it can happen so quickly that we will all be surprised.

        They may delay their collapse though by being more and more authoritarian, and we are living this more and more too (like punishing students for benign jokes), but they can’t stop it, if to judge from history.

        My problem is that our cause is not the only reason why this ideology will crumble… I wonder and fear more about what society will arise after… Hopefully, the Jared Taylor camp will lead… That’s why I think it is time for thinking about what to do when all happen. Our intellectuals have explained why, when and how, it seems to me. But what about what and where…

        The left has produced many speculative fictions of their hopes and fears.
        We need to write our own hopes (the alternative is unthinkable. Also,
        it’s all too easy to guess from the past and the present.)

        • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

          Secession is the best answer, in my opinion, to at least attempting to hang onto a few places to call our own, where we will remain the majority, and thus can maintain political control.

          • Anna Tree

            And grow back our population and rekindle the white civilization.

            Another issue that interest me to read about from one of the intellectual in our movement in a potential speculative fiction, is how many do we need to be to be able to defend ourselves, survive and blossom again.

            I wrote a few days ago that a few dozens thousands individuals (as per the Toba supervolcanoe theory, 10’000 humans is the Minimum Viable Population number, MVP) can recreate the white race, it had happened in the past in a couple of population bottlenecks, due to natural disasters.

            In a secession, it could also be called a Founder effect too: a population bottleneck because of lower demographics, miscegenation, mass-immigration and sadly maybe war, but also a founder effect because of the (survival) will of the mentally fit Whites to separate and restart better.

            But this time we will need more than that MVP because it is not only about being a majority and maintain political control and… reproducing ourselves, but also about physically defending our lives/genes. I think we will not only need wombs but soldiers to secede and be left alone…

            The concept of Minimum Viable Population (MVP is a lower bound on the population of a species) comes into consideration:
            “Minimum viable population is usually estimated as the population size necessary to ensure between 90 and 95 percent probability of survival between 100 to 1,000 years into the future. The MVP can be estimated using computer simulations for population viability analyses (PVA). PVA models populations using demographic and environmental information to project future population dynamics. The probability assigned to a PVA is arrived at after repeating the environmental simulation thousands of times.”
            “There is a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average. Conversely, taxa easily affected by inbreeding depression – having high MVPs – are often decidedly K-strategists, with low population densities while occurring over a wide range.[…] Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]”

            “In population genetics, the concept of effective population size Ne was introduced by the American geneticist Sewall Wright.[1][2] He defined it as “the number of breeding individuals in an idealised population that would show the same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration”.”
            “Populations with different selection effective population sizes are predicted to evolve profoundly different genome architectures.”

          • Geo1metric

            Interesting subject.

            I recently read a book, EARTH ABIDES, by George R. Stewart, about a few Whites trying to re-kindle civilization after a devastating illness killed off about 99% of humans. Excellent story. Written in 1948.

          • Anna Tree

            Thank you very much for the tip, I will read this book! I have always been a science fiction fan, but since becoming a white racialist, speculative fiction has taken a new quality.

            Unfortunately, as you know, racialist fiction like non-fiction is silenced nowadays… We cannot even ask “what if?” anymore! Isn’t it worth to let people’s brains explore every possibilities, and not only and only the usual whites-are-racists-and-non-whites-their-victims propaganda? Censorship is not only burning books. It starts with not allowing them on public shelves.

            Another issue I would love some white racialist writer to muse about is that as all race and even ethnicity have evolved differently in response to separation, environment, adaptations and mutations, eventually each of us will be better off in the area (or similar area) where his ancestors are from. The diet, the climate, the altitude etc should give one the best advantage in health, survival, comfort etc

            I think 95% or so Italian ancestry people could/should go back to Italy, as 95% or so German ancestry to Germany, English to England, French to France etc. While mixed European ancestry could/should remain or move to Canada, US or Australia (or whatever remain of those after the SHTF until whole again).

            Of course DNA tests etc should be voluntary, but I would say this would be the best for our race and the individuals, re. strength, longevity, healthiest progeniture and so our gene future. I would say this could reverse some of the dysgenic that has been going on, maybe beside some voluntary eugenics a la Prof. James Dewey Watson.

          • Anna Tree

            The story sounds indeed excellent and should bring our intellectuals and leaders to think how to prepare us so not only to save the white race but also the white civilization: we need to preserve important books and teachers will have an important place in our future Orianas (beside doctors, builders, engineers etc). Actually William Forstchen’s book One Second After was great about pointing this out. You should read it too, also a strong and telling post-apocalypse fiction.

            But it seems that Earth Abides is not a White racialist book:

            – “Emma (Em) is a woman who Isherwood meets in his hometown. The author may have been taking a chance with this character, who is, at least partially, African-American,[4] while Isherwood is white; when the book was written, interracial marriages were heavily discouraged in American society.[5] Isherwood does marry her, and race isn’t important to the couple’s relationship. Em becomes the community’s mother, letting it grow as it will, but stepping in to help when no one else is filling the leadership
            role. She was the adult while others panicked, and Ish thought of her as the “Mother of Nations”.[6]”

            – “One custom that Stewart predicts could die out is racism. When there are fewer partners to choose from, mankind will not be able to afford to be too choosy in picking one’s partner.”

            Kyle Bristow’s White Apocalypse seems a better pick
            amren com/news/2013/11/white-apocalypse-republished/

            But still of course thank you for telling me about Earth Abides, you can learn good things from everywhere and use and better it for your own.

          • Geo1metric

            Yes, I realize E.A. is not White racialist. I enjoyed it for the “survivalist” aspects and the problems that Em and Ish overcame.

            I was somewhat “troubled” by the Ish/Em relationship as well, but enjoyed the book nevertheless.

          • LHathaway

            “it is not only about being a majority and maintain political control and… reproducing ourselves, but also about physically defending our lives/genes. I think we will not only need wombs but soldiers to secede and be left alone…”

            We need soldiers only so much as to control our boarders and we really wont really even need that. A white nation pretty much means that. I do think we would benefit from an influx of foreign genes but in needs to be in a way they can be assimilated and controlled. How many none-white characteristics would we one day have? Which ones would we prefer and to what degree?

            We would need soldiers more likely to stop a military invasion. I think the Hatian army occupied the Dominican republic for a period of time. Something like that is more of what we would have to ‘prepare’ for.

          • Anna Tree

            Wow, that’s funny, last night I wanted to tell Geo1metric something about the book he advised but didn’t find the time and here you are, posting comments on this 6 days old thread by coincidence! 🙂

            Yes indeed Lhathaway, Whites wouldn’t need an army if not because they will have to fight for the carved lands they will secede to, and then to defend them and themselves for survival.

            I don’t think the white race needs any influx of new foreign genes, we are diverse enough. The problem I think our intellectuals and leaders will have to tackle is mixed children and non-white pro-whites.

            It seems to me there are three groups of Amreners regarding this:
            a) won’t accept any non-whites, included white Jews and maybe even not white liberals,
            b) will accept any whites, that is at least 75% (?) white DNA, maybe for the girls, maybe for men, they will be harsher, as long as they look white and were pro-white.
            c) will accept any pro-white mixed people and any non-whites supporters.

            The mixed children… Those who decided they are non-whites is a decision done for us, but those who wants to be white. Those who look white. Moreover those who support white nationalism/racialism. What to do with them?

            For example: in average French have up to 3% North African DNA, English or Germans up to 2%, Spanish or Italians up to 6% etc Then for the Slavs it’s Asian mixture etc I think one solution is to accept in France, mixed French who have not much bigger foreign DNA than the average French, and so on for the other Europeans. While in the non-European countries, mixed whites from diverse European countries could settle.

            As I wrote I think this could be the best for our race and the individuals, re. strength, longevity, healthiest progeniture and so our gene future. I would say this could reverse some of the dysgenic that has been going on, maybe beside some voluntary eugenics a la Prof. James Dewey Watson: that more mixed people do up to 2 kids while less mixed people do more children.

        • LHathaway

          Exactly, it’s time to stop reacting – We have to meet and get together and do our own thing. Ignore their agenda and have our own, no matter how small and meaningless it may see to be starting out. It’s time to stop reacting.heck, we’re only defending a system and ideologies that hate and show disdain for us. We may be tiny now but one day we will be the majority.

  • Like Jared Taylor, my expectations in this stead are very low.

    I highly doubt we’re going to be able to convince our sworn avowed enemies to stop hating us with pleas that employ reason, facts, logic, evidence and science. The Big Lie chronically persists because people with power think it’s a political weapon to maintain and expand their power, they’re not going to lay down that weapon because we made a better argument.

    And like Jared Taylor, I think the tactic they will use this time is to try to ignore the book into oblivion. Now would be a good time for a handful of low information undertow “scandals.”

    • Mike Lane

      Screw our enemies. The key is to win over the mind and soul of the American people. The biggest mistake we can make is shroud our goals under the fear of the Leftist establishment. We shall carve our own path regardless of what they say. Ignore them. They mean nothing.

    • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

      I agree, but we already know that our enemies will be against this book, just as they were against The Bell Curve. But, as with The Bell Curve, this book will embolden many a fence sitter. When one reads a book that gives scientific evidence bolstering their perceptions, one is more likely to seek out places like AmRen that validate their beliefs. Once one has found a community like AmRen, one is emboldened and empowered.

      • Okay, I think I know what you and Mike Lane are saying:

        Sure it won’t make our avowed sworn enemies budge. But it’s going to be enough of a gateway drug to create a pathway for future elite talent to make their way into our movement.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty, which was begun the same year, made two assumptions about human beings: the races are equal in innate ability levels and predispositions; the poor are the same as everyone else, only less fortunate.

    Both of these were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and increases among blacks and whites in crime and illegitimacy. They were not followed by increases in academic performance.

    It is becoming increasingly difficult for reasonable people to deny that genes place limits on social reform.

    • Tarczan

      This will be another chink in their armor, but by the time the armor is gone we will be a 40% white country and it won’t matter.

      • KevinPhillipsBong

        …but where there’s a will…

        • Keep Honkin, I’m Reloading

          Sadly though, we lack the “will” to actually DO what truly needs to be done.

      • dmxinc

        But if Jared is right, our country may be 75% Chinese in a couple of generations.

        • Bossman

          That will be a very boring, conformist and totalitarian world.

        • Mike Lane

          HA! Yeah right. We will win. I meet more and more people everyday fed up with the PC BS.

        • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

          I’ll take 75 percent Chinese over 75 Percent Mestizos. We Whites would be much better off. If Asians decided we were an inferior race, though, I would not trust an Asian dominated country not to genocide us Whites. Asians are not randomly violent like Negroes, but they are particularly brutal when motivated by cause or ideology, just like us Whites. Secession is the answer for us Whites in America. We are best off in homelands that are for our people, and our people only.

        • JohnEngelman

          Where does he say that?

          My prediction is that mainland China will adopt a democratic government, find a non coercive way to control population growth, and that the standard of living in China will improve, as it certainly has in Japan.

          All of this will reduce immigration from China.

      • DaveMed

        I think that America is a lost cause, but that Europe may have potential.

        It will take repatriation, though.

        • Antidrastikos

          I think that Europa is a lost cause, but that Russia may have potential.

          • ThomasER916

            I don’t think Europe is lost just yet. Greece is showing how to deal with non-Whites. Greece could become the first European ethno-state. If they do that would change everything. If White nations became ethno-states, no more Culture of Critique, we would see a massive reversal of fortunes (and debt).

    • LHathaway

      It would be just as easy to claim the implementation of those social policies brought about this downward trend. I’m not going to argue the issue, one way or the other. Whether it is genetics, or culture, or correct social policies or the proper laws. Whether we should be liberal, fascist or conservative; whether people of color are all monkeys, or are all superior beings that genetic science will one day prove; I just want away from them.

    • SDN

      You can’t link crime, illegitimacy and ghetto rioting with desegregation. That’s applying the same single causation fallacy than those who think racial disparities are due to racism.

      Desegregation was already going on in the 50’s. You talk about ‘Brown’ but remember the 1957 Civil Rights Act which was not followed by widespread riots. True crime increased during the 60’s but that’s forgetting that other countries like Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand also experienced a pathological rise of their crime rates without having to implement desegregation (in fact they didn’t have any segregation policies). That’s because like in the United States they implemented criminal rights legislation – Miranda rights – which made far more difficult to effectively prosecute criminals and emphasized on seeking ‘alternatives’ to imprisonment which led to a deliberate decrease of the imprisonment rate which led to the proliferation of criminals in society. Hardly related to the segregation issue. Besides ghetto rioting occurred mostly in urban areas where segregation was not enacted, the majority of these riots notably Watts, Newark and Detroit arose from incidents between young Black Americans and police officers so victim ideology is much more to be blamed than desegregation as such.

      • The 1957 Civil Rights Act was weak.

        Yes, almost all of the 1960s black riots were in cities where de jure segregation either never existed or was never that rigid. But that should tell you something.

        • SDN

          It tells liberals that racism is not to be blamed for them but at the same time it tells segregationists that desegregation is not to be blamed for that.

          As previously indicated in my message the majority of these riots escalated from incidents involving young Black men with White police officers. Which means one of the primary causes of riots was victim mentality that portrays police force as racially oppressive. Ideology seems to matter more than race as such.

          The 1957 Act was followed by another 1960 Civil Rights Act without major disturbance. Several segregation laws repealed by the 1964 Act had already been successfully challenged before SCOTUS without social disturbance from “McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents”, “Sweatt vs. Painter” (both 1950) and “Morgan vs. Commonwealth of Virginia” (1946) to much earlier cases like “Guinn vs. United States” (1915) and “Buchanan vs. Warley” (1917).

          • The 1960 Act was also weak.

            You’re right in that almost all black riots spark from white cop on black suspect altercations. However, black people who live in areas where they were pandered to and coddled for a very long time were more likely to riot, because they didn’t fear immediate reprisal.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            The race riots stemmed from Blacks wanting to get away with Sociopathic violence without having to pay the appropriate price. Most Whites know that violence is morally wrong. Most Blacks seem to think that violence is okay and normal, and do not want to comply with the mores of White society.

          • LHathaway

            White society tells them their violence is OK. The more violent they are, they more they are victims. The late samuel francis called this anarcho-tyranny. The more depraved non-whites become, the more the authorities must crack down, on whites.

            As whites become more and more unsettled, one wonders if the same standard will increasingly cover us. The more violent and counterproductive we become, the more society will crack down, on people of color. Why not? Interracial murder and violence has been almost exclusively black on white for nearly a 100 years, if not always, yet the authorities only ever seem concerned with white evil and ‘hate crimes’.

            They really could used to cracked down on. Pehaps it would actually be a realistic use of ‘anarcho-tyranny’

        • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

          Blacks and Whites are simply not meant to live together. That is why segregation was practiced in the South in the good old days. The Southern leaders back then cared about people having a decent quality of life, and understood the Negro temperament.

          • SDN

            That’s an utterly one-sided view of events. No matter what race baiters says most Blacks in the United States get along with most Whites. Violence is only a small part of the picture especially when crime has been on a steady decline since 1991 and when Black criminals represent only 6% of the Black population.

            Jim Crow was not institutionalized on concerns of violence but in order to prevent amalgamation and keep White supremacy intact. In fact racial violence at that time was not seen by many in the White population as morally wrong in itself. Jared Taylor admitted in a September 2013 speech that the vast majority of race riots in the first half of the 20th century were in fact caused by white rioters!

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Most Blacks in the United States get along with most Whites?? Either your exposure to Blacks has been quite limited, or you have been smoking something other than tobacco, LOL!!! Just because physical violence doesn’t always occur, this doesn’t indicate Whites are not being bullied, or taking great pains to get along with Blacks. Blacks have an exceedingly contentious temperament. The only reason for the decreasing violence is Whites making intense efforts to keep the peace. These efforts do not indicate harmony. They are survival strategies employed by Whites who are stuck dealing with Blacks. For Whites to be able to actually enjoy life and have some semblance of happiness, Blacks need to be segregated.

          • SDN

            As if Whites are less happy because of Blacks ! How ridiculous. You must have a pretty contentious temperament yourself to make such an assertion ! I don’t need ‘limited exposure to Blacks’ since I am Black myself. If policing is to be defined as ‘survival strategy’ than it should be to protect Whites against themselves because 84% of White murder victims are killed by other Whites ! Blacks also played their role in reducing crime by committing than years ago as read from this excerpt of an article found in the website of the conservative Claremont Institute:

            “Consider these changes in black youth during the 1990s, the period of the big crime drop:
            Regular church attendance by black 12th graders rose 22%.
            Pregnancy rates for black teens fell by nearly one-third.
            The number of black high school students who reported carrying weapons fell 52%.
            By 2003, more than three times as many white as black 12th graders reported using hard drugs.
            Between 1991 and 2000, the number of 12th graders reporting use of alcohol, cigarettes, or illicit drugs in the previous 30 days fell by 19% for blacks, 20% for whites.
            From 1997 to 2003, the rate of placement of male juveniles in residences, overwhelmingly because of juvenile delinquency, fell 24% for blacks, 5% for whites.”

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Why are you posting here? You already know that this is a racial realist site. Most of us believe that The Bell Curve is accurate here. As you can tell, I am definitely one of those people, and that is why I post on AmRen. There are tons of websites out there for Black people exploring Black issues from a Black perspective. Why would you want to hang out on this site, of all places?? If I were a Black person, AmRen is one of the last places I would hang out online.

          • LHathaway

            I thought, segregation was instituted to prevent blacks from falling prey to evil whites and to prevent their feelings from being hurt, being exposed to such superior people. . .

          • Geo1metric

            “In fact racial violence at that time was not seen by many in the White population as morally wrong in itself. Jared Taylor admitted in a September 2013 speech that the vast majority of race riots in the first half of the 20th century were in fact caused by white rioters!”

            Not hard to understand. Whites at that time were much more open about their “racial” feelings and made it clear that they did not want to live around blacks. So what?

      • JohnEngelman

        Causal relationships are difficult to prove historically because many factors influence a single important event. Nevertheless, in the eyes of most whites the black ghetto riots and the increases in black crime and illegitimacy that followed 1964 discredited the civil rights legislation, the war on poverty, the Democratic Party, liberalism, and the government.

        More than any other single factor the black ghetto riots that happened from 1964 to 1968 turned the United States into a Republican country. Blacks betrayed the white liberals who had done so much to help them. The black ghetto riots and the more durable increases in black social pathology that followed the civil rights legislation substantiated segregationist arguments against that legislation.

        In the United States and in Africa blacks have disappointed the hopes white liberals had for them. Nicholas Wade’s book provides a plausible biological explanation for the disappointments.

        • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

          Very true. The altruistic dream of 60’s Liberals backfired almost immediately. Southerners already knew the lessons that Northern cities learned the hard way during the 1960’s. Southerners were experts on the Negro issue on the eve of the Civil Rights movement. Northerners were babes in the woods.

          • JohnEngelman

            The civil rights legislation was forced on whites with extensive experience with blacks by whites with little experience.

          • SDN

            Jim Crow was forced upon the Black population without them having a word to say about this.

          • JohnEngelman

            Jim Crow legislation was accepted by Northern voters because Reconstruction had been a disappointment. Blacks failed then, as they have failed since the civil rights legislation was signed, to demonstrate that they were equal to whites.

          • SDN

            Inequality of results will never be an excuse for institutionalizing inequality before the law. Do you think that because Asians make better scores than Whites they are entitled to racially discriminate against them ? Do you think that because Black African immigrants have better performance than native-born Black and White Americans they are entitled to more rights than them ? Do we have to discriminate against Appalachians because they are at the bottom of the ladder in terms of poverty ?

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not believe that anyone should be discriminated in favor of or against. That is why I am opposed to affirmative action.

            I continue, albeit reluctantly, to support the civil rights legislation that was passed during the 1960’s. I am disappointed with the black response.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            SDN is modeling typical Negro behavior for us. Instead of excusing himself like a gentleman, as he knows what our views are here at AmRen, and respecting our rights to our opinions, he insists on trolling. I would never even think of butting in on a Black website, and expressing my distaste at Black behaviors there.

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not mind him expressing his opinions here as long as he considers mine.

          • SDN

            Why should I apologize for simply expressing my disagreements ? Amren encourages ‘polite debate’ and welcomes posts who ‘add perspective’. A debate implies that someone should have the right to take a stand contrary to what think the majority of the people as long as he keeps a moderate tone and uses developed arguments.

            Given that none of my posts have been deleted so far (in fact my messages containing links have already been approved by the moderator) I can safely assume I’ve always complied by the rules despite my opposite position regarding ethnonationalism.

            Don’t worry I’ve been on more Black websites than you think. My opinions are also very opposite to the victimhood perspective many Black websites promote and I legitimately express my opposition to it because I think these kinds of attitudes hold Blacks down. Nevertheless I don’t take that as an excuse to say we are ‘racially inferior’ or that segregation was a good thing.

          • Geo1metric

            Please, I encourage you to continue to post here.

          • Geo1metric

            “Inequality of results will never be an excuse for institutionalizing inequality before the law.’

            That sounds so erudite, but really is not.

            Many laws exist precisely because of “inequality of results”.

          • SDN

            What laws for example ? I can think of laws designed to insure handicapped people access to public buildings or welfare for people who are mentally retarded. But they are not designed to accentuate discrimination but rather to restrain it.

          • Geo1metric

            Jim Crow was yet another move by Whites to have their own culture without the influence of an alien culture. So what?

            You have the distinct advantage over Whites now. You can move to an all-black country.

          • SDN

            Jim Crow was not about ‘preserving a culture’ it was institutionalized racial discrimination to insure White supremacy. This term might seem irritating to you because of liberals who calls you ‘white supremacist’ but keep in mind this was a term used by the proponents of segregation themselves.

            What advantage are you referring ? Everybody, White or Black, can move to another country. You can move to an all-white country if you want (unless you’re already in one).

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Exactly. Segregation was a survival strategy for White Southerners. SDN will disagree, of course, but he has already admitted that he is Black. He is a Troll. If he were a decent person, he would be posting on a Black website, not trolling on a White Racial Realist site where he already knows what we believe about the Negroid race. If he was one of the few of his race who does actually display a measure of couth and decency, he would not be trolling on AmRen, thinking he can get a rise out of us.

          • curmudgeon

            More of the”Law of Unintended Consequences”?

      • Anon

        “Desegregation was already going on in the 50’s.” – restrictive covenants were struck down in 1948.

      • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

        Desegregation was the lynchpin of rising crime in 1960’s. When Blacks were properly segregated and still properly deferring to Whites, they were properly afraid to attack us. White youth were also not becoming absorbed in sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, which is nothing but a politically correct moniker for Black culture. The decline of Western Civilization is a direct result of our integrating Blacks into our culture, and Whites drawing the misconception that Blacks are in any way equal to us. Abe Lincoln was right about the Negroes when he said that they could never live amongst us.

    • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

      You used the key word here John. Assumptions. I was told many times, as a young lad, that the first three letters of Assumption aptly describe those who make Assumptions. The Whites who supported the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s fit this description exceedingly well. They were mostly Northern Whites who had had little exposure to Negroes. They assumed that Negroes are just like Whites in temperament, and surely made asses of themselves and America by doing so. White Southerners who knew the behavioral traits of the Negro race were treated with disdain, as were Northerners who had had sufficient exposure to Negroes to know their ways. The Civil Rights era assumptions on Negroes being our equals were just that. Assumptions. No scientific evidence was employed to prove these liberal assertions. On the contrary. America was paralyzed with fear to discuss race honestly or employ any scientific evidence, thanks to Der Führer. Without his genocide campaign against Ashkenazi genetic superiority, White Americans, both Jewish and Gentile, would have been speaking honestly, and as a unified front, about Negro racial inferiority, and some Ashkenazi brilliance may have been focused on eugenics in place of spreading fear of eugenics. Ashkenazim have the least to fear when racial/ethnic differences in intelligence and ability are scientifically studied, as they always come out on top. The Bell Curve reflected Ashkenazi excellence. If Der Führer had had a clue, and had been focused on the inferiority of the Negro race, he would have enlisted Ashkenazi genius in a very useful eugenics program. If such had been true, I suspect that America would have focused on resettlement of Negroes in Africa or the formation of a segregated Negro homeland in the South, not on the false and insane notion of Negroes being our equals. I suspect that total segregation would have been pursued and achieved, with total Jewish support, not the insane policies and decisions which have ruined America.

  • Steven Barr

    Remember how The Bell Curve was going to change everything? People just don’t want to face the facts. Whites are just as scared as non whites because they can’t bring themselves to admit how dark their future is going to be.

    • bilderbuster

      Many have wanted to believe the Equality myth for so long.
      To admit that they were wrong the whole time, and that the racially aware people who they loudly and publicly vilified were correct all along, that the truth is too much for them to bare.
      How many people selflessly devoted their careers and how many others deceptively promoted the myth?
      Don’t expect much from either as they both have everything to lose by admitting they were wrong.

      • Geo1metric

        “Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives.”

        • bilderbuster

          Great minds think alike except whoever you quoted put it much better : )

          • Geo1metric

            Glad you enjoyed it. I simply cannot remember where I got it. Haven’t bothered to do an internet search.

    • JohnEngelman

      The future is going to be dark for anyone who is not in the upper ten percent of the IQ distribution.

      • Tarczan

        Since we all depend on society for civilization, it will be bad for all of us.

      • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

        I’m not so sure. Income and high IQ don’t always correlate. Untalented Groids like Beyonce and the various rappers have plenty of cash. So do Negroids who have jobs they do not deserve due to affirmative action. All the more reason secession/formation of White homelands needs to occur in America. The economically successful Groids need to be separated from us just as much as the masses of Groids. Just look at what a reprehensible sociopath Obongo is. He is a higher IQ Groid, but that higher IQ does nothing to make him a better human being. When dealing with Blacks, segregation of all Blacks from us is the only answer to the problem.

        • Geo1metric

          Let’s not forget that Oblabla is only half black.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Half Black genetically, but as Black as Farrakhan and Sharpton in his hatred of Whites.

          • Geo1metric

            Yes. Usually with “mixed” race blacks you find them trying even “harder” to be “black” enough.

  • JohnEngelman

    Even today, Chinese have been unable to adopt one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization: the rule of law. Communists, just like emperors, routinely violate laws they force on others.

    – Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, May 6, 2014

    Communists did the same thing in European countries. The success of democratic governments in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea indicates that Orientals are genetically well suited to the rule of law.

    • captainc

      I think they made quite big step from the conditions mentioned in The Changing Chinese

    • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

      Western Europeans are a different breed from the Eastern Europeans. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I can’t recall the West putting up with a power-mad ruler for any meaningful length of time.

      As I’ve said many times, I agree with much of what you say (and I even admire you for your willingness to put up with some of the insults that are directed towards you), but I do think that the Western Europeans have something that the Northeast Asians don’t: the psychopathy, individualism, and disagreeableness/rebelliousness required for enhanced creativity. That said, I do give credit where credit is due and the Chinese deserve credit for what they’ve accomplished over the centuries.

      • JohnEngelman

        You seem to be forgetting about Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

        • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

          No I didn’t. I specifically said a “meaningful length of time.”

          In the context of history, I certainly do not consider their reigns to be for a “meaningful” length of time. 17 years (Mussolini)? 11 years (Hitler)? Don’t make me laugh!

          • JohnEngelman

            If they had had the sense to avoid World War II, or if they had won, their dictatorships would probably still exist.

          • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

            While I don’t know too much about Mussolini, I can say that, had the conditions that laid the groundwork for WW II not existed in the first place, Hitler never would have come into power. Thus, I’m of the belief that the WW II argument (at least as it relates to Hitler) doesn’t really hold water.

            Had they won WW II, I am confident that both men would have been forced from office.

            We should also note that the West did not endure dictator after dictator after dictator … In the West, it was one and done.

            Simply (and irrefutably) put: The West is the peak of humanity.

          • JohnEngelman

            Totalitarian dictatorships can emerge whenever a country without a tradition of democracy experiences severe social and economic stress.

          • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

            Yet, the fact still remains that the West has not had a totalitarian regime for any meaningful length of time. Why is it that we (the West) have a tradition of democracy and the Northeast Asians (and Eastern Europeans) do not?

            Western Europe > Northeast Asia

          • NeanderthalDNA

            We currently live and have lived for some 2 to 6 decades (arguable) under messianic democratic totalitarianism.

            I could make the argument that we have since around 1945, that at least in the old days they burned commies, that we had some 20 – 30 years of imperfect Camelot when we were the only capitalist economy standing after Ragnarok II…

            I could make the argument that that system, morality aside, served us well until it became unsustainable – for two reasons:

            1. Western Europe and Japan recovered from WW2. Some time in the late 60’s, early 70’s, these regions finally had the capacity to compete with us economically. Which is unfortunate for many reasons (for us) but specifically because this occurred precisely as we were convulsing in the throes of committing cultural, civilizational suicide largely because we came to…

            2. Believe our most ridiculous own BS and completely eschew common sense for castles in the sky.

            Since the lefting of our MDT (messianic democratic totalitarian) power structure, however, the insinuation of and perpetrating of ideological propaganda and the level of passive aggressive censorship has come to dwarf even the worse excesses of the Red Scare…

            Speech is evidence of thoughtcrime, you know?

          • LHathaway

            There was East Germany but the West had monarchies until Europeans followed the American Revolution of 1776. The link between the USA and ancient Greece might be somewhat tentative. Citizens of both the USA and those nation-states were white, that’s about it? American Indians claim we borrowed many of the ideas for our new government from them. I think, conspiracy. The English let us win ‘the war’. They say there is a war game out that claims to be an accurate recreation of the revolutionary war. It’s almost impossible for the colonies to win.

          • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

            The English didn’t let us win; rather the war was too expensive for them to fight and we won by attrition.

            The totalitarian monarchs in Western Europe met the same fate that Nero and Caligula met. Totalitarian dictators in the West just don’t laugh.

            American Indians claim that we borrowed from their system of government? LOL (no further response needed).

            The East German example is the best one that I’ve heard of. My response to that is that all of the European powers forced that arrangement upon them.

          • ThomasER916

            You’ll discover that LHathaway is anti-White. Whenever a White chooses to defend a non-White they’re invariably anti-White. In order to “be fair” they must be anti-White.

            “A humanitarian is always a hypocrite…”

            George Orwell

          • ThomasER916

            That regime was not a Western Regime. It came from the Culture of Critique.

          • LHathaway

            ah, ‘The Culture of Critique’. . a book telling us we should all blame jews instead of blacks. .written by an ‘academic’ who is ‘on our side’.

            Actually, I might possibly benefit from reading those books but I have no illusions at all about the author being on our side. None.

          • ThomasER916

            The most salient feature of indoctrination is self censorship.

            You’re not just wrong, you’re defiantly ignorant and indoctrinated. You’re so indoctrinated you can’t even be correct on accident. More importantly, you NEED to lie. You’re no different from any virulent anti-White Antifa loser. We’re all used to them by now. They’re quite easy to spot.

            The simplest explanation is this – if Useful Idiots like you didn’t exist, screaming baseless agitprop 24/7, they would have no power. That fact that Useful Idiots like you are constantly screaming agitprop with your fingers in your ears means they’re allowed to continue.

          • LHathaway

            let’s see. An academic who suggests that jews, not white conservative men, are really behind most problems in he world. . . all problem in the past, present and on into the future. . .

            who, by chance, was the last unpopular person to suggest this (the first suggestion, anyway), I think it was adolph hitler, but, If I don’t agree with this academic, I’m not ‘on your side’ and a part of the problem, and it is I who am the problem?

            At least I know what the conspiracy is ‘supposed’ to be. . . Jews are getting ‘revenge’ for the holocaust.

            perhaps YOU are too ideologically blinded to even be able to see what the phony conspiracy is supposed to be.

            Get your conspiracies straight.

            What was the line in, in yet another ‘pro-jew’ film. . . the guy in the movie said, “you’re too dumb to even be a good bigot’

            FYI. . I do scream agitprop 24/7. Sadly, perhaps, only mostly in here.

            I’d like to imagine I’m helping get somewhere/helping us get somewhere.

          • ThomasER916

            You’re indoctrinated to feel self-righteous when you lie for Political Correctness. You’re so indoctrinated you can’t even be correct on accident. Because you’re indoctrinated you NEED to lie. Like Pavlov’s Dog you need to froth at the mouth, only instead of expecting a meal you’re serving lies and Politically Correct agitprop.

            You’re an indoctrinated Useful Idiot trained to defend the Hostile Elite. Nothing more. Soon the Useful Idiot will no longer be Useful.

          • LHathaway

            I didn’t realize i was defending jews. .

          • ThomasER916

            By all means keep posting. We need to see how the indoctrination thoroughly destroys Whites. It’s obvious your spelling, grammar, and basic cognition were deeply damaged. I’m curious to see what other areas have been similarly infected.

            Post something else. We need more bumper stickers.

          • jane johnson

            No. Italians had quite enough of Il Duce and his trains (which NEVER “ran on time”).

          • JohnEngelman

            Italians only turned against Mussolini when Italy began to lose the Second World War.

          • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

            I still doubt that the Italians would have allowed dictator after dictator after dictator once Mussolini was gone (had they won the war).

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Nix the foreign militarism and railing against ANY form of representative government…and I like a lot of “fascism”. But Mussolini was ultimately a tragicomic Putin on crystal meth – a barking buffoon who, unlike Putin, believed his own BS a little too much.
            And trusted that H fella. Fatal mistake that…

          • jane johnson

            I like that the mob used some rope to protect Mrs. Duce’s modesty before she was strung up.

          • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

            I like Putin.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I do too. But some of his manly man publicity reminds me a tad of Il Duce, lol…

            Regardless, Putin’s KGB background and training have disciplined him and I think he is capable of distinguishing between the hype and the reality. I wonder about Mussolini’s capacity for accurate self assessment..

    • IstvanIN

      Democracy in our sense of the word was nurtured in Japan by the US occupation. South Korea has only been a real democracy since what, the 1980s? Maybe late 1970s?

      • JohnEngelman

        Democracy is spreading throughout the world. It seems to work best in countries where the average IQ is at least 90.

    • kwame_zulu_shabazz

      John, how do you reconcile centuries of brute racial subjugation (chattel slavery and Jim Crow) with “democracy” and “rule of law”?

      • JohnEngelman

        In the United States until the end of the Civil War most of those who could vote favored slavery, even if they did not own slaves. Consequently, slavery was consistent with the rule of law.

        Even in free states abolition was a minority persuasion. In free states most whites favored the continuation of slavery in slave states because they did not want freed Negroes to move into their states.

        • LHathaway

          Lincoln did win the election.

          • JohnEngelman

            Abraham Lincoln ran on a platform of keeping slavery out of the territories, and out of the free states. He did not run on a platform of outlawing slavery where it was legal.

          • SDN

            You should make your comment more exhaustive by emphasizing Lincoln’s constitutional approach. He did not want to outlaw slavery in slave states because he knew the Constitution didn’t permit him to do so as President of the United States. However he opposed the spread of slavery knowing full well that restricting it to the slave states would lead to its “ultimate extinction”. Besides his 1864 party platform was resolved to abolish slavery through constitutional amendment.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Lincoln was also a racial realist who believed firmly that Whites and Negroes must live separately. You are correct that most Northerners did not want Negroes moving into their areas. They felt that Negroes needed to be sent back to Africa, or re-settled in a segregated territory separate from Whites. Lincoln certainly held these beliefs, thus the resettlement of a good number of Negroes in Liberia. Not finishing that resettlement was a grave error.

          • JohnEngelman

            Few whites wanted to pay for the deportation of Negroes. Few Negroes wanted to be deported. No country wanted them.

            The worst mistake this country made was the slave trade. Southern whites should have grown their tobacco and cotton.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            You are absolutely right about the slave trade John. I believe that enslaving another human being is wrong. However, Blacks who came to America were fortunate. They were treated far better here than they would have been by their fellow Blacks back in Africa. Let’s remember the facts. Their fellow Blacks sold them to the White merchants/sailors, and were selling them because they had been captured in tribal wars. Also, the Blacks we sent back to Liberia enslaved the native Africans there, treating them with unspeakable brutality.

        • kwame_zulu_shabazz

          Very good, John. So for most of US history, the “rule of law” supported the brutal subjugation of Black Americans. And since the “rule of law” violated basic human freedoms, enslaved Africans frequently broke the law in their pursuit of justice. Thus it seems to me that, in the US context, the “rule of law” has mostly sponsored white tyranny. Indeed, it was the constant struggle of African Americans that actually gave meaning to America’s lofty principles.

          Think about it. Did the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem ring true during Jim Crow? It it surprising that those who were denigrated for centuries by the “rule of law” are now deemed inferior by some members of the white community? This has little to do with “inheritance” and much to do with the politics of white supremacy.

          • JohnEngelman

            As a child and teenager I was an enthusiastic supporter of civil rights. More recently I have come reluctantly to suspect that in a state with a large black population Jim Crow was based on sound instinct.

            Predominantly black public schools are nearly always dangerous places where little learning happens. Predominantly black cities always have high crime rates.

            Integration only works well when the black population is less than ten percent. In the schools I attended growing up the black population was less than five percent. That gave me an unrealistically benign image of blacks.

            For the rule of law to prevail those who break the law must be punished very severely. Social reform, social welfare spending, and rehabilitation do not reduce the crime rate.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            John, white people terrorized black people for over three hundred years; some are still doing it to this very day. Those dangerous communities you speak of are the obvious outcome of white brutality–I have lived in them most of my life. Most African Americans are law-abiding citizens but we continue to face many barriers to our collective progress (i.e. structural racism). It will take centuries of aggressive affirmative action projects to correct–free and quality schools and healthcare and adequate housing and an end to racist policing for starters. Unfortunately, most white Americans can’t see beyond their sense of entitlement.

          • JohnEngelman

            Black on white crime is far more common than white on black crime.

            Although I appreciate your presence here, you have come to the wrong place if you expect to find many guilt stricken white liberals on this website.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Yep, following centuries of white brutality directed at black people. And it turns on who defines crime.

          • JohnEngelman

            Blacks have a high rate of violent crime wherever they live. Whites don’t.

          • SDN

            Wrong, you can find pretty much dozens of black neighborhoods of black neighborhoods around the country who have below average crime rates. One example is Mound Bayou, Mississippi who is 98% Black yet its crime rate is just below average as indicated “Mound Bayou, MS, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 3. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 4.

            Mound Bayou, MS, property crime, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10, is 3. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. The US average is 4.

          • JohnEngelman

            I checked your assertions on the internet. What you say is true. The low crime rate of Mound Fayou, MS may be in part influenced by the fact that it is a small rural town. Small rural towns usually have low crime rates.

          • SDN

            That’s admitting that race doesn’t explain everything regarding crime.

          • JohnEngelman

            What you say is true. However, race is a good predictor.

            The Color of Crime points out, “The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.”


          • SDN

            True but great progress can be made. Combining crime data from DisasterCenter and and population census from EasyAccessJuvenilePopulation websites (the latter’s title is a bit misleading since you can obtain the numbers for the population as a whole) for the years 1991 and 2012 you’ll see for the year of the crime peek 1991 a correlation of r = 0.86 between the percentage of Black and Hispanic population and violent crime rate in the 50 states. However after the crime drop the correlation for the year 2012 dropped to r = 0.65. For the graph Excel is your friend.

          • mikefromwichita

            Proper comparison would be to small all White towns. The USA average of 4 is highly inflated by the crime rates of urban negroes and hispanics.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Just because the crime rate is low doesn’t mean that Whites, in this majority Black community, would not be treated like second class citizens. Blacks who move into majority White communities, in present day America, are fawned over by Whites. Whites who move to a majority Black community, though, are treated like dirt.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            John, you still have not answered my basic question that I have posed in several different ways. Why is it surprising that black people who have brutally terrorized by white people and sanctioned by US jurisprudence for centuries struggle with comparatively high crime rights? And would not the brutal oppression be a more likely source than genes for understanding the sizable gap between black and white quality of life? You will find similar challenges amongst many other oppressed groups–Aborginal Australians or on Native American reservations or in Roma communities in Europe. We might also consider that police violence directed at African Americans or US belligerence abroad goes unmarked in violent crime statistics.

          • JohnEngelman

            How is it that whites with our low crime rate force blacks to commit all those crimes? Why is it our fault that they have all those illegitimate children, and do so poorly in school?

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            As I already noted, there is actually lots of crime in the white community, but it doesn’t get marked as such. The criminals on Wall Street, for example. Ditto for other sorts of social pathologies like unwed mothers (but even on
            that score, there are plenty of white women getting abortions).

            When white people viciously denied black people basic human rights and steal their wealth for centuries, all of it supported by racist institutions, those same white people created conditions whereby certain sorts of crimes are more prevalent. Again, you can find similar examples in every other oppressed community.

          • JohnEngelman

            Blacks are better off in the United States than in Africa because they are unable to create civilized communities on their own.

          • SDN

            Inasmuch as Whites are better off in the United States than in Europe. Civilized communities never emerge on their own as they need the support of others in order to progress as Thomas Sowell put it clearly: ” We use Arabic numerals today, instead of Roman numerals, even though our civilization derived from Rome, and the Arabs themselves got these numerals from India. Arabic numerals (or Indian numerals) have displaced other numbering systems around the world because they are better– not just different. Paper, printing, and books are today essential aspects of Western civilization, but all three came out of China– and they have displaced parchment, scrolls, and other forms of preserving writings all around the world. Books are not just different, they are better– not just in my opinion, or in the opinion of Western civilization, but in the practice of people around the world who have had an opportunity to make the comparison. Firearms have likewise displaced bows and arrows wherever the two have come into competition.”

            Appalachia is plagued by poverty since decades are you going to say it’s because of the ‘whiteness’ of its inhabitants ?

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Civilization originates in Africa. It existed there long before Europeans were civilized. By the time Euros and Africans encounter each other, both zones had a sizable range of political systems, some advanced and others less advanced. And, moreover, some Euro explorers admitted that there were African societies who were on par with Euro civilizations. Africans smelted iron earlier, had superior riverine technology, had universities in Sahelian zone, had developed advanced medical techniques like c-sections, had complex political systems, and so on. Euros had developed superior weapons bolstered by gun powder which they did not invent. African decline was mostly external beginning with Islamic invations centuries before Euro invasions. See, for example, African and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World by John Thornton. I don’t agree with all of his thesis but his basic point the Euros and Africans encountered each other as more or less equals is a sound point.

          • JohnEngelman

            Civilization was begun in Egypt and what is now Iraq by Caucasians.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Egypt is in Africa. The Egyptians were not Caucasians, they were African. You are reproducing an old racist version of the “Hamitic myth.” Scholars who actually does research on ancient Egypt claims that Egyptians were Caucasians. See, for example, the work of Shomarka Keita. But there were plenty of examples of advanced empires south of the Sahara–Asante, Dahomey, Oyo, for example.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            You know that and I know that, John, but SDN and Kwame are just going to model Groidchology for us. I judge Negroes by the content of their character, as their hero Martin Luther King suggested we do, not by their skin color.

          • Geo1metric

            Stop your whining. Your shortcomings are not the fault of Whites.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Thanks, Geo. You have overwhelmed me with your stellar analysis.

          • Geo1metric

            Sufficient analysis. It’s self-evident. Time is valuable. I’ll not waste more of mine on your ridiculous words.

            “And would not the brutal oppression be a more likely source than genes for understanding the sizable gap between black and white quality of life? ”

            My response to those words is: sub-Saharan Africa.

          • Geo1metric

            Not buying it for a nano-second.” White brutality directed at black people”?

            Black slaves in America, with some exceptions, lived better than their “cousins” in Africa. At least they weren’t being eaten for dinner by their own.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Kwame and SDN are Negroid trolls. They are modeling Groidchology for us.

          • SDN

            I think you generalizes too much regarding race and crime and I will never agree with any support of Jim Crow. I regard segregation as the expression of a white supremacy that must belongs to the past.

            It’s no secret that Blacks – or more precisely, young Black men – are overrepresented in criminal activities but at the same time Black crime has dropped at a higher rate than White crime ! Between 1991 and 2012, according to SHR data, the black murder rate declined 53% while the white rate 41%. Moreover UCRs from the FBI show that between 1992-2012 the black rate for rape, burglary, aggravated assault, robbery and finally violent crime had a respective decline of 75%, 52%, 53%, 64% and 59% while the white rate for these offenses had a decline of 53%, 42%, 30%, 43% and 34%.

            As for interracial crimes, which are so ominous for a white nationalist like you, it is undeniable that the majority of them are committed by blacks but it is also true that black-on-white crimes had a bigger drop than other way around. Indeed NCVS data show that between 1994 and 2008 the first category declined 69% while the latter 35%.

            Jamaica, a black-majority country had until the early 70’s a murder rate which was lower than in the USA. Other Black countries like Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Burundi, and Zambia have lower crime rates compared to industrialized countries like Japan and America.

            If you’re searching for some reasons on the recent drop of crime you could check for this article from the Conservative Claremont Institute titled “Great Black Hope”

          • The Verdict of History

            He is not a white nationalist.

            He has made this clear on a number of occasions.

          • SDN

            White nationalist or not he condones Jim Crow and as such he’s close to this political movement.

          • JohnEngelman

            Let us say that I am disappointed with the black response to the opportunities that were opened to them by the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty. Since the civil rights legislation was signed, and since anti poverty programs have been expanded black rates of crime and illegitimacy have increased. Black academic performance has not improved.

            Blacks have substantiated the arguments of segregationists I argued with as a child and teenager.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            SDN has already admitted to being a Negroid. He is trolling, and modeling typical Negroid style thinking for us.

          • Black crime has dropped at a higher rate than White crime

            The wearing out of the crack epidemic and longer prison sentences.

          • JohnEngelman

            On many occasions I have pointed out on American Renaissance that I am not a white nationalist. I am not any kind of a nationalist. My loyalty is extended to decent law abiding people of all races.

            I am a race realist. As such I acknowledge that Orientals tend to be more intelligent, law abiding, and sexually responsible than white Gentiles.

            In the United States the rate of violent crime peaked in 1991. Since then it has declined because of the increase in the prison population, and because millions of potential violent street criminals have been aborted. When the violent crime rate rose from 1960 to 1991 blacks had a crime rate nearly eight times the white rate. They still do have a crime rate nearly eight times the white rate.

          • Geo1metric

            If you feel so mis-treated by Whites, why do you oppose segregation?

            Why not move to a black country where you can be rid of the devil White man?

            Why continue to subject yourself to such horrific oppression?

          • SDN

            I don’t feel oppressed by anyone at all ! But I certainly have the right to express my disagreements with some opinions regarding racial matters and quote some datas to develop my argument.

          • Geo1metric

            You surely do have the right to express your opinions.

            “Other Black countries like Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Burundi, and Zambia have lower crime rates compared to industrialized countries like Japan and America.”

            You also have the obligation to check your sourcing; my immediate suspicion about the above quote is that those countries you mention probably have very, very poor reporting and recording of their crime data.

            I even harbor suspicions about the reporting of crime data in the U.S. I could mention all kinds of reasons as to why officials in the U.S. would want to skew the crime statistics one way or the other.

            Question everything.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the low rates of documented crime in those African countries. Police are probably corrupt when and if there is actual policing, and stats are probably either fudged, or not even kept. As far as the ostensible dropping of crime amongst American Blacks, I’ve thought all along that police have been more and more reticent to arrest Blacks due to the ruckus they continually raise over being arrested. Many White cops have become all too familiar with the Black mindset, and realize that arresting Blacks is often folly, as most Blacks learn absolutely nothing from being arrested, and engage in zero self reflection. Most Blacks act like the police are wrong to arrest them when they engage in violence, as if violent behavior and disregarding the rights of others is acceptable.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Logic would indeed point to SDN moving back to Africa, or an all Black neighborhood. He has boasted to us at length about the dropping crime rates amongst American Blacks. I’ll bet he doesn’t even live in a Black neighborhood. His thinking style epitomizes what I’ve always noticed about Negroes when we try to have a sensible conversation with them. You can’t reason with a Negro!!! They insist on their way like bratty children, and raise a ruckus if we do not let them have their way.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            You might want to bear in mind, Kwame, that AmRen is a racial realist site. Guys such as myself and Engelman have had to cope with Black sociopathy all of our lives. We are entitled to our opinions. As far as myself, I believe that Blacks have always made their own bed of nails, but never fail to fuss like small children when it is suggested they lay in this bed of nails that they have created for themselves.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Yes, Rebel, you are obviously entitled to your views no matter how divorced they are from reality. Peace.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Rebel, you are, of course, entitled to your opinions no matter how divorced your “racial realism” is from reality.

          • Geo1metric

            “The far more interesting questions should ask how is it that a people who have endured centuries of horrific oppression continue to strive and insist on their own dignity.”

            Consider the fact that the descendants of the black slaves brought to this country are the luckiest blacks in the world.

            You should count your blessings every day of your life that your ancestors were brought to this country, and as a consequence, you live better than 99.9% of your “cousins” in that hell-hole called sub-Saharan Africa. (if you are a descendant of slaves).

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Absolutely correct. The Blacks who ended up in America were the luckiest Blacks in the world. Around the turn of the century, 70 percent of former Black slaves, when interviewed, had nothing but good things to say about their former masters. And why wouldn’t they?? Most Black slaves in this country were treated very well. Few European immigrants were lucky enough to enjoy the cradle to grave security they enjoyed. No need to manage money or secure a place to live, as long as one did an honest day’s work, room and board and meals were provided. European immigrants, in contrast, took far more dangerous and arduous jobs in Northern factories and mines, spent their paychecks trying to put food on the table for the family, and owed their soul to the company store. The ungratefulness of Blacks is disgusting. They act like spoiled teenagers, and I suspect that they always have. The rare occasions where slaves were beaten, I suspect, were mostly cases of farm owners who lost their temper. Blacks always try to do as little work as possible, no matter how well their employers treat them, and love to pretend they are being abused when expected to dig in and really work. I sincerely doubt that they have ever been any different.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Utter nonsense. So, following that logic, I suppose Native Americans should be thankful that they were annihilated by white people? LOL!

            I have been to West Africa many times. And I take students there every summer. I LOVE it and I look forward to moving to Africa permanently. America is in decline. African will rise again. You should count your blessings that western nations have been able to steal Africas resources. That won’t continue forever.

          • Geo1metric

            I look forward to you moving back to your “home” continent as well, and take all of your cousins with you.

            If America is in decline, which is arguable, a big part of the reason is the undertow caused by you and yours. How long can a country support unproductive slugs?

            You are delusional if you think the backwardness of sub-Saharan Africa is because their resources have been stolen from them.

            Those resources would still be in the ground if Whites had not dug them out. Any railroad, road, electricity, clean water, medicine, etc, etc., etc., came from Whites.

            Your people never developed writing, a numbering system, architecture, music, science, technology, anything of any value, and you simply plunder from the productivity of White society.

            Be gone.

          • Luca

            Please preach your ideas in the ghetto. Perhaps you can revive the “Back to Africa” movement.

          • Geo1metric

            What ideas, specifically, are you referring to?

          • Luca

            Apologies. I meant to reply to kwame.

          • Geo1metric

            No worries. I was going to agree to go if you could find me an M1 Abrams tank to use. 🙂

          • Luca

            Please preach your ideas in the ghetto. Perhaps you can revive the
            Back to Africa Movement.

            Isn’t it amazing how many blacks would absolutely refuse to return to their ancestral homeland, even for free? Gee, I wonder why? LOL.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            Black abolitionist David Walker explained that in 1829. You can read his work online. He points out that Africans have fought, bled, died for generations in America the land of their birth, the only land we know. Hence, African Americans have as much a right to be here as any white person. And whilst we are here, we are obligated to force this nation to live up to its lofty principles.

          • Luca

            While they certainly have every right, my point is they could not survive in Africa as well as they do here. I, on the other hand, would have little problem returning to the civilization of my ancestral homeland.

            Blacks have failed in virtually every country, city or state they have ever been in charge of. Good examples would be Haiti, Detroit, Liberia, South Africa and most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

            They remain here because there is no better place on earth for them. They exist and thrive in the civilizations built by those with European DNA.

            Try reading “Negroes in Negroland,” firsthand accounts of Europeans observing culture in 1800’s Africa. That is how they would be living if they had not been brought or emigrated to European-based countries.

          • kwame_zulu_shabazz

            American and other western nations routinely plunder Africa’s wealth. Eisenhower even authorized the assassination of the democratically elected leader of Congo, Patrice Lumumba. Many of the problems in Africa can be traced directly to slavery, colonialism and current day imperialism. Haiti was decimated by the racist imperial policies of France and the USA. The US Marines invaded Haiti multiple times. Our government even forced Haitians to change their constitution to facilitate white control of Haiti’s resources.

            I skimmed through “Negroes in Negroland.” Its full of racists fantasies that no scholar would take seriously today. For example, Samuel Morton mention early in the text was extremely racist. And the claims of cannibalism in Africa are grossly exaggerated. The truth is that there are examples of cannibalism in all cultures including Europe. In fact Europeans only abandoned the consumption of the blood and bones of dead people for medicinal purposes very recently, the 18th century, i.e. several centuries after first contact with Africans.

            John Thornton, in his book “Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World,” demonstrates that coastal African nations were technology on par with Europeans during their earliest encounters. Other scholars have pointed out that Africans has advanced knowledge of medicine or iron smelting of warfare of mathematics or architecture, etc. Africa is a huge continent so, obviously, the level of technology varied from place to place just as it did in Europe. European superiority is, in fact, a very recent phenom.

  • FozzieT

    “Mr. Wade repeatedly emphasizes the importance of public trust—the ability to deal fairly with people who are not kin or fellow tribesmen. If a race has not evolved this level of trust it will not get beyond tribalism. ”

    Perfect scientific argument against our country’s insane immigration policies. We are importing millions who are genetically incapable of participating in the type of civil society our Founding Fathers intended.

    And, it is blatantly obvious that Blacks have not evolved to anywhere near that point.

    • Ernest

      “”We are importing millions who are genetically incapable of participating
      in the type of civil society our Founding Fathers intended.””

      Indeed. That’s it in a nutshell. We as a race and as an ethnicity have specific history, culture, laws and mores that generally don’t work for another. In order to survive that must stop. Of course the borg see it different and in fact wish to continue it. At some point we will find out if we are truly worthy of our Founding Fathers.

      The men of my own stock,
      Bitter bad they may be,
      But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
      And see the things I see;
      And whatever I think of them and their likes
      They think of the likes of me.

      • brior

        Kipling , Bravo!

      • ThomasER916

        “A humanitarian is always a hypocrite…”

        ~George Orwell conceding a defense of Kipling’s racial writing

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      And whites may have to regress to barbarism to survive as a people with a future. Grim.

      • jane johnson

        I won’t see it as regression at all when White people realize that the Enlightenment was anything but. It will be progress- the rejection of a flawed philosophy.

        • ThomasER916

          Dark Enlightenment

    • Nancy Thomas

      Exactly. Blacks and browns and asians and Jews are fiercely tribal and work day and night to promote their own interests….while whites are not allowed to organize or have any interests whatsoever. The current system is a white demolition machine.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    “No transcript is available, but the debate must have been a terrific bloodletting.”

    That, Mr. Taylor, is a crying shame, is it not?

    • NeanderthalDNA

      PS: *talking to self*

      Hindsight is almost 20/20, but oh how foggy foresight. Still, this has the whiff of subversive Truth that cannot be denied. And shows resilient potential to destroy stupid propaganda. Scientifikul and such, but for real.

      Little seeds to mighty oaks grow and every straw that gets loaded is one closer to breaking that camel’s back.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    Get on your rain jackets, boys…there’s bound to be plenty of “pointing and sputtering” from the press to go ’round.

  • Alexandra1973

    Wikipedia already refers to it as “scientific racism.” Almost like they’re shrieking “Oh noes! They’re backing it up with science!”

    • ThomasER916

      The Left uses “science” as a magic word. It’s part of their religion. For the Left, you must “believe” in science. If you don’t believe you’re a “denier.” Nothing is more salient than their token Neil Degrasse Tyson. Anyone who looks at his “career” will only find political positions, propaganda, ethnic Hollywood, and no actual “science.”

      NASA is now being used as an Islamic Apologetic. Why? Because “science” has been taken over by the Culture of Critique. Everything must pass their sacred approval.

  • Aussie_Thinker

    I’ve been posting in a thread on a new forum I’ve joined, about the Ukraine kerfuffle. I mentioned how dividing Ukraine in the east along ethnic lines would create a more stable Ukraine.

    I was surprised to have some actively agree with me, citing examples of ethnic tensions (African countries formed by colonization, made up of different ethnicities, and the closer to home Czechoslovakia). Surely, logic dictates its a small step from there to where we are at. Who knows. I’m testing the waters anyway. Of course, there are the deniers though.

  • LHathaway

    Mr. Taylor over plays his hand here. Clearly the reality is that some things are caused by genes; other things are caused by environment. Alcoholism, depression, autism, mental illness, suicide susceptibility, attention deficit disorder, homosexuality; these things are caused by genetics (so there’s no need for us to concern ourselves with them), we’re learning more every day. Everything else wrong in this world is caused by an oppressive system that is unfair to some.

    • brior

      I have genes for vodka?

      • LHathaway

        My comment was meant to be sarcastic, or to simply reveal the reality of accepted thought. Liberal, conservative, accept for a few Freudian’s, all accept this view, quietly sent out by the media over the last few decades, if not longer.

      • DaveMed

        As a matter of fact, tendency toward addiction does have genetic components – e.g., variable concentration of dopaminergic neurons and/or receptors in the brain’s “pleasure centers.”

  • Josh

    “No transcript is available, but the debate must have been a terrific bloodletting.”

    There’s no transcript but you can still watch it.

  • BernieGoetzFan

    I’m going on Amazon to buy the book. I’m not overly interested in it and I already know the score through reading AR. But it is a (small) form of dissent. I humbly ask everyone to buy the book. Isn’t it the least we can do?

    • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

      You convinced me.

    • ThomasER916

      Yes. I know the book is still trying to be Politically Correct but it could prove a “foot in the door.”

  • Jon

    I believe those seeking the truth will embrace and once the Human Genome is full unlocked and mapped out then the truth about the races and where they originated will no longer be driven underground. Nature created the races and why some are so primitive as well as savage is beyond me. Living in the Information age and wish science spreading soon people will not able to suppress the truth about race from the masses. Even our eyes clearly show us that racial differences exist and it is not about skin color but the DNA as a whole. All that need to be done is put a crack in the damn of knowledge and then let it build up.

  • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

    Yeah, I noticed that error too — I got the 17 year figure from Wikipedia. He was the “Head of Government of Italy and Duce of Fascism” for 17 years, but he served as the Prime Minister for the 5-year period before that.

  • Transpower

    What an excellent review!

  • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

    So, an 18th century country just chose to let us win? Clearly, the Brits made an economic cost-benefit analysis and chose to stop fighting the war.

  • drattastic

    Wade has committed PC heresy ,hope he has been saving for retirement . Truth isn’t acceptable in America and is punishable by character assassination .

  • ThomasER916

    People who throw rocks at tanks are too violent and stupid to be allowed to live.

  • screaminjay

    I think this may make a splash, just today the Canadian equivalent of the NYTimes gave it a decent and fair review: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/race-is-more-than-a-social-construct/article18571418/

  • Intrep1d

    Much of the general opinion about China is due to the fact that they’re “Communist”, and that this is somehow an expression of an inherently conformist nature. It couldn’t be further from the truth. The Chinese are similar to the Japanese, both have traditionally been Imperial. If they had developed in tandem technologically, our world would be very different. If China didn’t have Marxist influence, they’d resemble modern day Taiwan. East Asian potential is comparable, and perhaps slightly better, than Eastern Europeans.

    I’m also 100% certain that someone important in China watched the movie Gattaca. Go see it if you haven’t; Ethan Hawke is the protagonist and it’s pretty good. They seem to be moving in the direction of open liberal eugenics at a steady pace.

  • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

    Looks like an excellent book that all racial realists should buy. The Bell Curve is a fantastic book that should have reached more White hearts and minds, but it gave scientific credence to the beliefs of those of us who believe what are Grandparents believed regarding race. Jared Taylor is right on the money when he mentions racial realist beliefs being nothing other than common sense for our Grandparents.

  • M&S

    Wrong end of the telescope. NYT is Jewish Controlled and the people they hire to create ‘controversy’ are too or are owned goy.
    Do you really think that anything in that pablum more than -designed- to create a comfortable sense of superiority in whites while giving them that nagging sense of racial doubt that suggests “Rejoice in silence but if you speak of the secret, nothing you say or suggest will be backed up by what was written.”
    Which is where people need to see beyond the incendiary. Sure, the data is true and becoming more so as genetics are linked to statistics on behavior. But in terms of social achievement and criminality it was as true when _The Bell Curve_ came out and when _G_ and when _The 10,000 Year Explosion_ and when _The Color Of Crime_ did so as well. This is not ‘new stuff’
    Where the next step lies however is in **prediction**. Where we are going with current trends. What it means to a society’s future when a population crosses a given percentile base point in terms of genius, conformity, degeneracy, stupidity and criminal corruption.
    Because we are being replaced faster than we can ‘prove, scientifically’ that we have a human right not to be. And that gross disparity between the moral truth and the proveable definition of superiority, as well as who is pulling the dates left on the timeline, hard, with things like Open Borders should be what is identified and discussed.
    This is just sensationalism by the timid looking for a secret sin audience demographic that wants a few naughty truths to make themselves feel better about their diminishing ‘privilege’ as prestige (we may be failing but look, they are doing no better!) as a status points. Hint: No less than Alan Greenspan once said that populations didn’t want real economic security as prosperity, only the perception of superior relativism.
    What we SHOULD be talking about is who we rid this country of to regain working capital as Separate agenda and how we push genetics to get back to a permanent white advantage now that it’s clear we are actually #3 on the IQ charts and falling ever further back as the complexity of the world increases.
    Not making snide, cliqueish, jokes about the genetically impoverished.

  • Hal K

    It will be part of the growing and unbridgeable gap between what Americans believe and what they pretend to believe

    Mr. Taylor is mistaken in saying that Americans believe that racial differences are innate. They don’t. This applies to both liberals and mainstream conservatives. They blame culture and white racism for the most part. Mainstream conservatives generally avoid the issue of innate differences and immediately pivot to the scapegoating of white liberals whenever the under-performance of some minority groups is discussed. It is a mistake to think that mainstream conservatives consciously believe what Jared Taylor believes. You can’t win people over to your view when you start with the assumption they are lying about their beliefs. That is a rhetorical dead end. Instead start with the truth, which is that racial differences are real.

  • David Ashton

    From The Times (London), May 12, 2014, page 13 (News): “Genetic theory of West’s rise is denounced as racist…[His book] has been widely criticised by scientists….His subsequent argument that there are genetic group differences in behaviour and cognitive skills…has left him vulnerable to attack. In ‘The Times’ today, Matt Ridley says he cannot accept the idea that genes account for momentous events in history….The US statistician Andrew Gelman calls his book ‘racist’….’based on the dictionary definition: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities[,] and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”.’/’Wade’s comments about creativity, intelligence, tribalism seem to represent views of superiority and inferiority’.” – Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent.

    • Martel

      Death spasms of the status quo.

  • Geo1metric

    I have always admired the high culture of sub-Saharan Africa. Their contributions to science, literature, and technology have been surpassed by no other peoples on earth.

    No other peoples have succeeded in accomplishing a technological marvel to rival that of the Great Pyramids on the Giza Plateau.

  • captainc

    That is how Sharia Law is meant for.

  • captainc

    African migrants are selected elite, just Indians HB1 visa holders.

    But, not so with asylum seekers (Europe), they create as much problem as American blacks.

  • Lisa Kimble

    Telling everybody what they already know is not a “well aimed shot”. Everyone, including the true believers, knows there are differences between races/ethnicities etc. To remain respectable you must deny what is very evident to everyone. That is where the book should start.