Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200012 American Renaissance

200012 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 140|Likes:
American Renaissance, December 2000. Race is a Myth?; The Galton Report; Immigration and the Election; The Mind of the White Man; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, December 2000. Race is a Myth?; The Galton Report; Immigration and the Election; The Mind of the White Man; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 20, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



American Renaissance - 1 - December 2000
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 11, No. 12December 2000
Race is a Myth?
American Renaissance
The left distorts science forpolitical purposes.
by Michael Rienzi
acial egalitarianism hasfailed to produce the“fair and just” societypromised by social engineers.At the same time, there hasbeen a marked reawakening of racial and ethnic identity in thepost-Cold War world. In re-sponse, the left has adopted anew strategy: Deny the veryexistence of race! This is whywe so frequently hear that“race is a social construct, withno biological validity” and that“science proves we are all thesame.” Ironically, it is in con-nection with progress in un-derstanding the human ge-nome–progress in the very field that willdefinitively prove the biological realityof race–that we most often hear that raceis nothing more than “superficial” sur-face characteristics.Against this view, there are first of all the obvious physical differences be-tween human population groups thateveryone recognizes. There is also ge-netic evidence that can be used indepen-dently of traditional methods to classifydifferent human populations into racialgroups that are virtually identical tothose based on the allegedly “superfi-cial” traits studied by traditional physi-cal anthropology. As Professor GlaydeWhitney has written in these pages:“These data are therefore a virtuallyirrefutable demonstration of the realityof race–a purely statistical analysis of allele frequencies [genetic differencesfrom one group to another] gives resultsthat are essentially identical to the ra-cial groupings established by traditionalanthropology.”An honest evaluation of the data con-firms the reality of race. But let us look at the arguments on the other side.
“We are 99.9 percent (or some othernumber) genetically identical; so therecan be no race differences and no races.”Although it is true that human popu-lations share roughly 99.9 percent of their genes, it is also true that humansshare over 98 percent of their genes withchimpanzees, and a very high amountwith animals like mice and dogs. Manyof these genes produce basic body struc-tures all mammals have in common; dif-ferences between organisms are causedby very small genetic differences.Current evidence suggests that all thesex differences between men andwomen are the result of just one geneticdifference–one gene (the Testes Deter-mining Factor) out of an estimated50,000-100,000! This would mean menand women are 99.998 to 99.999 per-cent genetically identical, yet no onesuggests that sex is a mere “social con-struct.” In like manner, the genetic dif-ferences between humans and chimpan-zees, which no one denies, can be de-scribed as 12 to 20 times the genetic dif-ferences between racialgroups.Tiny genetic differences canhave huge phenotypic conse-quences because genes are or-dered in a hierarchical fashion.Some genes are “mastergenes,” and control the expres-sion of a number of othergenes, each of which may fur-ther control several othergenes. Also, the expression of each gene is controlled by re-gions called “promoters” and“enhancers,” usually located infront of the functional part of the gene. A small change in thepromoter region of gene “X”can alter its expression. X may controlgenes A, B, C, D, E, F. Gene A in turnmay control its own set of genes. Evenif all of the genes other than “X” areidentical between two groups, the onedifference in “X” would be sufficient toproduce large group differences.It is not the quantity of genetic dif-ference that is important, but the natureof the differences: which genes are dif-ferent, in what ways they differ, and theconsequences of these differences.Breeds of dogs are analogous to humanraces. It is likely that different breedsare as close genetically as different racesof humans, but there is no doubt thatthese subtle variations result in signifi-cant differences in appearance, intelli-gence, and behavior.It is also worth considering that abutterfly and the caterpillar from whichit developed are 100 percent geneticallyidentical! The genes do not change; theenormous differences between caterpil-
Men and women are99.998 percent identicalbut no one suggests sex isa “social construct.”
New Guinean warrior.
American Renaissance - 2 - December 2000
 Letters from Readers
Sir – I was somewhat surprised to beinformed that
Sol Invictus
was men-tioned in an article about new national-ist music in
 American Renaissance
. Thearticle contains several inaccuraciesconcerning me. For a start,
 Above the Ruins
was formed after I left
 Death in June
, not before
 Death in June
 Above the Ruins
was also not aNational Front band despite admittedlykeeping dubious company and endingup on a CD that was an awful compila-tion.As for
Sol Invictus
, neither the groupnor its members have any connection orsympathy with any racial or nationalistmovements. Quite the opposite! We donot support any, nor do we wish for theirsupport.Tony Wakeford,
Sol Invictus Eric Owens replies:
If I did reversethe order of release dates for the firstLPs of 
 Death in June
 Above the Ruins
, I certainly apologize. However,it is a sign of progress that Mr. Wakefordeven concedes that he and
 Above the Ruins
appeared on the National Frontcompilation “No Surrender!” along withabout 15 overtly National Front whitepower bands. For years, he denied thathe was ever in
 Above the Ruins
! Until afew years ago, when he re-released thatband’s premier LP himself, it was avail-able only from Rock-O-Rama Records,the German label for
.Mr. Wakeford has every right tochange his views about racial or nation-alist movements, but anyone familiarwith the lyrics from “We Drive East” orwho has seen the cover art of such
Sol Invictus
CDs as “Lex Talionis” or “TheKilling Tide” can only conclude that hisviews have changed very considerablyindeed.Sir – Just like your article about
 Na-tional Review
, the latest issue of yourexcellent magazine is getting a lot of attention because of the article that men-tioned groups like
 Death in June
(DIJ).There has been discussion about it onthe DIJ mailing list (nearly 300 subscrib-ers), which is composed of ‘fans’ whoare open minded and intelligent enoughto discuss the merits of your organiza-tion. The only thing that upsets most of them is reading in the same article aboutsubtle, “experimental” music like thelater DIJ and the hysterical, crass musicof rock groups like
. I canunderstand this sentiment but compar-ing the quality of the music and lyricswas, of course, not the purpose of yourarticle.Name WithheldSir – I found your November issueexcellent as usual. Please continue yoursummaries of news of European nation-alist movements. I would suggest mak-ing such coverage a regular feature.I’ve noticed that some readers in theirletters lament the lack of political lead-ers who speak for us. In fact, all whiteleaders, whether from Belgium or Bos-ton, offer us hope. Also, your featurestory on pan-European nationalist mu-sic has the same effect of expressing atrans-national solidarity or conscious-ness among our people.Name WithheldSir – Your October critique of Mr.Buchanan’s choice of running mate wasexcellent. It is not to be questioned thatall ethnic groups “insist
on principle
thatthey be led by people like themselves.”Our problem is that we don’t see our-selves as an ethnic group. Once we dowe can spearhead the drive for our ownprotection. We already recognize allsorts of other rights. Those who promotetolerance should recognize white ethnicrights, too.Herbert Mertz, N. Palm Beach, Fla.Sir – One of the most fascinatingthings Anthony Brown points out in hisdepressing little article on Americanbirth rates is that in 1955 white womenwere having slightly
births percapita than Mexican-American womenare today. Just 45 years ago, when thecountry was still overwhelmingly white,the white population was growing verynicely by natural increase.
What haschanged?
For a people to go fromhealthy increase to natural decline mustsurely be one of the most dramaticchanges possible.I have never seen a satisfactory ex-planation for plummeting birth rates inwhite populations, but surely these mustbe some of the reasons: (1) Women’s“liberation,” which sent many womeninto the workforce, where they postponeor even forego childbearing. (2) Increas-ing rates of divorce, which destroys thestable circumstances into which whitesprefer to bring children. Both these phe-nomena are really examples of increas-ing individualism and fascination withself, which has other consequences: (a)people don’t want to be bothered withchildren, (b) they don’t care if their cul-ture ends in a few generations, (c) theywould rather spend money on luxuriesand vacations than on children.I wonder also if many Americans arenot chilled by the prospect of an increas-ingly non-white America, and do notwant to bring into the world childrenwho will be minorities. Appealing as thistheory may be, it is undercut by evenlower white birth rates in places likeEastern Europe and Spain, where thereis no popular consciousness of eventualdisplacement by aliens. The Japaneseare not being swamped with ThirdWorlders either but cannot manage tohave children. Whatever the causes,when a society cannot even be botheredto reproduce itself it is a symptom of profound sickness.Susan Endicott, Waynesboro, Va.
American Renaissance - 3 - December 2000
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Contributing EditorGlayde Whitney, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor
lar and butterfly result from the activa-tion of different genes at different times.This should give some pause to thosewho think a 0.1 percent difference intens of thousands of human genes“makes no difference.”
“There is more genetic variationwithin human groups than betweengroups; therefore, group differences areinvalid.”This is another very popular argumentthat, although true, does not at all meanthat race is of no significance. The flawin this argument is the same as in the“99.9 percent argument,” in that itstresses quantity–genetic “bean count-ing”–rather than the importance of ge-netic differences and their conse-quences. Indeed, there is more geneticvariation within groups than betweengroups, but if this variation does not in-fluence the expression of importantgenes, it is not of much consequence.There is considerable genetic variationbetween siblings and between parentsand children, but this does
alter thefact that they are more closely relatedto each other than to strangers.Once again Prof. Whitney has dem-onstrated the absurdity of the “variation”argument. He points out that one couldtake the total genetic diversity containedwithin the population of Belfast and atroop of macaque monkeys and give itan index of 100 percent. Surprising as itmay seem,
more than half 
of that diver-sity will be found both in the popula-tion of Belfast and in the monkey troop.There is great genetic diversity evenbetween two individuals who are verysimilar to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more likemacaques than they are like their neigh-bors, though this is precisely the waythe there-are-no-races advocates use theargument when they apply it to humans.Prof. Whitney explains that just as inthe case of the genetic differences be-tween men and women, “the meaning-ful question about racial differences isnot the percentage of total diversity, butrather how the diversity is distributedamong the races, what traits it influ-ences, and how it is patterned.” Smallgenetic differences can translate into im-portant physical and behavioral differ-ences.
“Population variationis continuous and humantraits vary across a spec-trum, so discrete racial en-tities do not exist.”This is a scientific wayof saying that since hybrids(racially or ethnicallymixed populations) exist,no single race exists. Thisis an amazingly popular ar-gument, even though it iseasily refuted. No one hasever thought the existenceof hybrid populations of animals means these ani-mals cannot be classified intodistinct groups. This is self-evident.Your dog may be a mix of German Shep-herd and Great Dane, but this does notmean there are no German Shepherdsor Great Danes. The existence of doghybrids means only that different breedsof dog can mate and produce offspring.Dogs and wolves–separate species–canmate and produce offspring but it is stilleasy to tell a dog from a wolf.There are certainly places in whichthere has been much human mixing andwhere there are racial gradients–CentralAsia, Latin America, North Africa. Theexistence of hybrid populations in theseareas in no way disproves the existenceof other populations that are geneticallymore differentiated–in Europe, the FarEast, and sub-Saharan Africa.This “continuous variation” argumentis so illogical it is a wonder anyone takesit seriously. The existence of mixturesdoes not invalidate the existence of theoriginal components of mixtures. Thefact that red and yellow can be mixed toproduce orange hardly means that redand yellow are illusions or do not exist.Although racial gradation is far frombeing a perfect and continuous gradient,even those variations in nature that dolie along such a gradient can be classi-fied into distinct groups. The continu-ous variation of light frequencies in therainbow, for example, are easily groupedinto the distinct colors that virtually allpeople recognize.
“All human populations are mon-grels, there is no such thing as a purerace; thus, there is no such thing as race.”This argument is related to the previ-ous one, except that it says we are
hybrids, so there is no such thing as race.First, no scientists talk about “pure”races. What does racial “purity” mean,anyway? It is true that certain popula-tions are more genetically differentiatedand distinct than are other more hybrid-ized groups. If we consider Englishmen,Central Asians, and Koreans, we canmake the relative statement that Kore-ans and Englishmen are more geneti-cally (and phenotypically) distinct anddifferentiated than Central Asians, whoare in some respects intermediate be-tween East Asians and Europeans.This does not imply that either Kore-ans or Englishmen are “pure,” which
Australian aborigines.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->