Featured Articles

The Esthetic Prop Revisited

Finnish girls (2014)

In Wilmot Robertson’s watershed book The Dispossessed Majority (1972), in the chapter titled “The Esthetic Prop,”[1] he describes the Esthetic Prop, which he associates most closely with the “Nordic physical ideal,” as a “genetic resource” and “an enduring, deeply-ingrained esthetic preference on the part of most Americans.”[2] It is also a source of White (i.e., European) racial feeling and allegiance and one of the few remaining props supporting the White position:

It is the…Esthetic Prop which helps the American [White] Majority to hold on to the trappings, but not the substance, of its former power. Only in the sector of esthetics, through the pervasiveness of the idealized Nordic [i.e., Northern European] biological type and its continued acceptance as the national template of physical charm and attractiveness, has the Majority been able to mount a small but successful holding action in the present racial melee.[3]

In the nearly half century since these words were written our racial position has continued to deteriorate, becoming identified ever more clearly and correctly as an existential life and death struggle. The causes of White dispossession, replacement and destruction — multiracialism (euphemistically called “diversity”), non-White immigration and racial intermixture — have continued to worsen as intended, promoted and enforced by the dominant anti-White establishment, which define this process as “progress” and any pro-White opposition to it as “racism.” In this growing darkness Robertson’s words point us toward a still active beacon of light which has been given too little consideration. We should give new heed to what his words clearly suggest: that the Esthetic Prop is a latent source of power that could and should be activated to help our cause.

Can the beauty of our race play a role in our racial salvation, in preventing our racial destruction? Could the beauty of our race provide a significant source of inspiration and motivation for racial preservation and resistance to racial destruction, i.e., motivation for its preservation and resistance to its destruction? Does it have such power? That depends on the extent it is valued, appreciated and loved, not taken for granted as an unchangeable and unthreatened part of our surroundings, and the extent to which the connection between that beauty and the race to which it belongs, and the growing danger to the continued existence of both, is understood. When that connection is made and understood, as Robertson suggests, the beauty of our race is a source of inspiration and motivation, and so of strength and power, that gives us another reason — an obvious and undeniable reason — to value, care about and love our race, to want it to live and continue to exist, and to recognize and oppose the causes of its destruction. Read more

Silence Means Violence: How Censorship Leads Inexorably to Dead Whites

Another day in Brave New Britain, another Muslim rape-gang is convicted and another set of ugly, alien, melanin-enriched faces stare out from news-reports. But not for long. As Douglas Murray spotted in 2018, the leftist media are now determined that these stories should disappear as soon as possible. After all, in 2017 a White idiot called Darren Osborne drove a car at worshippers outside a mosque in London, killing one man and injuring twelve others because he had been “radicalized” by Tommy Robinson and angered by a BBC drama about Muslim “grooming gangs” in the Lancashire town of Rochdale.

The ugly, alien, melanin-enriched faces of a Muslim rape-gang from Rotherham

That, for leftists, was proof that the choice for society is clear: it’s either silence or violence. Either we cover up Muslim imperfections as much as possible or evil, bigoted Whites will rise up and kill Muslims. The Sudanese-British journalist Nesrine Malik has laid out the official line in the Guardian and attacked “The myth of the free speech crisis.” According to Malik, free speech must be used only for “challenging upwards,” not for “punching downwards” and “attacking the weak and persecuted.” She asserts that “Our alleged free speech crisis was never really about free speech. The backdrop to the myth is rising anti-immigration sentiment and Islamophobia. Free-speech-crisis advocates always seem to have an agenda. They overwhelmingly wanted to exercise their freedom of speech in order to agitate against minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims.”

Nesrine Malik Is Punching Up At You

So shut up, you White male bigots! If you criticize non-Whites, you’re punching down and should be silenced. If non-Whites criticize you, they’re punching up and should be celebrated. What could be simpler? But I see a big flaw in Nesrine Malik’s arguments on behalf of “minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims.” Although she is definitely on the side of Muslims and immigrants, I don’t think she is on the side of women. Darren Osborne, who came from the White majority, killed one Muslim from the non-White minority. But it’s clear that non-Whites are far more likely to kill and otherwise harm Whites than vice versa.

“Groomed” at 12, murdered at 17

Non-Whites are a particular danger to White women. As the judge at the most recent rape-gang trial has said, the Labour council and police in Rotherham “had been aware vulnerable teenagers in [Rotherham] were being targeted for sexual exploitation more than a decade ago.” The council and police decided that silence and censorship were the best responses to the flourishing rape-culture of Muslims. And so a White girl called Laura Wilson was “groomed” for sex at the age of 12, then brutally murdered by two Muslim men at the age of 17. She was stabbed repeatedly, then thrown into a canal to die.

In Telford, another small English town heavily enriched by Muslims, the same pattern played out. The authorities preferred silence and censorship about Muslim rape-gangs, not publicity and prosecution. And so a White girl called Lucy Lowe was “groomed” at 13 and murdered at 16 along with her mother and 17-year-old sister. They were burned alive when a Muslim called Azhar Ali Mehmood set fire to their house. Wherever Muslims and other non-Whites have emigrated in the West, they have murdered Whites and wrecked the lives of White girls and women. This has been going on for decades and the response of the authorities has always been the same: silence and censorship.

Rape-culture in Sudan

The internet began to change that, allowing Whites to discuss and challenge the pathologies introduced to their nations by mass immigration. But Nesrine Malik and other leftists hate that free discussion. They want silence and censorship to reign again. Yes, non-Whites must be allowed to criticise Whites openly and endlessly, but Whites cannot be allowed to criticize non-Whites. After all, I’m such a bigot that I think Sudanese immigrants like Nesrine Malik are bad for the West. And the only things I’ve got on my side are facts and endless stories of crimes committed by Sudanese people. For example, rape-culture is so bad in Sudan that both men and women were raped by security forces during recent unrest in the capital Khartoum. And it’s not surprising that Sudanese bring their rape-culture with them when they emigrate to the West. A Sudanese rapist left a woman with “horrific life-changing injuries, including a ‘shattered’ skull and bleeding to the brain” in the English city of Leicester in 2018. And three Sudanese “asylum seekers” committed a gang-rape in Huddersfield in the same year. In 2019, another Sudanese “asylum seeker” improved on that vibrant tradition by “savagely murder[ing] a 21-year-old [White] woman” in Leeds “after she refused to have sex with him.”

Nesrine Malik poses as a feminist, but does not discuss stories like that or explore the way in which emigration from Third-World countries with violent, misogynist cultures will inevitably mean raped, maimed and murdered White women in the First World. After all, exposing Sudanese rape-culture would be “punching downwards” and “attacking the weak and persecuted.” And let’s be fair: Sudanese culture isn’t just about rape. Steve Sailer has chronicled how Sudanese emigrants have enriched Australia with violent crime and gang warfare. And an enterprising Sudanese mother and son have defrauded Australian tax-payers of six million dollars. You can find lots more stories of the vibrancy Sudanese emigrants have brought to the West. That’s why I reach the bigoted conclusion that they aren’t good for the West and should go back where they came from.

Lucrative careers of anti-White agitation

Nesrine Malik won’t agree, of course. She doesn’t want to go back to Sudan because it’s what Donald Trump would hatefully — and accurately — call “a shithole.” The natives of Sudan have low average intelligence and the only things that flourish there are corruption, oppression and violence. Although Malik herself is from the right-hand side of the Sudanese bell-curve, she isn’t an original or interesting writer. Nor is Afua Hirsch, a half-Jewish, half-Ghanaian Guardian journalist who pursues the same lucrative career of endlessly criticizing Whites, blaming White racism for all non-White failure, and demanding that Whites be censored and silenced.

Half-Black, Half-Jew, Afua Hirsch Is Hating You

The White journalist Rod Liddle, a fearless anti-PC warrior and unashamed Islamophobe, has noted that many people “are sick to the back teeth of this egregious illiberal shite, this closing down of debate, this hair-trigger sensitivity.” But Liddle has never discussed where “this egregious illiberal shite” came from. To do that he would have to break a strict taboo of his own and criticize the only minority that he himself regards as sacred. But let’s do what anti-PC warriors like Rod Liddle and Mark Steyn never do. Let’s ask a simple question: Who wrote the anti-White script for unoriginal, uninspired non-White journalists like Nesrine Malik and Afua Hirsch?

Britain’s Chief Rabbi answered that question in 2007:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

Arch-Anti-Semite Jonathan Sacks with Tony Blair

“The progress began with Jews,” according to the arch-anti-semite Jonathan Sacks. He’s right. But it’s precisely because Jews are the originators of “this egregious illiberal shite, this closing down of debate, this hair-trigger sensitivity” that so few people will dare to say so. Jews devised and popularized “identity politics” for their own benefit: to undermine White society and to place themselves beyond criticism. Jews are a tiny minority who wield huge financial, political and cultural power. That’s why they want to place themselves beyond scrutiny and criticism. Power that can’t be discussed is also power that can’t be challenged. Jews believe fervently in minority-worship because they see themselves as the supreme minority.

A never-ending blood-tax

And by forcing Whites to tolerate the pathologies of Muslims and other non-Whites, they reassure themselves that Whites are passive and will not act in their own interests. To Jews, the deaths of Laura Wilson, Lucy Lowe, Mary-Ann Leneghan, Christina Edkins, Kriss Donald and countless other White men, women and children are a small price to pay for Jewish peace-of-mind. Indeed, they’re not a price at all, because Jews aren’t paying it.

The ADL Are Censoring You

To me those deaths are an intolerable price, a never-ending blood-tax on Whites who never voted for mass immigration and have consistently opposed the invasion and colonization of their homelands. As the hate-blogger Chateau Heartiste points out: “Diversity + Promixity = War.” Nesrine Malik would no doubt be delighted to learn that Heartiste was thrown off WordPress as part of the on-going purge of hate. But this is because “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.” And the biggest haters of truth are Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America, the Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain and the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA) in France.

Pro-White views are very bad news

It’s no surprise that those Jewish organizations are also dedicated supporters of mass immigration by anti-White, pro-censorship non-Whites like Nesrine Malik. Free speech is a rare and fragile phenomenon that was created very recently by White men in north-western Europe. It depends on a unique combination of intelligence, objectivity, humility and self-control. Unlike White science and White technology, free speech has never been successfully exported to the non-White world — not to high-IQ China and certainly not to low-IQ Sudan.

And when the non-White world comes flooding into the White world, free speech inevitably begins to die. With free speech, Whites can defend their own interests and resist the destruction of their nations. Without it, they’re disarmed and helpless. That’s precisely why those who hate Whites also hate free speech. Nesrine Malik is an obvious example, but she’s a symptom of the death of free speech, not a cause. For the cause, you need to look at the ADL, CST and LICRA. To Jews, pro-White views are very bad news.

A Race War Prophecy

Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War
Guillaume Faye
Arktos, 2019.

“A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves.”

                                                         Guillaume Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse

The celebrated French far-Right intellectual Guillaume Faye passed away in March, after a long battle with cancer, but not before leaving us a literary parting shot that deserves to be a bestseller. In his final book, Faye explores the demographic, cultural, political, and military degradation of France, drawing sobering lessons for the West as a whole. The book makes a number of stark and terrifying predictions that, when all current trends are taken into consideration, have an overwhelming probability of coming to fruition. Foremost among these predictions is that the West is now almost certainly destined to convulse with a savage and intense civil war (both civil and internal, both religious and racial) without parallel in the history of mankind. With all the dark candour one might expect from a dying man with nothing else to lose, Ethnic Apocalypse, or as it was published in French Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War), is perhaps the most brutally frank, bitterly scathing, and searingly honest accounts of the current trajectory of the multicultural West that I’ve ever come across. The reader searches the text for euphemism, finding none. There are no evasions here; no duplicity in nomenclature. Faye doesn’t speak of cultural differences, or religious incompatibilities. He has little time for talk of assimilation and integration. The problem, he declares, “is neither ideological nor even religious in nature, but, in fact, anthropological. And so is the solution. The coming war will involve people who have nothing to say to one another and who should never have been made to live together.”[1] A little over 50 years after Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Faye’s book is both a nod to Powell’s prescience, and a chronicle of the nascent ebbs and waves of a crimson tide that now seems fated to engulf us all. Read more

White-Latino Relations in America’s Southwest: Why a Paradox of Race Relations Is a Sign of Growing Political Polarization

Last year’s midterm election results were hardly unusual for a party holding the presidency. Similar electoral setbacks had occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But this one was portrayed as if it were somehow unique — an explicit rejection of President Trump’s nationalist and anti-immigration policies.

For some, the electoral losses in Orange County, California were particularly galling. “You want to see the future? Look no further than the demographic death spiral in the place once considered a cornerstone of the party,” wrote one GOP strategist.

In a state that had once launched the careers of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, Republicans had fought the rising tide of demographic change and were crushed, they said. Now the GOP was repeating the same mistake on the national stage.

Such arguments are not new. They have long been a staple of establishment Republicans who support the corporate open borders agenda. They also represent a fundamental misunderstanding what is happening in the American Southwest.

California, New Mexico, and the region’s other states are not trending left solely (or even primarily) because of Republican intransigence on immigration. They are trending left because of larger socioeconomic trends and migratory patterns that may lead to America’s eventual dissolution.

The Southwest Paradox

For any close observer of race relations, the politics of California and the Southwest must be puzzling. Extensive research on the 2016 election found close links between White attitudes toward race and immigration and support for Donald Trump. Other research has found a similar link between these attitudes and greater awareness of demographic change, with close physical proximity to Latinos playing an important contributing role.

Given the breadth of this evidence, recent general election results in America’s Southwest seem incomprehensible. These states — defined for our purposes as including California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — all have large and growing Latino populations, but their White populations have responded not by shifting right, but to the left.

Some observers, such as Ron Unz of The Unz Review, have noted this unexpected trend in race relations and concluded that those who argue that increased diversity will eventually tear the country apart are simply wrong. According to Unz, the Dissident Right has erred by treating White-Latino relations as if they are the same as White-Black relations. There is ample evidence that proximity to Blacks has produced a significant backlash among Whites in places like the old South, but there appears to be less evidence of a similar backlash to Latinos. Unz attributes this difference, at least in part, to lower Latino crime rates and greater mutual understanding once Whites get to know their Latino neighbors better.

“With such a large fraction of our immigrant population living in states displaying such negligible levels of nativist rancor,” he wrote, “the likelihood that today’s immigration controversy at the national level will produce any long-lasting negative consequences seems very low to me.”

Is Unz right? Will America’s Latino population simply follow in the footsteps of previous generations of immigrants by assimilating and contributing to America’s culture and growth? Are the Dissident Right’s fears irrational and unfounded, as the left and corporate elite keep assuring us?

The answer is no. The extensive research on this subject is not wrong. The Southwest Paradox is merely an artifact of larger socioeconomic forces.

Solving the Paradox

To understand why, first consider a related paradox. If one were to closely examine White voting patterns across the United States, it would be natural to assume — consistent with the experimental research — that Whites who live in highly diverse neighborhoods would be more likely to react negatively and become more conservative. But this is not true. Whites who live in diverse neighborhoods are not more conservative than other Whites, they are usually more liberal. The primary reason for this is uncomplicated: White flight.

The research on White flight has shown a common recurring pattern. When minorities first move into a White neighborhood, the reaction among Whites is only mildly negative at first, but after diversity rises above a certain tipping point — believed to be around 25 percent for Latinos — White flight begins in earnest. In general, the Whites who move first are the most ethnocentric and/or most likely to be adversely affected (often families with children). Their departure causes the neighborhood to become less White, which in turn causes more Whites to leave (and others to avoid moving in). This process produces a cascading effect that usually transforms the neighborhood within a few years.

After this process has played out, such neighborhoods will often retain a small White population, but it is usually one that is more tolerant of diversity or more able to protect itself through higher housing prices, gated communities, and private schools. The pattern is similar for Whites in gentrifying urban neighborhoods. In each case, the demographic profile of such Whites is fairly consistent — they tend to be disproportionately liberal, single, and childless. Depending on the neighborhood, they often have higher incomes and are more likely to have a college degree. These are the Whites who are responsible for the seemingly paradoxical result of Whites living in more diverse neighborhoods being more liberal.

The political effects of White flight and gentrification are reasonably well understood, but it is becoming increasingly clear that interstate migration is playing a similar role. This phenomenon was first noted in the popular press by Bill Bishop, author of an influential book on the subject called The Big Sort, which attributed much the nation’s growing political divide to differences in where we choose to live. Although Bishop’s methodology was criticized, his conclusions were substantially confirmed by other academic research. The only real disagreements were not over whether it was happening, but why.

Some, like Richard Florida, have focused on the migratory patterns of college-educated Whites — specifically what he calls the “creative class” — who are disproportionately moving to a select number of cosmopolitan regions and states for economic reasons. Others have cited the departure of more conservative working-class Whites from these same areas, often because of rising costs of living. Still others have highlighted more explicitly political reasons or other lifestyle choices that produce the same net effect.

Whatever the reasons (probably a combination of the above), the resulting demographics look a lot like those produced by White flight. Just like the Whites who live in more diverse neighborhoods, the Whites who live in more cosmopolitan cities and states tend to be more liberal, better educated, less religious, and disproportionately unmarried and childless. Nearly every state in America’s Southwest exhibits these same traits.

These demographic changes have helped nudge southwestern states to the left, but the trend has also been reinforced by another recent political development. The “Great Awokening,” a sharp left turn in the racial attitudes of college-educated White liberals over the past few years, has further accelerated the leftward drift of Whites living in the nation’s more cosmopolitan regions.

Given this increase in White wokeness, a final contributor is noteworthy for its implied hypocrisy. Despite the Southwest’s purported reputation for benign White-Latino relations, these states rank among the most segregated in the country. Racial segregation is growing not just in more conservative places like suburban Dallas, but also liberal cities like Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. According to a study by UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, the two states where Latinos are least likely to attend a majority White public school are liberal New Mexico and California respectively.

The Impact of Latinos on White Voting

Taken together, these trends suggest that the liberalism of America’s Southwest is not due to more amicable relations between its White and Latino populations. Instead, they are the accidental byproduct of larger social factors that have offset and concealed the negative effects.

To confirm this hypothesis, we turn to a large, publicly available survey data set housed at Harvard called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). This survey was administered to over 60,000 individuals in 2016, over half of whom voted and were White. Each survey respondent was also geo-coded, which allows the incorporation of state, county, and local (zip code) variables such as local levels of diversity and other demographics from the Census Bureau.

The full multivariate regression results can be found at the bottom of this article, but the top-line results are straightforward. In general, after controlling for a wide variety of other factors such as gender, marriage, religion, and education, the analysis finds that Whites who live in more diverse states were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, with proximity to Latinos having roughly half the impact of proximity to Blacks. (The effects of living close to Asians and Native Americans were statistically insignificant).

These effects are not uniform, however.  As suggested by similar studies, Whites who live in heavily diverse zip codes (Black or Latino) tend to be more liberal and were thus more likely to vote against Trump. By contrast, Whites who lived outside of heavily Latino neighborhoods, either elsewhere in the same county or the same state, were more conservative and more likely to vote for Trump. These results demonstrate the variable effects of White flight.

Altogether, the combined effects — state, county, and zip code — shifted the White vote toward Trump by about one percent for every 6 percentage points of Latinos in a state’s population. In California, for example, where Latinos comprised 38% of the population in 2016, the model estimates that White Californians shifted right by about 6 percent from where they otherwise would have been based on their education and other demographic factors.

Importantly, however, these are average effects. A more detailed state-level analysis shows that in the Whitest states there were no county or state-level effects. The impact was strictly local, with growing local Latino populations causing Whites to become more conservative, a common pre-White flight result.

At the other end of the demographic spectrum in heavily Latino states, state level pro-Trump effects do not appear until a state’s Latino population approaches 20 percent. They peak at 30 percent (Arizona), and begin to decline after that (Texas, California, and New Mexico). This suggests that states with the largest Latino populations are starting to experience the same liberalizing White flight effects that are found in the nation’s most diverse zip codes.

The analysis also sheds light on why the politics of America’s Southwest are so different from the similarly diverse South. Whites in the South are conservative in part because of the presence of large Black populations, but they are also more conservative because their White populations are much more religiously conservative.

The migration patterns that helped make California and the Southwest more liberal are also having the reverse effect in the South. States like Alabama and Mississippi draw relatively few college-educated White liberals from elsewhere in the country. Unsurprisingly, the few exceptions to this rule (places like Atlanta or North Carolina’s Research Triangle) have politics that more closely resemble the Southwest.

Two Americas

If our analysis stopped here, the conclusions would be only mildly interesting. Yes, the seemingly benign White-Latino race relations in the Southwest are largely illusory, the incidental byproduct of larger interstate migration patterns, but so what? The politics of these states are still trending left, no matter what the cause. How does this change the conclusion that Trumpism is a losing political proposition in the long run?

The answer can be found by stepping back from a narrow examination of trends in the Southwest and instead looking at the nation as a whole. The Whites who flee or avoid moving to these states have not disappeared into the ether. They have simply chosen to live elsewhere and, in the process, made the rest of the nation more conservative.

The following map shows White voting trends from 2000 to 2016, two comparable election years when the GOP won the presidency but narrowly lost the popular vote. As expected, the map shows Whites in the Southwest and on the West Coast trending left over this period. But it also shows Whites in much of the rest of the country shifting to the right. This rightward trend includes the midwestern states that helped elect Donald Trump. It also shows a substantial rightward shift even in the liberal Northeast, where Whites in states like New Jersey, New York, and much of New England have also been moving sharply to the right.

This is a story that one almost never hears from the mainstream media. There are countless articles concern trolling the GOP for its losses in more diverse states like California, but there is almost nothing written about the rightward drift of the rest of White America.

These trends are two sides of the same coin and they point to a very different conclusion. This is not the story of Republicans or the Dissident Right waging a losing demographic battle. It is the story of a nation that is slowly, but inexorably, becoming more divided along racial and geographic lines. (See The Racial Realignment of American Politics).

To anyone even vaguely familiar with the larger literature on ethnic conflict, this pattern is completely predictable. The fact that there is not even a hint of the dangers in the mainstream media despite obvious lessons from conflicts in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Darfur only demonstrates the establishment’s control over the media narrative. The warning lights are flashing red all around us — and we are flying directly into the coming storm.

Patrick McDermott is a political analyst in Washington, DC.

Labour’s Fictitious Anti-Semitism Problem

A supposed problem

According to much of the British media, Labour has had an ‘anti-Semitism problem’ since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015. The more impartial headlines call it a controversy or a set of claims. Corbyn critics speak of a crisis while his supporters complain of a witch-hunt.

As with any claim of anti-Semitism, the accusers refer to one or both of two things: that the party is racist towards some or all Jews, or that it is critical of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, in ways that it would not be of any other country.

Why use that term?

For Labour to be racist toward Jews would be strange. One would think that such a tendency would alienate the Jews deeply embedded and strongly over-represented within Corbyn’s Labour. Three of the four founders of the Corbyn-backing Momentum organisation — John Lansmann (no stranger to denouncing people for racism), Adam Klug and James Schneider — are Jewish, as are prominent Corbynist activists like Max Shanly. Several organisations supporting Labour, especially since Corbyn became leader, are Jewish, such as Jewish Voice for Labour and Jewdas. None of these, nor any of the many signatories to public letters supporting Corbyn against his critics, seem to have found any troubling signs that they are in fact supporting a party that quietly despises them and all their kind, whether defined by faith, ancestry or anything else. Several Jewish leftists, not unconcerned with racism against their own group, have examined the claims in good faith and at great length and found no particular problem in Labour [1]. Soon after the controversy first ‘erupted’ (though we can fairly doubt its spontaneity) following a re-tweet by Labour MP Naz Shah in 2016, Jamie Stern-Weiner wrote an article exhaustively demonstrating the alacrity with which the party excluded those who showed actual racial antipathy [2].

Nor is Labour’s opposition to Israel based on the country’s Jewishness. In a book claiming to explain ‘The Left’s Jewish Problem’ but actually almost entirely concerned with leftist opposition to the Israeli state, Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust showed clearly enough why leftists like Corbyn oppose Israel — because they see it as an outpost of Western imperialism and capitalism which oppresses, displaces and kills Palestinian Arabs who, until the last century, had dominated the region for centuries. The leftist position is consistent with their worldview, and that worldview is not founded on racial hatred.

If they were only referring to racism against Jews, opponents of anti-Semitism would use a more rational term like Judeophobia or anti-Jewishness. But those who defend Israel know that they are defending actions which they would reject if carried out by other, genuinely Western states and thus find it politically useful to use one term, ‘anti-Semitism’, which enables them to conflate criticism of the state with attacks on the people it claims to represent. [3] Read more

Human Pre-History and the Making of the Races, Part 2: Genetic Distances

Confirmation by modern genetic studies of the traditional racial classification categories

What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races, indicating their relationships? Perhaps the best global scale study to date on this subject is still that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury from Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale (1993). Subsequent studies, which have included increasing numbers of alleles but have usually been regional rather than global in scale, have been consistent with Nei and Roychoudhury’s results. The following table (Fig. 1 below) of estimates of genetic differences between human populations is from their study.

Read more

Human Pre-History and the Making of the Races, Part 1

Since the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race there has been an increasing tendency to claim, based on Boasian anthropology and in promotion of a multiracialist agenda, that the human races are “socially constructed” and their existence is not supported by science, meaning not biologically and genetically real. This essay is an account, consistent with current scientific knowledge, of how the human races we know historically and today were really constructed.

The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence — the process of divergent evolution — to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.

Divergent evolution is the process by which new life forms are created by the division and separation of life into different branches. Human evolution has seen its share of divergent branching. The generic name commonly used to refer to the genetically different populations—that share a common biological ancestry that distinguishes them from other populations — is race. But in the human species, as in any species enjoying a great degree of variety, the constant branching and dividing that characterize the process of divergent evolution have created many different divisions, each of which possesses a genetic signature which distinguishes it from other divisions at the same level. For purposes of taxonomic accuracy each of these levels should have its own specific name and definition. The first or highest level is the species, and it is simply and objectively defined as including all those populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fully fertile offspring. The term race is commonly used to refer to a branch or division of the species possessing genetically transmitted physical traits (e.g., skin color) which distinguish it from other branches or divisions of the same level. Adding to this definition, it will here also be defined as including only those persons who are capable of reproduction with each other without alteration of the racially-distinctive genetic traits of either parent stock; that is, the genetically transmitted traits which distinguish a race from other divisions at the same level (i.e., other races) should not be diminished or lost by reproduction within the race. If racially-distinctive traits are lost or diminished by within-group reproduction then the population group is at a level of division too broad and inclusive to be accurately defined as a race. If it is too narrow to be defined as a species, as it does not include all those populations capable of interbreeding, then it is at a level between race and species, which will here be referred to as a subspecies. Read more