Can humans distinguish subtle genetic differences, even within the immediate family?  Apparently, grandmothers can do so, as explained in Molly Fox, et al., Grandma plays favourites: X-chromosome relatedness and sex-specific childhood mortality, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, in October of last year. The story is an excellent example of how evolutionary thinking sheds light on human behavior. As J. Philippe Rushton has theorized, the genes really do matter. People who share a greater percentage of genes favor each other compared to people with less genetic overlap.

The “grandmother hypothesis” has been invoked to explain why women live several decades past the end of their reproductive years.  Older, post-menopausal women can enhance their biological fitness by contributing to the survivability of their grandchildren, since there is significant genetic relatedness between grandparent-grandchildren.  Thus, the grandmother hypothesis suggests that a long post-reproductive lifespan for human women evolved because of the adaptive value of assisting in the care of their children’s children.

However, due to the specific mechanisms of the inheritance of the sex chromosomes, the genetic relatedness of grandmother to grandchild will differ depending on whether the grandchild is a boy or a girl, and whether the grandmother is the paternal grandmother (father’s mother) or maternal grandmother (mother’s mother).  Let me explain.

Girls have two X chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father, while boys have one X chromosome (from the mother) and one Y chromosome (from the father).  These X and Y chromosomes are, in turn, inherited from the grandparents.   

Let us consider a maternal grandmother. She has two X chromosomes.  One of these two X’s will be passed on to her daughter (the mother); thus the probability that any specific X chromosome gene will be passed from maternal grandmother to mother is 0.5. (See Figure.)

The figure shows that a paternal grandmother (PGM) is more closely related to her granddaughter because the granddaughter carries a more or less exact replica of one of her X Chromosomes (the blue X chromosome in the figure) while her grandson carries neither or her X Chromosomes. Theoretically, she should prefer her granddaughter to her grandson. The maternal grandmother  (MGM) is equally related to grandson and granddaughter, so she should not show favoritism. The chromosomes with red and black parts result from recombination (crossover) during meiosis.

The mother has two X chromosomes herself, so the probability of the mother passing any specific X chromosome gene to either a boy or a girl child is likewise 0.5.  Therefore, the probability of any specific X chromosome gene being passed on from a maternal grandmother to a grandchild is 0.25 (0.5 x 0.5).  From the standpoint of the maternal grandmother, there is no difference between grandson and granddaughter in X-chromosome relatedness and, hence, approximate overall genetic relatedness.

The situation is markedly different for a paternal grandmother, the mother of the grandchildren’s father.  Again, she has two X chromosomes, one which can be passed on to her son (the father); thus, there is a 0.5 chance of any X-chromosome gene being passed from paternal grandmother to father.  However, the father has only that one X chromosome to be passed on to his own children. If he has a girl (granddaughter), there is a probability of 100% (1.0) that his X chromosome is passed on to his daughter; therefore, one of the two X chromosomes in that girl must be derived from the paternal grandmother.

[adrotate group=”1″]

What about the grandson of a paternal grandmother?  His only X chromosome comes from his mother, not his father.  Therefore, the paternal grandmother does not contribute an X chromosome to a grandson, implying an X-chromosome relatedness of 0.

Therefore (and this is the important point), a paternal grandmother, all else being equal, is genetically less related to a grandson than to a granddaughter, and less related to a grandson than is a maternal grandmother.  Conversely, a paternal grandmother likely is more genetically related to a granddaughter than is a maternal grandmother, given the certainty that the granddaughter possesses an X chromosome from the paternal grandmother.

Further, genetic recombination between the X and Y chromosomes in the formation of sperm is very limited, meaning that a granddaughter inherits from her paternal grandmother a more or less “intact” X chromosome. On the other hand, the X chromosome inherited from the maternal grandmother will contain some amount of genes from the maternal grandfather, due to the extensive recombination between X chromosomes that occurs during the formation of the human egg.

The bottom line is that the highest degree of genetic relatedness is most likely to be between paternal grandmother and granddaughter, the least between paternal grandmother and grandson, with maternal grandmother-grandchildren exhibiting more intermediate levels of relatedness. (See Figure above.)

The authors of this study hypothesized that grandmothers’ investment in their grandchildren would mirror the relative genetic relatedness.  They analyzed the effect of the presence of paternal or maternal grandmothers, in the grandchildren’s household or in the grandchildren’s village, to childhood survivability/mortality.  The data were obtained from seven populations: Japan, Germany, England, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Malawi, and Canada dating in some cases as far back as the 17^th century (when available) and extending to the 21st century.

The findings are remarkable.  The presence of the paternal grandmother was detrimental to the survivorship of grandsons.  In six out of the seven populations (Gambia being the exception) the presence of the paternal grandmother was better for girls than for boys.  In all populations, boys survived better with the maternal, as opposed to the paternal, grandmother; in four out of the seven populations, girls survived better with the paternal, as opposed to the maternal, grandmother.  The findings essentially support the authors’ fundamental hypothesis.

What can be the mechanism behind this phenomenon?  Here the authors speculate that a “behavioral adaption” may cause women to favor grandchildren of a specific sex; alternatively, the grandchildren may be sending out “signals” that represent relative genetic relatedness (e.g., physical resemblance, pheromones, etc.).

The authors unfortunately tend to dismiss a behavioral mechanism based upon negative results of “questionnaires” that did not observe a relationship between preferential care and genetic relatedness. However, in my opinion, these sorts of social science analyses are very weak and highly dependent upon the types of questions asked and the honesty of those answering the questions.

The authors instead propose a purely genetic explanation in that genes related to phenotypes influencing fitness are likely found on the X chromosome and thus variation in the inheritance of these genes between grandmother and grandchild can influence survivability.  For example, if the paternal grandmother carries particularly helpful genes on her X chromosome, these would be present in the granddaughter, enhancing survivability, and absent in the grandson, depressing survivability.  However, this explanation, and the related one involving “epigenetic modifications” of X chromosome genes inherited from the paternal grandmother to granddaughter, do not explain why the presence of one or the other grandmother should have such a marked effect on childhood outcomes and why the presence of the paternal grandmother actually seems detrimental to grandson survivability.

I believe that the social science “questionnaire data” do not eliminate the possibility of a behavioral mechanism predicated on the ability of the grandmothers to somehow become aware of the differing levels of genetic relatedness of the grandchildren.  I do not suggest any sort of conscious activity — “that grandson of mine is less related to me than his sister, so I’ll ignore him and help her.”

On the contrary, similar to J.P Rushton’s “genetic similarity theory” (GST) of which this phenomenon is likely a variant, the grandmothers’ perception of genetic relatedness is probably more on the unconscious level; there is a greater attraction to and affinity for the more genetically related paternal granddaughter, resulting in a greater investment. Likewise, there may be a subconscious aversion towards a paternal grandson which results in a more careless attitude toward care and provisioning.  Averaged over large numbers of people, these subtle differences in behavior would result in variant levels of childhood survivorship vs. mortality.  How exactly the genetic differences are being unconsciously detected is as yet unknown.

Related to this, and also likely associated with GST, is a fascinating analysis from the laboratory of Neil Risch, who is one of the few population geneticists honest about the biological reality of race (Risch et al., Ancestry-related assortative mating in Latino populations, Genome Biology, doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-11-r132).  Risch and colleagues set out to determine whether there was any correlation between the ancestral proportions of spouses in either Mexican or Puerto Rican populations.  Assortative mating (like with like) is a proven phenomenon, based on a number of characteristics, including physical appearance, behavior, and other biological attributes.  Hispanic populations are well suited for analyzing whether genetic ancestry influences mate choice, since “Latino” groups are heavily admixed and exhibit a wide range of ancestries within single ethnic-national-cultural groups.  Both Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are significantly triracial (European-sub-Saharan African-Amerindian), with Mexicans characterized by greater Amerindian and minor African admixture, and Puerto Ricans by significant African and somewhat lower, but still significant, Amerindian ancestry.  Socioeconomic status (SES) and geographical origin (Mexico/Puerto Rico or the USA) of the study participants was controlled for, strengthening the findings.

Risch et al. discovered was that among Mexicans there is a strong correlation between spousal European and Native American, but not African, ancestry; in other words, Mexican husbands and wives are well matched in percent European and Native American ancestry, significantly beyond random chance.  African ancestry does not correlate significantly in Mexican spouses.  For Puerto Ricans, the spousal correlations were significant for European and African, but not Amerindian, ancestry.

It seems that Mexicans are somehow gauging the Amerindian admixture in their potential mates, while Puerto Ricans concentrate on matching levels of African ancestry.

Analysis of the distribution of gene alleles within and between individuals strongly suggests that this “like with like” mating has been going on for quite some time, and possibly was more pronounced in previous generations than today.  Given that SES and geographical origin do not seem to play any roles in markers of ancestry, what is the mechanism by which this assortative mating takes place?

Obviously, physical features can serve as a proxy for ancestry; therefore, perhaps, Latinos are hooking up with each other based upon who “looks Whiter” or “looks more Amerindian or African.”  However, the authors note that to achieve the fairly high correlations of husband-wife ancestry, a very marked association between physical traits and genetic ancestral proportions is required.  The problem is that previous studies of Latin American groups have not shown genotype-phenotype associations of the required levels.  Therefore, it is unlikely that physical appearance alone can suffice as an explanation.

Perhaps a number of different factors, including appearance, acting in concert can have a synergistic effect on ancestral identification for assortative mating. One must remember that a number of “Latino” cultures have historically prized higher degrees of White ancestry, and perhaps older family members “advertise” their “whiteness” so as to attract the “right sort” of mates for the younger generation.

Both the grandmother and Latino assortative mating stories are of relevance to us because they describe real-life examples of GST-like behavior. They show the ability of individuals to, at some level, recognize relative differences in genetic similarity.

This obviously has bearing on the recognition of ethnic kin in multiracial, multicultural societies, and the propensity to favor such kin, either consciously or unconsciously.  One may speculate that if people can perceive relative genetic ancestry via some sets of cues, and if this influences behavior, then this may explain some of the costs of diversity, including lower levels of societal investment.

Indeed, given that these studies suggest the ability to distinguish genetic differences even within immediate families, it is plausible that differences in ethnic kinship within single ethnic groups can determine societal harmony and progress.  For example, one would expect that ethnic-national groups that are relatively genetically homogenous would exhibit higher degrees of investment in collective goods, such as public health insurance. On the other hand, ethnic-national groups that are more genetically heterogeneous, for whatever reason, would exhibit less societal investment and more focus on the family unit and extended kin relationships.

The possibility that relative genetic homogeneity could be part of the explanation for differences in social structure and public goods investment in different European nations is a provocative hypothesis.  It is also possible that different ethnic and racial groups exhibit these sorts of behaviors to different degrees; more ethnocentric peoples may be better at detecting subtle differences in genetic kinship than those who are more tolerant.

And what if the mechanism behind the Fox and Risch findings is discovered? Will those opposed to our people’s survival attempt to find ways of short-circuiting this mechanism, perhaps even to misdirect it so as to make Westerners favor aliens over kin to an even greater extent than they already do? Conversely, can we use these discoveries to our advantage?  Only time will tell.

Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.

We’re never far from money. We spend most of our time and energy in quest of money.

But how did this thing become an intermediary between us and the world around us? Before money, we bartered. Why did money supplant barter and who is custodian of the money system?

These questions are dangerous: they cost Ezra Pound twelve years. Pound was a victim of political persecution at the behest of financiers and their minions like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These people feared Ezra because he asked “what is money for,” and came up with an inconvenient answer.

Pound understood that money is ticket for exchange. People who make thingscan trade more easily with other people who make things using money. There should only be as much money as there are things to trade. Another way of saying this is: money supply should increase and decrease along with the change in economic output.

Here’s the rub. If money supply grows faster than the amount of things made, then theft is taking place. The thief creates extraneous dollars and spends them first: at the time when the rest of us expect a dollar to be worth a certain amount. By the time the thief’s dollars have been absorbed into the economy, we notice our dollars are buying less. This is inflation. The thief has dipped into our savings and traded with shoddy bills.

What happens when money supply shrinks compared to things made? Then a new characteristic of money emerges. Things made don’t always last — take bread for instance. A baker must sell his bread in a matter of days, otherwise it’s lost. Money isn’t bound by such considerations. A thief can horde money until the baker’s goods rot, then buy his bakery at a huge discount.  

The “thief” in both these examples holds a special place in society: he controls the supply of money and “future money” called credit. Controlling money supply is economic power; it is a sovereign privilege. The people who really control a nation control its money supply.

Pound’s criticism of the financial class was that they were bad sovereigns. They managed money supply for their own benefit: they were thieves. In contrast, the Founding Fathers were good rulers because they designed a system where Congress managed the money supply; and Congress was answerable to a large swathe of the population.

Pound identified the grasping, vampire-like nature of international finance, and the venal nature of its supporters in national governments.He was interested in finding ways to systematically limit their power: perfecting what the Founding Fathers started in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. This is why Pound studied in the work of Silvio Gesell.

One of Gesell’s ideas was to eliminate the disparity between money and perishable goods. A way to do this is to discount large bills over time: holders of large bills would need to get them stamped every month, each stamp representing a decrease in their value. This way, hoarders bear the cost of their behavior and investment is encouraged. Small denominations would not be discounted.

Gesell recognized that the economy is like a body and money is like its blood. If blood builds up systematically in any one place, a disease results. His discounted script discouraged people from taking advantage of others’ simple lack of cash. (Note: this is very different than being forced to lend to people who aren’t creditworthy.) Saving in the form of investment was systematically encouraged.

Pound notes that Gesell’s system worked imperfectly in Alberta, Canada mostly due to planning errors that could easily be fixed. The system worked very well in the Austrian village of Wörgl, and it was promptly closed down by mainstream financial interests.

These financial interests were trying to preserve their privilege: they benefited from the increasing productivity of the societies they milked. Pound didn’t see how being born into a banking family; or buying the latest politician; should give them the right to those benefits. Ezra liked the ideas of Major Clifford Douglas: the people who worked should accrue those benefits. This is the essence of Social Credit.

The text of the 1933 version of Major Douglas’ book Social Credit, can be found here. Pound appreciated Maj. Douglas’ ideas, but thought they needed further exploration. What Pound really felt passionate about was fixing the money problem. Ezra wrote during the Great Depression when, much like now, people were captivated by the supposed security of gold.

Pound was never an advocate of gold-backed money. He understood how easily such systems can be subverted by controlling the supply or the clearing market for the backing commodity. Much of Britain’s power during the 19th century came from the fact that London was the clearing market for gold; and other nations used a gold-standard currency. They had to go to England to manage their money!

In Ezra’s words:

The trick is simple. Whenever the Rothschild and other gents in the gold business have gold to sell, they raise the price. The public is fooled by propagandizing the devaluation of the dollar, or other monetary unit according to the country chosen to be victimized. The argument is that the high price of the monetary unit is injurious to the nation’s commerce.

But when the nation, that is, the people of that nation own the gold and the financiers own the dollars or other monetary units, the gold standard is restored. This raises the value of the dollar and the citizens of “rich” nations, as well as citizens of other nations, are diddled.

Preventing nations from being “diddled” is why Pound supported Fascism in Italy. He saw Fascism as the only system available to the Italians that was likely to deal with the threat from international finance. Mussolini’s Fascism let Italy be ruled in an Italian fashion — and until Anglo-American banking interests were threatened, things worked better in Italy than they had in a long time.

Pound never supported Fascism in America. We have our Constitution, which describes a government for Americans run in the American fashion. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Pound realized that  America’s challenge was implementing the laws we already have. Read Jefferson and/or Mussolini for his whole argument.

Ezra was a true economic historian. He explained his analysis in the following way:

“The definition of an idea, as observed by someone who understands the events of the day, may shed more light on the historical process than many volumes.”

“History, as seen by a Monetary Economist, is a continuous struggle between producers and non-producers, and those who try to make a living by inserting a false system of book-keeping between the producers and their just recompense.”

“The usurers act through fraud, falsification, superstitions, habits and, when these methods do not function, they let loose a war. Everything hinges on monopoly, and the particular monopolies hinge around the great illusionistic monetary monopoly.”

Pound’s analysis identified the canker in American life: the cooperation between government and finance to defraud the public — the “monetary monopoly.” Monopolies don’t exist without tacit government approval. Beneficiaries of the financial monopoly have collaborated with venal officials against producers for a long time. The history of the largest American fortunes, since the Civil War at least, have followed this trend.

Historically, banking was begun by families as private businesses. As these businesses grew and issued receipts for gold and silver deposits, they gradually developed “fractional reserve” banking by issuing more notes than they had gold on deposit. Although kings would mint coins of gold and silver they owned at their royal mints, fractional reserve banking was a dangerous business, and Kings did not want to gamble with their sovereign power by going into that business. Rather, kings and especially parliaments, became dependent upon these fractional reserve bankers for loans, and would grant monopoly charters to a group of private bankers to create a national or central bank which would then have the power to regulate the size of the money stock through its fractional reserve activities, as it collected taxes, issued the national paper currency and sold sovereign debt on behalf of the government.

These national or central banks conferred significant advantages on the private banks that organized and owned them. Private banks were allowed to borrow at the discount window at special rates provided that they posted reserves with the central bank. Of course, the real advantage of the central bank for its owners and organizers was inside information. During the years of the gold standard, having a seat on the board of a central bank meant that the insider would know when emergency borrowings ticked up, telegraphing the probable start of a bank crisis and stock market crash. In the case of war, it was an easy task for a private bank with seats in several different national banks to calculate the deposits and income of the contesting states and the loans they secured to raise their armies, thus allowing the privileged few to bet on the probable winner.

The gold standard was popular among bankers for the simple reason that the supply of gold increased irregularly but on average more slowly than the increase in population, meaning that the value of loans would gradually increase over time as would the burden of repayment. Debtors resented the power of gold, hence William Jennings Bryan’s political appeal and his famous “Cross of Gold” speech. Coincidentally the gold standard was finally abandoned in 1971, six years after the birth control pill descended upon the civilized world.

Pound recognized two very important threats to the international banking community that arose out of the Third Reich. First, Hitler abandoned the gold standard, meaning that Nazi Germany suddenly had the power to prevent defaulting on its future debt simply by printing money — a power that the U.S. copied from Germany just as it copied the autobahns. Second, and much more important, the Reich took back the power of central banks by financing infrastructure projects directly, issuing notes in payment to the laborers, contractors, and suppliers rather than first borrowing the money from a central bank at interest. (See here and here.) If this practice had spread, bankers would be no more powerful than plumbers.

Furthermore, as long as the supply of this newly printed money in the form of notes matched the increase in GNP and future productivity from these new highways, rails, and factories, the printing of money would not necessarily produce inflation. The Reich also issued debt directly to German citizens and businesses to finance Hitler’s economic miracle, but the central banks lost control over the money supply and lost the ability to trigger banking panics and depressions inside the Reich. It was a mortal threat, and it had to be stopped. Pound was right.

Hitler’s experiment in freedom from banking was broken, and the finance/government partnership was preserved at the cost of millions of lives in World War II.

This finance/government collaboration explains the American elites’ love affair with international socialism. They don’t know how to make money any other way.Competition is a sin. Government organized monopolies are profitable when you control the government. If there are no national restrictions on moving profits around, they can hide their loot offshore. The perfect crime.

Pound recommended the writings of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Van Burenfor a practical explanation of how the young Republic wrested itself from London finance. He recommended Classical study (Aristotle’s Politics and the works of Demosthenes) for understanding the tricks financiers use. Nationally-controlled money was popular politics until the Civil War; when Pound notes a collective amnesia took the mind of the American public. Tragedy and forgetfulness. This is also the time when Lincoln let the bankers back in with theNational Banking Act.

Ezra didn’t revel in victimhood. The “monetary monopoly” was made possible by voters’ laziness. In his ABC of Economics, Pound castigates the American public for letting its money fall into the hands of enemies and irresponsible men. Americans circa 1930 were ignorant about money and banking; the situation now is even worse. It is a national tragedy that we have been lazy enough to let Congress sell its responsibilities; and let hostile elites control our credit.

The way to fix the situation is to dissolve the Federal Reserve; force Congress to manage money supply as described in the Constitution; and vote the venal or incompetent out of office. The revolutionary patriots gave us the tools; we need to step up to the plate and use them.

Our amnesia and laziness have had a lot of help. Pound pointed out that hostile elites were overrepresented in academia and the media — a situation which has worsened with time. Now we are reaping the harvest: schools devoid of the Classics; universities teaching castrated Economics; and Gloria Vanderbilt’s boy on TV. Ezra saw it coming, and he told us how to fix it.

Carolina Hartley (email her) has a degree in Finance and Economics from the University of Chicago. She is also student of aesthetics and social history, though not from the orthodox perspective.

[1] Pound’s repeated recommendation of Christopher Hollis’ work The Two Nations is based on the book’s excellent explanation of British economic power over the centuries.  Return to text.

[2] “Ezra Pound Speaking”: Radio Speeches of World War II. Edited by Leonard W. Doob. Greenwood Press, 1978. Return to text.

[3] Pound recommended the correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the writings of Van Buren for the economic history of the United States.

Pound’s Pamphlets on Money are excellent; the first “An Introduction to the Economic Nature of the United States” and “A Visiting Card” are particularly useful. (Published by Peter Russell, London. 1950.) Return to text.

[4] The Works of John Adams: Second President of the United States: with A Life of the Author, notes and illustrations, by his Grandson, Charles Francis Adams. Little, Brown and Co. Boston 1850–56.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, XX Volumes, Washington, 1903-04.

The Autobiography of Martin Van Buren, written in 1854 and remaining in manuscript until its publication as Vol. II of the “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1918,” Government Printing Office, Washington 1920.

Pound also recommends Jefferson and Hamilton by Claude G. Bower.

A national census should be nothing more than a statistical exercise, arousing no more emotion than renewing one’s driver’s license. However, given the fact that the US has become a cauldron of competing ethnic interests where anti-White hostility is the norm for the mainstream media, it has aroused all sorts of controversies, especially among liberals with the usual axes to grind.

The mainstream media is using the census as a teachable moment to spinpropaganda on multiculturalism and the ‘destiny’ of the United States as a non-White and miscegenated country. An example that I cannot not resist discussing is CNN.com’s series “Census: Who Am I?” It asks some prominent — and not so prominent — figures their opinion on the 2010 US census. Each article is filled with the usual multicultural mantras such as “what we do matters more than labels,” “I can’t fit in a single box on a census form” or ” “‘where are you from’ is not the right question.”

It is so obviously biased that out of the twenty essays currently on display, only five are written by Whites — not a random selection of Whites, of course, but Whites who have been carefully selected to exhibit appropriate White guilt or who, as victims themselves, can be safely counted on to be sympathetic to all things multicultural. At times the articles are nothing but rabid anti-White rant.

Exhibit A is novelist Walter Mosley whose anti-White tone perfectly reflects the sentiments of the rest of the articles — Whites as oppressors, haters, murderers, and rapists:

[I am] an American whose black-skinned ancestors were stolen from their lives and cultures and piled in the holds of ships like so many sacks of skin. An American whose Jewish ancestors stowed their lives into the holds of later vessels running from a thousand years of anti-Semitism that was soon to blossom into a Holocaust. An American whose ancestors walked across the frozen waters from Asia to North America discovering a new world that would one day be stolen from their descendants. … An English-speaking American whose language is also …  sublime Spanish from the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans I rubbed shoulders with growing up in Southern California. … I might be related to Thomas Jefferson or any of 10,000 masters who raped and sometimes even loved their slaves.

Exhibit B is Iranian-American Maz Jobrani, a comedian who helped lead the “Axis of Evil” comedy tour poking fun at Middle Eastern stereotypes and recently made a television pilot called “Funny in Farsi.” He has suffered greatly since coming to America, showing that anti-White hostility is not reserved only for Blacks with a long historical memory. People just off the boat understand that the best way for them to get ahead in America is to adopt the anti-White perspectives being spewed by the mainstream media.

Jobrani says he once met a woman at a club who asked him about his heritage and she walked away when he told her he was Iranian. (GASP!) He also claims he was called “sheikh”, “towel-head” and was told to “go home, Iranian” while living in the San Francisco Bay area during the Iranian hostage crisis in the early 1980s.

He now bemoans the fact that the census considers him White. Jobrani has a message for other Arab- and Persian-Americans: “Check it right; you ain’t white!”Jobrani says that people should check the “other” box and spell out their ethnicity on the form.

I obviously agree that people like Jobrani should not be considered White Americans. But from their point of view, it’s all about ethnic pride and money. In fact, Arab American Institute leaders aren’t shy to say that “information from each census is used for everything from determining federal and state funding for communities to awarding grants”, so naturally they wish to have their own category.

Cheryl Contee, the co-founder of Jack and Jill Politics, an African-American political blog, also gets the opportunity to tell us about ourselves. She says she is at least 25% Native American and is also part White, but she is not at all comfortable with expressing her White origins publicly.

When I look in the mirror each morning, my face epitomizes the American melting pot. … I do know from family stories and whispers on both sides that being Indian somehow felt even more scary than being Negro. Given the intensity of the oppression of African-Americans in this country says something about how Native Americans have been historically treated. … I’m proud to be African-American — I’ve co-founded in my spare time one of the most popular and influential Black blogs on the Internet:JackandJillPolitics.com. It doesn’t get much Blacker than that!. …

Another essay was written by the other co-founder of the Jack & Jill Politics blog, a comedian who goes by the name of Baratunde Thurston. His essay is supposed to be funny, but he has a hip-hop sense of humor I could not grasp. He makes a bunch of disconnected statements about his mother’s “rabble-rousing days in Washington during the ’60s and ’70s”, and says that he still has “a lot of her original vinyl records from that era, and to commemorate Malcolm X this February, [he] live-streamed several of his speeches via Ustream.” He describes his lecture “How to Be Black (Online)“: “I talked about the different ways African-Americans access and use the Internet and raised the question: Are we merely consumers of the new technologies that abound, or are we also creating them?” (I’ll answer his question: Users.) His Harvard education also prepared him to write his forthcoming book How To Be Black and to be called “someone I need to know” by Barack Obama.

Moustafa Bayoumi, an associate professor of English at Brooklyn College, the City University of New York, was chosen because he represents the cosmopolitan non-White expatriate from whom we have much to learn. He is an Arab, who was born in Switzerland, grew up in Canada and now lives in Brooklyn. Although is piece is far less intense than the others, he still describes his struggle with his identity as an Arab-American, the discomfort  he feels when being asked about his origins and concludes by saying that “it’s up to us to douse the flames of hatred and intolerance before they start”.

Anousheh Ansari, an Iranian-American entrepreneur was the first female commercial space flight participant and the first Muslim woman to travel to space. She is also the author of My Dream of Stars: From Daughter of Iran to Space Pioneer. She comes up with platitudes like “by labeling ourselves or others, we create boxes, boundaries and decide who belongs on what side of the line. We divide ourselves and […] determine which side of the line is better.” Even less original was the following remark: “When I was floating freely in space and looking back on Earth from my safe haven amongst the stars, I saw a world without division […] I knew that back on Earth, these imaginary lines were very much present and causing all of our problems. But up there, the lines did not matter. They did not exist.”

Ines Hernandez-Avila is professor and incoming chair of Native American Studies and co-director of the Chicana/Latina Research Center at the University of California, Davis. She is also a founder of NAISA, the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association and a member of the Latina Feminist Group. She is a Ford Foundation/National Research Council Fellow, at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels. In other words, she is a complete product of affirmative action and the grievance industry. She goes on describing her complex ancestry composed of many breeds of native Americans, how she was an activist in the Chicano Movement in Texas in the 1970s and early ’80s, and concludes that“naming matters” and that her identity is “Nimipu/Tejana” — that is, a Nimipu (a member of the Nez Perce tribe) and a Tejana (a Chicana from Texas) .

The rant goes on in the next essay, written by Raquel Cepeda, an “award-winning” journalist and documentary filmmaker. She was also editor-in-chief ofOneworld Magazine, a defunct hip-hop rag run by rap tycoon and black activist Russell Simmons. Cepeda is a mixed-race women: “a Latina, Dominican-American and Latino-American, interchangeably.” Through commercial genetic genealogy testing, she says she discovered that she is “the face of miscegenation in the New World. And the journey is just beginning.” Praising the miscegenated make-up of Latinos, she says: “As our numbers grow to more than 130 million in the next several decades, so will the racial landscape of the nation shift radically.” She warns about the coming pushback by Whites: “Couple anti-immigration hysteria and a 41 percent spike in hate crimes against Latinos over the past six years with a troubled economy, and one may find a pressure cooker waiting to explode.”

She also complains about the reintroduction of the offensive term “Negro” and blames the U.S. Census Bureau for a “failed attempt at engaging the hip-hop generation” saying it is “alienating the very people it’s spending millions of dollars trying to target.” Keeping an eye on government subsidies given to protected groups, she adds: “On the one hand, it’s important for every citizen to be counted because the information collected determines how $400 billion dollars of federal funding is allocated”. Taking a staunch anti-White position, she concludes: “While we collectively continue to ignore the festering wound, I intend on honoring my ancestors on the census form by rejecting the term ‘Negro’ and opting to identify my African, Amerindian and Arabic roots by filling in the blanks under ‘some other race’.”

Then we have U.S. representative Anh Cao, a Vietnamese-American who arrived in the United States as a refugee when the Vietnam War ended. Throughout his life, he has been an activist for the rights of refugees and an immigration lawyer. He says that Japanese-American and minority rights advocate Mike Honda encouraged him to run for office when he saw that there were not enough Vietnamese-Americans in public service.  Another piece is written by Chang-rae Lee, a Korean-American novelist whose “books explore identity and assimilation among immigrants and first-generation American citizens”, while another one is written by Jean Kwok, a Chinese-American writer whose first novel, Girl in Translation, explores “these issues of identity through the story of an immigrant Chinese girl and her mother, who not only survive difficult circumstances, but triumph over them.” Kwok also tells the story of her father who, when she was a child, gave her the family’s genealogy book: “These are your bloodlines,” he said. “Four-thousand years that went into making you. We copy this book, generation after generation, so that we won’t forget.”

Nafees A. Syed who was born in the state of Georgia to Indian parents also gets her say.  She is a senior at Harvard University, an editorial writer at The Harvard Crimson and a senior editor for the Harvard-MIT journal on Islam and society,Ascent. She claims that one time on Independence Day, she and her family were taunted by a man who said “what planet are y’all from?” She also claims that she is occasionally told to “go back where [she] came from.” Then she also utters the cliché “if all of us ‘went back to where we came from,’ meaning the places of our family origin, there would be nobody in America except for Native Americans.”She then adds more clichés like “I am a Muslim and I am an American … a fair study of Islamic and American values would find corroboration, not contradiction”. She concludes with: “There are three important dimensions in my life — my religion, my ethnicity and my country — and they are all at peace.”

Next in line is Lila Downs, a Mexican/American singer, Latin Grammy Award winner as well as Academy Award nominee who lives in New York, Mexico City and Oaxaca. Her father was a White university professor and her mother was Mixtec (an indigenous groups from the state of Oaxaca, in Mexico). She goes on describing that she first “chose to deny [her] Mexican heritage at one point in [her] life, since [she] felt it made people uncomfortable.” She adds: “I didn’t realize I was denying myself, but that I would at one point have to confront and accept who I really was.” She claims her identity journey began when her father died: “I was left with my mother, a very independent Indian woman who was also mestizo. […] We spoke about her Indian-ness, about Mexican social ideals, about being a strong woman … I was curious about this new self that had been buried in shame. I was hungry to learn more about why I was the way I was.”

Finally, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, lectures us in her essay called “I’m a criminal and so are you”. She is a mulatto who was the director of the Racial Justice Project of the ACLU of Northern California and of the Civil Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School. She now holds a joint appointment with the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. All of which illustrates that being an anti-White advocate has a very nice payoff in today’s academic world.

She seems to think there is no difference between misdemeanors and felonies:

Haven’t you ever smoked pot, didn’t you ever drink underage, don’t you sometimes speed on the freeway, haven’t you gotten behind the wheel after having a couple of drinks? Haven’t you broken the law? … As I see it, you’re just somebody who hasn’t been caught. You’re still a criminal, no better than many of those who’ve been branded felons for life.

She then goes on with her antics:

If everyone were forced to acknowledge their own criminality, maybe we, as a nation, would second-guess our apparent zeal for denying full citizenship to those branded felons … In this country, we force millions of people — who are largely black and brown —into a permanent second-class status, simply because they once committed a crime.

The cultural Marxist line becomes even clearer when we look at the few Whites they chose. The first two are young Whites, 23 and 31 years old respectively. They are devoured by White guilt and can only be described as brainwashed far-left lunatics.

One is David Paul Strohecker, a doctoral student in sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is covered with tattoos and piercings. He says his sociopolitical views are a large part of his identity, and he incorporates these into what he wears — for example, T-shirts with the faces of activists whom he admires. He is aware that others see how he presents himself as a “measure of [his] character” and “it is to this end that [he] deliberately tries to throw people off.” He says his body is a “billboard” for his “life.” and his “tattoos tell the story of [his] identity”. His earliest tattoos were direct quotes and Bible verses that “captured [his] identity as an outspoken social-justice advocate.” He then says hebegan to display his political views more directly in later tattoos: “I have the ‘female’ sign behind my left ear to reflect my commitment to feminism and women everywhere; I have the Human Rights Campaign logo behind my right ear to reflect my commitment to LGBT struggles.”

The very politically correct and handsomely tattooed David Paul Strohecker

The other bubblehead is Christian Lander, the Canadian-born writer living in Los Angeles who published a satirical book called Stuff White People Like and has a blog with the same name. “I’m not attempting to assert some sort of superiority through my Whiteness; quite the opposite actually. Thanks to my liberal upbringing, I am imbued with the appropriate amount of guilt and shame about my ancestors and their actions in the New World”. Thinking he’s funny, he then says: “Even in my home, I can’t offer a blanket to a nonWhite friend without the fear that they [sic] will look at me and say ‘no smallpox on this right?'”

I’m a White male. I belong to a group that pretty much always been [sic] able to own land and to vote. I’m more or less from the kind that grabbed power somewhere after the fall of Rome and never let go. In other words, I’m the kind of White guy that has never experienced any real oppression.

I am sure that he will welcome the coming oppression of Whites when they become a minority among people with all that anti-White hostility. And he’s completely forgotten about the long wars with Muslims — the fact that the Balkans, Spain and Constantinople were taken and ruled by Muslims invaders. Like everywhere else in the world, Europe has a history of both invading and being invaded. But he is completely programmed by the education system and the mass media, both of which relentlessly bombard the populace with the culturally Marxist line of thinking.

Lander goes on citing Marxist activist Noel Ignatiev, who is on a crusade to deny the existence of race as a biological reality and to “abolish the White race,” describing Ignatiev’s book as “actual, intelligent research.” Lander is the sort of liberal who thinks he understands everything when he is in fact completely brainwashed by conventional anti-White propaganda — the morality tale that White people are the only evil people in the world:

America has a long history of welcoming immigrants who will never be able to check that white box on the census, and unfortunately that means America also has a long history of discrimination against those people. … Just one example would be the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II contrasted against the treatment of German-Americans. … But all of that was in the past right? Well, ask yourself this: Who is more likely to get pulled over and forced to show his papers in Arizona today? A first generation Canadian immigrant, or a 10th generation Mexican-American?

But of course, the reason Mexican-Americans are more likely to get pulled over is because they are literally invading this country with perhaps has many as 20 million illegal aliens. If Canada sent as many illegals to the United States, it would lose two thirds of its population!

He then concludes with: “What I hope this census will force the country to deal with is the fact that White immigrants like me will never again make up the majority of people that come to this country. America is not getting Whiter, it will never get Whiter. Well, unless we start handing those blankets out again.” The sad reality is that it America will not remain White as long as Whites think like Lander.

While Bill Ayers could not have done a better job writing the articles by Strohecker and Lander, the three other essays written by Whites do not reach the same level of delirium. They are written by middle age Whites. The reason they were chosen by CNN.com is because they all belong to a minority victim group: they are disabled. In other words, CNN’s survey of Americans does not include even one White person who has any doubts about the non-White future, even though a major political theme recently has been White rage, especially among working class Whites who are being dispossessed by the onslaught that is celebrated by CNN.

One White victim is Anne Feeley, a brain cancer survivor and an activist for brain cancer research who labels herself a “feminist.” Another is Robert David Hall, an actor best known for his role as coroner Dr. Albert Robbins on the TV show “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.” Robbins, the victim of an accident in which he lost his legs and was burned over 60 percent of his body, is an advocate for the disabled. The last White victim is Shane Stanford, the pastor of Gulf Breeze United Methodist Church, a hemophiliac and has been HIV positive for more than 20 years, due to a contaminated blood supply.

None of these three essays had anything to do with race or ethnicity. They were chosen because their authors belong to the “disabled” minority. As victims, they are in the same boat as the ethnic grievance industry — a group with special claims on society. Leaving that aside, I must say that the hardships they have gone through are truly moving and make the other minority writers look like a bunch of arrogant, spoiled and selfish whiners, whose little worlds revolve around their phony ‘identity’ struggles.

The funniest thing about this series of articles is that at the end of each essay, CNN inserts that “the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of [the author].” But it’s obvious that they were deliberately chosen by CNN.comprecisely because they beat the drums of multiculturalism, miscegenation, anti-White hostility, and ethnic minority grievances. The only Whites allowed into this forum are those who have internalized a powerful sense of guilt or who are victims themselves — the coalition of the aggrieved that is now such a powerful political force in the US.

Needless to say, there is no space for White victims who have lost their jobs to immigrants  or to affirmative action. Nor are their stories by Whites who have been victimized by non-White criminals. This, after all, is the mainstream media, and those aren’t the stories they want to tell.

William Davis (email him) is a freelance writer.