You are on page 1of 39


“Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct.
Society and culture derive from race/biology.”
~ Professor Douglas Whitman; Illinois State University

In biology, races are distinct, genetically divergent populations within the same
species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. Morphology
relates to the form and structure of an object–its internal and external characteristics.
In the case of a species, things such as color (of fur, bark, scales, leaves, etc.), shape (of
skeleton, mouth, hands and feet, flowers, etc.), and size (of head, body, fins, eyes,
claws, etc.) are morphological features. Genetic differences aren’t directly visible, of
course, but can be measured by studying DNA.
Populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation
to different local habitats–such as one group surviving in a forest, one in a swamp, one
on grasslands, etc. Populations are titled geographic races when they are
geographically isolated, such as the separation of a group by the creation of an island
and long-term impassibility between it and the mainland. If sufficiently different, two
or more races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological
taxonomy unit subordinate to species. Taxonomy, quickly, is the system of
categorization for naming organisms based on characteristics–based on species, in
other words. Grouped largest to smallest, the taxonomic titles are: domain, kingdom,
phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. You’re probably most familiar with
the last two, and might even remember them from high school biology as “binomial

nomenclature,” as two Latin names (binomial) are oft spoken of
together (Homo sapiens) when describing a species. Subspecies
exists beneath this category as a third name, appended to an
animal group that is genetically–and therefore
morphologically–distinct from the rest of their species, but not
so distinct as to be a separate species. Examples include
Canis lupus–wolf–and its 38 subspecies.
G ALLERY 5.1 Three subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus

The structure of
taxonomic labels. The
largest groups–those
with the widest genetic
variation within them–
are at the top, the
smallest–with the least
genetic variation with
them–are at the bottom.
Canis lupus albus, known as the tundra wolf
A species is commonly
referred to by its genus
and species together.
Canis lupus is a species that includes all subspecies and variety of wolves, as well
as the domesticated dog breeds. All the subspecies have a wide variety of physical
features, behavioral patterns, and intellectual capacity. Additionally, within the
genus Canis, interbreeding can produce fertile offspring. Despite this, animals within
the Canis genus rarely breed and are openly hostile to each other, have different
appearance, different behavior, and are categorized differently due to this and genetic
testing. Yet when it comes to humans, these same criteria are ignored because of
political sensitives. There is unending evidence that says human races are
different species–and even regional breeds within those species. The term ‘race’ is a
traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo

sapiens is monotypic–that it does not have subspecies–and that what are termed
“races” are nothing more than biological “illusions.” Here, we will define that Homo
sapiens does, in fact, have subspecies. Indeed, you may come to understand that
what is publicly called Homo sapiens is not even a single species. First, it will be
demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be
synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of
traits. Next, the issue of classification is considered where it is demonstrated that
Homo sapiens possesses high levels of diversity–genetic distance–compared to
many species that are acknowledged to be separate with respect to subspecies.
And you thought that “racists” were “stupid,” didn’t you? Let’s dive a
little deeper.


“If mankind evolved from the same African ancestor, then everyone’s blood
would be compatible, but it is not. Rhesus negative blood type appears
suddenly 35,000 years ago in Cro Magnon. Where did the Rh negatives come
from? Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive
child try to reject her own offspring? Humanity isn’t one race, but a hybrid
~ Robert Sepehr; Species with Amnesia: Our Forgotten History

The topics discussed in this section will be quite technical. Terminology that is
directly related to the subject will be defined and explained inline, wherever said
explanations will facilitate the reader’s understanding. For unknown terms that aren’t
expounded upon here, the reader is asked to take advantage of his device’s built in
dictionary feature, or to directly consult a medical dictionary, such as this one. Don’t
worry; this is all just for reference.
“The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is
clear language. The desire is to have the idea clearly communicated
to the other person.”
~ Dr. Richard Feynman; New Textbooks for the “New” Mathematics,
Engineering, & Science, vol. 28, no. 6, p. 14; March 1965

The most important takeaway from the technical or statistical sections of this
book–and there will be more–is the understanding of how these subjects relate to
you, personally, and how they affect your life. The vast majority of people have been
lied to about, kept from, and indoctrinated against these subjects. This is on
purpose. It serves to obfuscate the world as it truly is so that you may be fed a lie
about what certain people desire it to be. They want you to be harmed, and they
want this to happen with as little direct effort as possible on their part. You won’t
consciously harm yourself unless you believe a lie. Thus, the post-war leaders of the
Western world have worked to “educate” you in all manner of lies about race and how
people think and act. The biggest of which is that the races are the same.

Before the discovery of DNA–and before the ability to sequence it–classifying
species taxonomically was done by observing differences in physical
characteristics and behavior. Naturally–because the scientific method is
dispassionate, impartial, and predicated on the external, objective reality of nature–
this led scientists in the past to designate separate classifications for various
groups of what is currently called “the human race.” After all, people look different.
People, also, behave differently. If your system of classification is predicated on
differences in physical characteristics and behavior, you’re going to give these
different groups of people different classifications. Pretty straightforward, right?
With a system like that, who could fault scientists the world over for agreeing that
groups of humans from different continents that look and behave as differently as,
say, species of squirrels–even those on the same continent–were inherently different
G ALLERY 5.2 Five squirrel species; same genus G ALLERY 5.3 Five human groups

Sciurus carolinensis, the American grey squirrel A European man

Since the discovery of DNA, we have been able to qualitatively determine the
distance between given species, relying on a hard metric–the measurable difference in
genome–rather than simply physical appearance and behavioral attributes. Not that
the old metric is inherently incorrect, that is. After all, differences in DNA are the
cause of differences in appearance and behavior. But with a way to
scientifically measure the real, physical differences in the DNA of two or more species,

our system of classification could be made authoritative, against the scientific method.
We now measure species, genera, families, orders, and all the rest against what is
called genetic distance. Genetic distance is determined by comparing the number of
identical alleles within two or more genomes. An allele is a variant form of a segment
of a gene, and a gene is a sequence of DNA that is large enough to have a specific
function in determining the composition of its organism. A useful metaphor is found
in the construction of a house. To build a house to specification requires hundreds, if
not thousands, of decisions. These decisions, taken individually, can be considered
“genes,” and aspects of these decisions G ALLERY 5.4 Five crown moulding groups
would be “alleles.” For example, when a
room is nearly finished, you might decide to
give it some character by adding crown
moulding. A room with crown moulding
has the “gene” for the feature. A room
without it, therefore, would not have that
gene. There are hundreds of styles of crown
moulding from which to choose–color,
shape, size, complexity–and these styles can
be mixed and matched. The styles, then, are
the “alleles” of the crown moulding “gene.”
Some genes which describe the same “Alleles” for this crown moulding: Color; white.
feature have many alleles, some have few. Size; large. Complexity; average.
The difference in alleles between two or
more groups determines genetic distance.
Genetic distance is also known as the ‘fixation index,’ and will hereafter be referred
to by its acronym, FST.
Consider a gene that affects multiple characteristics. Some may be relatively
benign, while others can be strongly selected for. When the strongly selected
phenotypes that the gene affects cannot be expressed–due to lacking epistatic genes
required for the phenotype–the gene will only persist at random, as the individuals
with it do not have better survival nor reproductive success. This gene may also
express other characteristics that are mildly selected against. It has only become fixed
in the parent population due to benefits that can only be utilized with all the
interacting genes also present. In simple terms: if there were genes for ‘short,’
‘medium,’ and ‘tall,’ and they all reside in the same location on a particular
chromosome, they are alleles. You could only have two of them–one from each parent.

Genes are the “instructions” of DNA. In simple terms, it can be said to encode one
product. Genotype refers to the particular set of genes in a single organism. It is
commonly used to describe a particular subset of a genome being observed. Locus
(plural locii) is a term for the location of a gene in a particular chromosome.
Phenotype refers to the expressed trait of an organism. Individual traits vary.
Groups of individuals can be classified based on common genes that occur in varying
proportions, compared to other groups. Some genes are truly unique to some groups,
occurring at 0% in others. Now let’s talk about humanity.
The FST between Europeans a group of Africans known as the Bantu is 0.23. For
reference, the FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the
bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103. This is half the European/African distance, despite
the two monkeys being classified as separate species. The FST between two gorilla
species, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei, is 0.04, which is 1/6 the white/black
distance. The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08, or about 1/3
the white/black distance. The FST between humans and Homo erectus is 0.17 which is
3/4 the white/black distance. Europeans and Africans–officially not even
different subspecies–are more genetically distant than two different
chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, humans vs.
Neanderthals, and humans vs. Homo erectus.
The FST between Europeans and southeastern Asians is 0.125. The FST between
Europeans and west Asians is 0.15. These are roughly the distance between humans
and homo erectus. The FST between Africans and Asians is between 0.223 and 0.263.
Greater, even than the European-African distance. The FST between Europeans and
Australasians is between 0.203 and 0.224, roughly the same as between Europeans
and Africans. The FST between Europeans and Indioes–those who came to the
American continents across the Bering Straight–is 0.167. Again, roughly the distance
to homo erectus. The African-Indio FST is 0.333. Even the FST between southeastern
Asians and Australasians is between 0.174 and 0.212. All of the distances between
the five “races” of humanity are greater than the distances between
separate nonhuman species.
This is groundbreaking. Revolutionary. Humanity is five species, and
they correspond to our traditional, pre-scientific understanding of race. These
scientific statements completely change our understanding of ourselves and our places
in the world, not to mention our society and the way we should interact with one
another. “Humanity” is not one species. And this isn’t even a recent revelation.

It’s just not discussed. It’s suppressed, even. Why? Because jews–culturally and
religiously–seek the destruction of all races that are not jewish.
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that
some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other
than from committed white supremacists.”
~ ✡Noel Ignatiev✡, Harvard professor; “Abolish the White Race”;
Harvard Magazine; September 2002

“Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of

man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is
with these spiritual weapons that the jews will conquer the world and
the human race. The races and the nations will cheerfully submit to the
spiritual power of judaism, and all will become jews.”
~ ✡Rabbi Harry Waton✡; A Program for the Jews and Humanity; p. 100

To mix races is to destroy races, but races won’t mix if they know they’re
different. Therefore, the jewish cultural control of the West–its education, its media,
and its governments–has suppressed scientific knowledge of the difference in
races while simultaneously and universally heralding a lie–“One race; the human
race! There is no such thing as race! The races are all the same!” They are not. We
are separate species, and if we are ever to return to a healthy relationship with one
another–to end racial conflict–we must be physically separated from one another,
as all other species are.
“Wherever superior races have absorbed large doses of inferior blood,
the results have been tragic. Egypt is one case-& India presents a still
more loathsome extreme. The Aryans in India were too late in
establishing their colour-based caste system, so that today the culture of
the Hindoo is probably the most thoroughly repulsive on our planet. The
more one learns about India, the more one wants to vomit. Aside from a
few professional minds, the Indian people represent such an abyss of
degeneracy that extirpation fumigation would seem to be about the
only way to make Hindoostan fit for decent people to inhabit.”
~ Howard Phillip Lovecraft, author; 1933

This propaganda is so pervasive, that merely for the sake of clarity, most of my
mentions of the five species of humanity throughout the rest of this book will use still
the word ‘race,’ because we know what that means. Understand, however, that the

races are separate species, and all that this implies. Despite the pervasiveness of
this propaganda and the amount of time these lies have been repeated, people still do
not accept it–subconsciously. Every day, we run into trouble when the lies we
have been told conflict with the real world around us. We feel bad, mentally–
which translates to physically–and we don’t understand why. We are confused. We
think that the lies about race are true, but when we try to act in accordance with them,
we are stymied by society itself, and by the other races who don’t behave as we were
told they would. In a study on race, culture, and society that was equally as
groundbreaking, genetic cluster analysis was done on the participants. This
scientific analysis of genetic information showed near perfect correspondence
with the self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%)
showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
Remember that before we discovered DNA and could
calculate genetic distance that taxonomy was predicated on
physical appearance and behavior? Historic social biases,
practiced millennia before the discovery of DNA,
have been reflected as accurate in the scientific
designations of race differences. Remember what was
said earlier about instinct? Instinct is genetic behavior, coded
into a species at birth. Human infants instinctually recognize
differences in their own race better than those of other races.
They also prefer to be around those of their own race rather
than others. This happens long before any culture could
“inculcate” a form of negative “racism” into them. It’s natural. Chart of the comparative
We want to be around others who are like us. Racism is size of morphological
normal, healthy, and natural, and it is far more than differences. Click for
skin deep.

Scientists have long studied the level of genetic differentiation among different
populations of human beings. Interestingly, the nervous system accounts for an
enormous portion of the variation among human species. Even more so than the
melanocortin system–responsible for skin pigmentation. Indeed, there are many
factors which show more genetic variation than mere skin color.
Perhaps most noticeable beyond skin color are the other facial features
commonly associated with the races. For negroids, a large, wide, and flat nose is

prominent in most of their subgroups.
Physical activity in a hotter climate is more
demanding than in colder climes. The body
needs to spend some energy just for the
cooling processes, and thus the body requires
more oxygen. Having a wider nose and
nostrils facilitates breathing in more air,
thereby supplying the body with more oxygen
and thus giving a survival advantage in that
Example of epicanthic fold on an Asian eye.
environment. Mongoloids have what is known
as an epicanthic fold, adapted for the cold winds of the steppe climate of eastern Asia.
It stores slightly more fatty tissue and protects the sinuses.
The muscles of human bodies come in two types: slow twitch and fast twitch. The
body also has two types of energy systems: aerobic or anaerobic. They generate
adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which causes the muscles to contract. Type I fibers
are associated with strength and endurance; they’re slow to fire. Type II fibers fire
more quickly, but also tire faster. Slow twitch fibers use oxygen more efficiently; fast
twitch fibers do not burn oxygen to create energy. West Africans have genes which
cause them to have considerably more fast twitch fibers than other genetic groups.
This has led to their dominance in games of speed in the modern day, and arises from
their need to evade predation in history. Those who could not evade did not survive to
breed. West Africans, however, also lack slow twitch muscle fibers. This is why
Africans are notoriously poor swimmers, as swimming requires endurance and
successful application of slow twitch muscle. No African swimmer has ever qualified
for the US Olympic team, for example. They can’t–and may never–due to their
genetics. Additionally, blacks and whites–as well as the other races–have significant
differences in their bone densities.
While Africans are fast, Europeans dominate weightlifting competitions. Pound
for pound, whites are stronger than blacks. Europeans have far more slow twitch
fibers than Africans, and so can maintain huge strength over the period required to lift
weights. Along with muscle fiber differences, blacks and whites also have differences
in fat-free body mass, distribution of subcutaneous fat, length of limbs relative to the
trunk, and body protein contents. The African center of mass 3% higher than in
Europeans. They, therefore, have a 1.5% speed difference in sprinting, while
Europeans have a 1.5% speed advantage in swimming. East Asians who are the same

height as whites are even more favored in swimming, however they are shorter on
average, and thus do not set world records.

Differences in skull shape between the five species of humanity.

Race can be determined via genetic testing with scientific

certainty for more than 99.8% of individuals. These tests produce
the same results when applied to a host of categories of study,
such as oral bacteria and brain scans. Even lactose tolerance is
roughly deterministic of race. Virtually all Europeans are lactose
tolerant, while virtually all members of the other species of
humanity–and even the Arab subspecies of the caucasoid
species–are lactose intolerant. As with many other features, the
species of humanity have differences in both their cranial shape
and its capacity. The cranial morphology differences are apparent
to any layman with working eyes, but the implication of these
differences is more subtle, and therefore easier to obscure and
pervert. Indeed, it is almost impossible for scientists to so much
as study these differences, because to do so results in papers
either not being funded entirely, or being blacklisted and
censored after publication. We’ll return to the implications of Skull shape difference
in 3 species.
differences in cranial capacity in the next section.

Let’s discuss genetic distance a bit further. A useful way of visualizing
biodiversity is with principal component analysis. PCA is a mathematical
procedure that uses an orthogonal transformation to convert a set of observations of
possibly correlated variables into a set of values of uncorrelated variables called
principal components. How often is a pair of individuals from one population

more different than two individuals chosen from
different populations? Richard Lewontin–the pioneer
of modern genetic variation studies–made statements on
variability in this regard. His statements, however, are only
true when examining the frequency of different alleles
between individuals of an individual locus. Ultimately, the
answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to
define that dissimilarity, and the populations being
Simply put, if you plot traits
compared. When scientists analyzed three geographically in one dimension, you don’t
distinct populations (European, African, and Asian) and see clusters. If you plot in
measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, more than one dimension,
racial differences are readily
the answer to that question is never. distinguishable.
Here follows several PCA plots with a large sampling
of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of many individuals across the globe.
In this instance, nucleotides are the four molecules–A, T, G, C–which pair in a strand
of DNA. An SNP is a single variation in the pairing within a single strand of DNA. This
can be used to determine genetic distance. You will notice an overall clustering
pattern by which we can identify individuals and their respective populations and
races. This clustering is a natural consequence of divergent evolution due to
geographical isolation and differing environmental pressures. In other words, even by
studying our genes, we can visually see the differences in the five species of humanity.
First, a PCA plot of the
caucasoid race. We see two
major groups arise–Europeans,
across the top left, and Arab/
Semites, across the bottom
right. There is very little
continuity between them,
except… through jews, who are
very much their own little
group, as well. Zoom in and
examine this chart for a bit.
Notice how tightly grouped
virtually all of Europe is.
Indeed, an Irish man was
recently dumbfounded by the Caucasoid PCA chart. Click for much larger.

discovery of a young woman from Sweden who looked–and even sounded, albeit in
Swedish–almost exactly like his daughter.
Next, a two-axis PCA plot of the five species of humanity. In the top left again we
see the whole of the caucasoid race. The bottom left is the negroid race. Center right is
the mongoloid race. Notice that since this is only a two-axis plot that five groupings
are not readily visible. That’s
just because there is no Z
dimension to accompany the X
and Y. A three-dimensional
chart would show both the
americoid and australoid races
reaching outward from these
axes. Notice again the
extremely tight grouping at
the core of the races, and the
nonexistent–amount of
continuity between them, as
these groups have not often
miscegenated through the World PCA chart. Click for much larger.

How did these differences arise? The same way as in any other species.
Time spent apart–in different environments, in different climatological, agricultural,
and geological regions–causes specializations to arise, which turns potentially similar
groups into different species. Migration, in other words. When the average person
begins to study race and prehistoric humanity, they’re met with what is called the Out
Of Africa Theory. This theory is predicated on the idea that all of humanity began in
Africa, migrating outward through the Middle East and up through Europe, Asia, and
eventually the Americas across the Bering Straight. This theory has been widely
promoted by the jewish media establishment due to the fallacious psychological
implications they can tie to it. Everyone has a subconscious desire for the
maintenance of hereditary tradition and the values associated therewith. We feel good
when we think about our ancestors. Doing so even improves our intellectual
performance. If we are lied to about who our ancestors are, this gives us a

false impression of ourselves, of the world today, and of our future. In this
instance, the underlying lie is that “we are all African,” and this claim is promoted
solely to establish social policies which cause the ethnic genocide of certain races. But
we’ll come back to that.
“[This paper] acts to reject the theory that modern humans are of uniquely
African origin and supports the notion that emerging African populations
mixed with natives they encountered.”
~ Dr. Milford H. Wolpoff, anthropologist, University of Michigan

Despite this media push and varying amounts of archaeological research, “Out of
Africa” is proving ever more to be a failed theory. First, Out of Africa (hereafter OoA)
is not predicated on the knowledge that humanity is five species. It claims the modern
politically correct narrative–that Homo sapiens exists as a single species. When its
foundation is based on proven falsehoods, that doesn’t bode well for the rest of it. OoA
also claims that “anatomically modern” humanity began to exist in the Horn of Africa
about 100,000 years ago, with migration to Europe, Asia, and elsewhere beginning
about 70,000 years ago. Unfortunately for this claim, recent discoveries of human
remains in China–dating to ~100,000 years–and Europe–dating to ~36,000 years,
which is before the claims of European migration in OoA. Further discoveries, too
ancient and genetically disparate to fit the OoA claims, have soundly disproven its
premise. Even the original author of the Out of Africa theory now admits it’s unsound.
Out of Africa being wrong does not mean that the human species have not
migrated throughout history–both on the level of species and subspecies, and even
single migratory ethnicities.

Migration between local populations plays an important role in evolution–
influencing local adaptation, speciation, extinction, and the maintenance of genetic
variation. Genetic studies of human populations across the world show that there has
been “minimal gene flow” between archaic Europeans and Asians, and between
Africans and Europeans. They didn’t mix with each other, even tens of millennia ago,
and statistically they still don’t today. Europeans and Asians are also subject to more
recent evolution than Africans–as few as 500 generations ago–and the species of
humanity are becoming more genetically distant, not less. We’ll discuss the
implications of that in the following sections.

Non-indigenous species can cause the extinction of native flora or
fauna by hybridization and introgression. Take, for example, the jewish role in
creating wars in Muslim nations to introduce them into the West. Allopatric
speciation, also known as “geographic speciation,” occurs when biological
populations of the same species become vicariant–isolated from each other to an
extent that prevents or interferes with genetic interchange. This can be the result of
population dispersal leading to emigration, or by geographical changes such as
mountain formation, island formation, or large scale human activities (for example
agricultural and civil engineering developments). The separate populations, over time,
may evolve distinctly different characteristics. If the geographical barriers are
later removed, members of the two populations may be unable to successfully mate
with each other, or genetic problems will arise in offspring which do survive from this
mix. Allopatric isolation is a key factor in speciation and a common process by which
new species arise. Adaptive radiation, as observed by Charles Darwin in Galapagos
finches, is a consequence of allopatric speciation among island populations.
Even where there are minimal morphological differences between species,
differences in behavior can be enough to prevent mating. For example,
Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans–which are considered twin species due to
their morphological similarity–do not mate, even if they are kept together in a
laboratory. Studies of their sexual behavior show that the males court the females of
both species but the females show a marked preference for mating with males of their
own species. We see the same among humans. People, statistically, do not
interbreed in any meaningful number when not artificially induced to do so.
“Human races are evolving away from each other. Genes are evolving fast in
Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of
origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.”
~ Dr. Henry Harpending, anthropologist, University of Utah

Miscegenation, also known as interbreeding, interracial relations, or
intermarriage, is the act of intercourse with members of another race–usually to the
point or purpose of conceiving offspring. Between the vast majority of species,
interbreeding is impossible. Genetic distance is simply too great to produce viable
offspring. Sometimes even the number of chromosomes differs. In rare cases,
however, species can interbreed and produce not only living offspring, but viable ones.

Viable, in this case, refers to the ability of said offspring to breed themselves. Many
interspecies relations end in sterile mixtures. The most well known of which is
probably the mule–the result of a cross between a male donkey (Equus asinus) and a
female horse (Equus caballus). Mules cannot reproduce–neither with donkeys, nor
horses, nor even other mules–due to the genetic distance between their parents
(different numbers of chromosomes, in fact). Because mules can’t reproduce, they are
not given an official taxonomic designation, and are not their own species. They
are, however, sometimes referred to as Equus mulus or in full as E. asinus × E.
caballus, referring to the species mix that created them. There is an axiom in genetics
known as Haldane’s rule, which discusses fertility between species.
“When, in the offspring of two different animal races, one sex is
absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterogametic (XY; male) sex.”

A common claim made about human miscegenation is that humanity is a single

species solely because fertile offspring exist as the result of miscegenation. But what
do we see in the real world? Although African-European mixes (often called
mulattoes) are not sterile and males are not absent, males are statistically more rare
than females. Even further, the argument regarding Haldane’s rule is meaningless
because different species in the rest of the animal kingdom can breed and still
produce fertile offspring. Let’s return to a previous example: the wolf (Canis lupus)
and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris). The various types of wolf and domesticated dog
are considered subspecies of the same species (Canis lupus), but the coyote (Canis
latrans) and the common jackal (Canis aureus) are separate species. Yet all can
interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from
Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed, despite having different
chromosomal numbers. The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo
(Pan paniscus)–and even many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and
the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)–can interbreed, as well. The gibbon and the
siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid. Some species that aren’t even in the
same genus can interbreed.
Let’s look at a human example again, specifically the people called “Black
Americans” (or African-Americans). They are a hybrid race of around 22% white
ancestry, due primarily to some unfortunate interbreeding, long ago, between
slaveowners and slaves. Note that while jews were statistically the largest slave
owners, and while jews were the ones who ran the transatlantic slave trade, it was
only whites who–in rare cases–bred with slaves. Chattel slavery is a horrific and

unfortunate part of human history, but why did I say that miscegenation is also
unfortunate? Because hybridization is the cause of multiple negative health
effects due to genetic incompatibility. Consistent with Haldane’s rule, both unmixed
blacks from Africa and European Americans do not have the same rate of birth
problems of hybrid “American Blacks.”
You likely know about the system of blood typing where your blood is
examined and rated on a scale to determine what types of antibodies–part of your
immune system that fights disease–are carried by your blood. Most blood falls into
one of three categories: A, B, or O. Within these are A+, A-, B+, B-, AB+, AB-, O+ and
O-. Each of these is compatible or incompatible with the others in varying degrees. If
you need a blood transfusion, it’s important to get a matching type of blood, or at least
one that is compatible. You can be seriously injured if you don’t. Another system of
blood tying is the Rhesus factor. Rhesus categorization also relies on the bodies
antigens, but there’s a catch. Rhesus incompatibility affects pregnancies.
Problems with the Rhesus factor occur when the mother’s Rh factor is negative
and the baby’s Rh factor is positive. This is called Rh incompatibility. These
problems usually don’t occur in first pregnancies but will arise in subsequent
pregnancies. If the baby’s Rh positive blood manages to mix with the mother’s Rh
negative blood during pregnancy or labour, the mother’s blood will create antibodies
against the Rh factor, as though it were a harmful substance. This means the mother
becomes ‘Rh sensitized.’ The Rh antibodies can cross the placenta and attack
the baby’s blood, destroying the red blood cells. As an example, Rh- blood is present
in almost zero percent of Asian, Indio, and Australian populations and only 10% of
African populations, but exists in 16-36% of European whites.


“Indiscriminate interbreeding between distinct forms, whether 'species' or
markedly different races, is not generally beneficial. The defect may show in a
change in the sex-ratio of the offspring, probably caused by the early abortion
of members of one sex, generally the male in the case of mammals.”
~ Dr. John R. Baker, biologist and anthropologist; Race; 1974

“But what about ‘hybrid vigor’? I’ve heard that if you mix, you’re stronger!”
The problem with hybrid vigor is that it only works for two genetically depressed
populations that have already been inbred for longer than their genetic code will
allow. For example, among ornamental plants that have been artificially selected for a

certain type of petal without regard to other vital traits that affect health, growth, and
reproduction. The resulting “vigor” of the progeny of the hybrid is really just a return
to an acceptable standard of functional genetic fitness. The hybrids most likely
inherent at least one working copy of genes that code for functional proteins, whereas
in the genetically depressed parent genome, both copies may have produced broken
non-functional or semi-functional products.
It is not true that an evenly mixed population of hybrids would maintain about
50% of the genes from both parent populations over time. Some genes would, either
by random drift or by selection through the other phenotypes they affect, become less
common. The notion that hybridization in humans results in heterosis–an increase
in health–is highly unlikely. That probability is even smaller when taking into account
the fact there is greater genetic variation within a given population than between
them. There is a surprisingly small number of genes in an individual human’s genome
(20,000-25,000). Therefore any difference resulting from population hybridization
would have negligible results for hybrid vigor. Both hybrid vigor hypotheses involve
inbred parental populations. This makes the
assumptions for human heterosis further
disproven. The benefits diminish from the
hybrid generation onwards, too, so to continue
producing human hybrid offspring with these
hypothetical results requires the divergent
populations to remain intact, just as with any
other species.
Finally, the assumption that an admixed
human, subpopulation-wise, is entirely
heterozygous is utterly wrong. Let’s look at
a contradictory case. You have two parents A basic Punnett square for eye color genes.
from different populations with pairs of Father one one side, mother on the other.
identical homozygous alleles for eye color. The dominant gene is represented with a
Draw the Punnett square if necessary; the capital letter; the recessive gene is lower
case. With a father who has Bb alleles and a
offspring will be homozygotes with respect mother who has bb alleles, the odds of
to eye color. There are many more example of having a baby with blue eyes is 50% (one
these cases beyond just eye color, such as allele from each parent; both are necessary
to express blue), and the odds of having a
baby with brown eyes is also 50% (though
Admixing in humans also does not the blue allele shows up in both, the brown
equate to more functional immune allele is dominant, and thus is expressed).

systems, in terms of HLA diversity. There are admixed individuals with a very
limited set of these allotypes and non-admixed individuals who have many. Consider
HL A1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 which limited to a maximum of 2 in any given person. For
example, a person could have A1, A2, A7, A8 but not A1, A2, A3, and A11 or A7, A8,
A14, A15. Because each human population already has more HLA variants than the
limit of loci per individual, it’s better to pass on the alleles that confer resistance to
regional pathogens which offspring will be more likely to encounter than foreign
alleles from foreign populations. Currently HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1, have
roughly 1000, 1600, and 870 known alleles, respectively. The evidence
overwhelmingly suggests that multiracial kids are not subject to hybrid
vigor any more than monoracial kids, but they do have both physical and
neurological damage not seen in unmixed individuals.
A study involving undergraduate students at San Francisco State University and
the University of Hawaii revealed that mixed individuals with one European and one
Asian parent had worse health than pure European and Asians. Another study
assessing substance use and violent behavior among Seattle public middle schools
reported mixed race students being worse on these counts, even after considerations
for socioeconomic status. The National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health,
which stratifies by race, shows that mixed race individuals report more health
complications than their counterparts, both congenital and throughout their lives.
For example, mixed-race persons with leukemia are guaranteed to not find a
bone marrow donor. Mixed-heritage patients are extremely hard to match, and the
reason is found in their immune system. Different races have developed certain
proteins–markers–that are part of the body’s natural defenses. These markers help
the immune system determine which cells are foreign and should be rejected. A match
between two people who are more genetically alike significantly reduces the risk of
the donor and recipient cells attacking each other. In short, cells from people of two
different races will attack each other as though they are, respectively, viruses. The
more people of different backgrounds who produce offspring, the more types become
harder to match. Multiracial patients have uncommon profiles and since there can be
many possible racial and ethnic combinations in multiracial societies, finding a match
can be extremely difficult.
As an example, a white mother of a mixed-race child has more
genetically in common with a random white person on the street than
with her own child. If such a dramatic and fundamental alienation from your own
parents or children is not horrific enough, every member of the family of a mixed-race

child diagnosed with leukemia is also an incompatible donor for a bone marrow
transplant. (32) Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be
even more genetically similar to their recipients. Since all the immune system’s cells
come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces an entirely new immune
system. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white
blood cells will attack the host body. (33) Race matters when a patient needs a stem
cell or marrow transplant. (34) A true scientist studying cancer would never establish
a study in which all the ill patients were European and all the healthy controls were
Japanese. Not including information on the race or ethnicity of study volunteers will
skew disease risks as stronger or weaker than they really are.
“Alzheimer’s is the poster child for this problem. A variant of the gene ApoE4 is
a strong genetic risk factor for early onset Alzheimer’s, and the characteristic
most likely to raise or lower that risk is race. It occurs in about 20% of the black
American population, and it means nothing. It occurs in about 6% of Japanese,
and it makes their risk 6x higher [than that for white people]. Something about
being Japanese unleashes the wrath of the gene, and something about being
African attenuates it.”
~ Dr. Esteban Burchard, MD, pharmacogeneticist; Race for Ancestral Genetics
in Clinical Trials

The FDA has approved a heart failure drug called Bidil–but only for Africans,
as they do not benefit from heart failure drugs formulated for Europeans. Sickle cell
anaemia is a condition found almost exclusively in Africans–about 1:4 West Africans
carry the gene for it, while almost no Europeans do. Any who carry it most likely have
an African ancestor. As a result of African population growth in the African and
Caribbean regions of overseas France–and immigration from North and sub-Saharan
Africa to mainland France–sickle cell disease has become a major health problem in
France and the most common genetic disease in the country. Increased tax
burdens on Europeans for their healthcare services as a result of
unchecked foreign invasion by other racial groups who receive these
benefits has become a hallmark of the Western world. We’ll discuss the
further deleterious effects of immigration later.


Still with me? The technicality of the preceding section serves its place in the
unarguable, point for point destruction of the ‘politically correct’ narrative–
specifically “racists are dumb.” No. We’re not. Indeed, all the most intelligent
people in human history were racist. Not because of their racism were they
intelligent; they were intelligent, and thus they were racist. Their brilliance stemmed
from their unending quest for truth, rationality, and objectivity, and from this nature
they derived their racist views, as racism is a matter of scientific fact. The discoverers
of DNA themselves–Watson and Crick–had much to say on the subject of racial/
species differences.
“More than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American
whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated
by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the
social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps
are taken to recognize the situation.”
~ Dr. Francis Crick, Order of Merit, Fellow of the Royal Society, Nobel
Prize laureate, discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA; 1971

“There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capabilities of

peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have
evolved identically. All our social policies are based on the fact that [black,
et. al.] intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all our testing says not
really. There is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal,
but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”
~ Dr. James Watson, Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of
the British Empire, Fellow of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize laureate,
discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA
With a hard and technical scientific background now in place, please allow for a
more directly understandable summary list of the biological differences in just two of
the human races (species) and the operational product of these biological differences
(meaning: what differences result in human society from said differences). We will
then discuss the very concept of “racism” itself more thoroughly.

1. Body proportions. Whites have longer torsos, wider waists, and shorter
arms and legs than blacks.

2. Bone density. Whites have lower bone density, greater incidence of
osteoporotic fractures, and more bone regrowth than blacks.
3. Muscularity. Whites have a lower ratio of fast switch to slow twitch muscles
than blacks, and a lower frequency of ACTN3 “speed gene.” White muscle is also more
dense than black muscle. This is why blacks don’t win weightlifting competitions, but
they excel at sprinting.
4. Metabolic rate. Whites have a lower resting metabolism than blacks, in both
sexes and regardless of obesity.
5. Fat storage. Whites have a higher proportion of visceral (internal) fat and
lower subcutaneous (skin) fat than blacks. Blacks also tend to have Steatopygia: large
butt fat.
6. Disease susceptibility. Some diseases (cystic fibrosis) affect mostly whites;
others affect mostly blacks (sickle cell). Many illnesses and treatments have disparate
effects on whites/blacks, and different medicines are required for the races.
7. Birth rate. Whites have a lower rate of fraternal (two egg) twin births than
blacks–only half as high before fertility drugs. Lower birthrates are biologically
correlated with higher parental investment.
8. Pregnancy. Whites normally have a longer gestation period (40 to 39
weeks) and a lower preterm birth rate than blacks; black fetuses mature quicker.
9. Maturation rate. White youths mature slower than blacks across all
developmental indices, including infant motor skills, pubertal growth, and
menstruation. Slower maturation is biologically correlated with higher intelligence.
10. Hormones. Young white men have lower free testosterone than blacks, and
white men and women have lower estrogen than blacks. Whites are less hormone-
11. Aggression. Blacks have over 10x higher frequency of the violence-linked
gene allele MAOA-2R than whites.
12. Skull shape. Whites’ skulls typically differ from blacks’ in many respects: no
sagittal ridge keeling, eye sockets more angular, nasal cavity narrower, palate more
triangular, jaw less prognathic, etc.
13. Brain size and structure. Whites’ brains are typically 6-8% larger than
blacks’. Larger brains are correlated with higher intelligence. Whites’ brains also have
differing structure, with more protruding frontal and occipital regions.
14. IQ and genes. Whites consistently score 15 points (1 standard deviation)
higher than Black Americans and 20+ points higher than Africans on IQ tests; this gap

being genetically based. Gene alleles linked to intelligence have higher frequency in
Whites than blacks.

Oh, speaking of intelligence! Next is a section only second in controversy to the

whole of the contents of Chapter 3. Oh, well, and the last chapter. Racial
differences in intelligence.



“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that Indians are little better, if at
all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe
in that manner, with the result in the Indian is being dragged down to the
position of a raw Kaffir.”
~ Mahatma Gandhi

“It is an article of passionate faith among ‘politically correct’ biologists and

anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that
intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty
fascist things, anyway.”
~ Richard Dawkins; The Economist, vol. 328 (1993)

The topic of this section is what you’d call
“politically incorrect.” That itself is a weasel
word–used to temper the forthrightness of a
statement–and is employed whenever someone
attempts to discuss scientific facts which are
inconvenient to the current political narrative and the
desires of the people who run the media, government,
etc. While a statement such as “The five races of
humanity have biologically proven differences
in cognitive abilities, which is reflected in
their intellectual acumen, behavior, and
employment representation,” is objectively true,
it is also “politically incorrect.” As such, stating it
while in a position of authority is likely to cause you
to lose your job and social standing, despite it being
the truth. This artificial enforcement of the lie of Stonetoss webcomic; Wagging the
Dog; 2018 Satire of the inability to
“political correctness” has become so widespread that
publicly state the scientific fact of
even scientific research into the genetic difference in genetic differences in intelligence.
intelligence between the five races has been

prohibited. Scientists looking to study neurology have to lie, publicly, and balance on a
fine line between legitimate scientific research and maintaining the “narrative” which
those who control society demand of them. In this book, we don’t care about that.
“Political correctness” does not exist here–only correctness. We care about truth
above all else. So what does the truth say?
Despite popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g (or “general
intelligence”), can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life. A public
statement signed by 52 internationally known scholars–all professors or experts in
intelligence and allied fields–says the following:
“Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things,
involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly,
comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience…
Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it
well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid)
of all psychological tests and assessments.”
~ Mainstream Science on Intelligence, Intelligence, vol. 24, iss. 1, pp. 13-23;
January 1997

The landmark book The Bell Curve compared intelligence, education,

socioeconomic status, and a variety of other factors to see how positively they
correlate with social success. None of the factors correlated as highly as IQ did
(positively or negatively) to job success, income, welfare dependency, illegitimacy, and
crime. Higher IQ correlates well with–and is often the best predictor of–job
performance (>.90), wealth, income, economic growth, quality of life in a US state (.
80), cooperation, life expectancy (.85), and infant mortality (-.84). High national IQ
corresponds strongly to a high average living standard at 0.73. As Africans have a
lower IQ than Europeans, one could easily make the argument that sharing living
spaces lowers the quality of life for Europeans yet raises it for Africans. This is,
indeed, what we see in practice.
30 years of research on race differences in cognitive ability, based on multiple
categories of evidence and dozens of research studies with thousands of research
subjects, all converge and agree upon the indisputable fact that Europeans and
Africans have different average levels of general intelligence. This remains
true despite controls for poverty, health, education, and many other possible factors.
The average European IQ is roughly 100 while the average African IQ is roughly 85.
This gap has been demonstrated repeatedly by every race and intelligence

study ever conducted in every state, country, and school board. The European-
African ratio has remained relatively constant since testing began, decades ago. The
evidence is so overwhelming that psychologists do not even attempt to argue
that the massive gap does not exist. The only “debate” on the subject is the cause.
The cause is genetic difference.


There are pervasive physical differences between Europeans and Africans:
including brain size and structure, bone density, muscularity, fat storage, hormones,
and metabolic rate. Europeans’ brains average 6-8% larger. Larger brains are
correlated with higher intelligence. There are also differences in behavioral
traits between the races–such as sexual activeness, marital fidelity, birthrate,
gestation period, and maturation rate. These indicate a biological strategy of greater
parental investment for Europeans, also correlated with higher intelligence.
Genetic divergence of the races has accelerated in the last few millennia, and a
majority of these genes affect the brain. Many specific gene alleles have been linked to
higher intelligence, and in every case these alleles occur with greater frequency in
Europeans than Africans. Europeans evolved greater cognitive ability, in part, because
of the demands of their environment. The northern regions of the world require
inhabitants be able to plan and prepare for harsh winters.
In a combination of 19 studies on African and European brain sizes, all of
them, without fail, show European with a significantly larger brain size
than Africans. The calculated
average European brain is 1398 White Black
grams and 1438 cc, while the average 1450
African brain is 1275 grams and 1343
cc. These numbers are 91% and 93%,
respectively, of the average European 1300
brain. The heritability–at 0.90–of
brain size is extremely strong. Not
one study to date has shown larger
brain size for Africans, nor has any
study shown anywhere close to equal
brain size or structure for African
and Europeans. The European brain 1000
Brain size (g) Brain size (cc)
has a high degree of fissuring–the

ridges in the grey matter–which is associated with higher complexity. The African
brain has a lower degree of fissuring (lower complexity) in the cerebral cortex, where
abstract and conceptual thought are performed. This will be important later. The
supragranular layers of the brain are the part of the cerebral cortex in which
different amounts and types of neurons are layered, corresponding to their purposes.
A dog’s supragranular layers are 50% the thickness of an ape’s. An ape’s layers are
75% the thickness of those in a European human’s brain. The supragranular layers are
15% thinner in Africans than in Europeans. The front of the African brain is less
developed–and the back more developed–compared to that of European. This
corresponds to the sloping forehead of blacks. The frontal lobe is involved in higher
mental functions such as personality, expression, and the planning of complex
cognitive behaviors. This corresponds to the lower IQ and higher impulsivity of
Africans. Africans also have much lower slow-wave brain activity during sleep
than Europeans. European women generally have wider hips purportedly due to the
larger brain size of European babies compared to Africans. This is also a suggested
contribution to the better sprinting performance of Africans compared to Europeans.
Due to differences in brain morphology, Africans absorb 30% more nicotine than
Europeans per cigarette. It therefore takes longer for Africans to rid their bodies of the
“Numerous studies have demonstrated significant racial differences in the
metabolism of tobacco-related products.”
~ Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2005; Cincinnati Children’s
Hospital Medical Center

The Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study is one of the most important

socioeconomic studies on racial performance in human history. This group tested the
IQ of Europeans, Africans, and mulattoes (mixed children of each) which were
adopted into white, upper-middle-class homes. The study tested the adopted
children’s IQs at age 7, and after 10 years at 17. This study is extremely important,
because despite several of the mulatto children considered themselves fully African–
and society considered them fully African–they scored between the white and black
children. Adopted whites had an average IQ of 109, adopted mulattoes had an average
IQ of 99, and adopted blacks had an average IQ of 89. This shows that despite having
the same environment (adoption into upper-middle-class white families), higher IQs
were universally observed in self- and socially-perceived Africans as their European
ancestry increased. This study completely shatters the notion that “white

racism,” “black culture,” or “white oppression” are the cause of the IQ
gap. Were they responsible, these same social constructions would also affect the
mulatto children (who considered themselves fully black).
Studies of single nucleotide polymorphisms have revealed the following
genes and their prevalence in the European and African populations. These genes are
known to increase intelligence with genome-wide levels of significance.
SNP Distribution of genes between Africans & Europeans

rs708913 (A)

rs1044258 (T)

rs1487441 (A)

rs1800668 (A)
African Baseline
rs2099744 (A)
European Incidence

rs2364543 (T)
Gene Number

rs2899319 (A)

rs4314918 (A)

rs6535809 (A)

rs6546856 (T)

rs9388490 (T)

rs11793831 (T)

rs13428598 (T)

rs17048855 (A)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
European gene frequency, multiple of African baseline

The following genes are present in at least one-third of the African population
and are known to decrease intelligence with genome-wide levels of significance.
SNP Distribution of genes between Africans & Europeans

rs1245213 (A)

rs1346075 (T)
European Baseline
rs1972863 (A) African Incidence

rs2416114 (T)

rs2420551 (A)
Gene Number

rs4325706 (T)

rs4640173 (A)

rs6736129 (A)

rs7019796 (T)

rs8138473 (T)

rs9755750 (A)

rs9939991 (A)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
African gene frequency, multiple of European baseline

The primary takeaway from the presence–or absence–of these genes

is as follows. These genes are known to influence the hippocampus,
parahippocampal gyrus, limbic system, central nervous system, cerebral cortex,
cerebrum, telencephalon, temporal lobe, brain stem, prosencephalon,

rhombencephalon, occipital lobe, cerebellum, visual cortex, parietal lobe, retina,
basal ganglia, neural stem cells, corpus striatum and frontal lobe. This is not an
inclusive list of genes which affect the brain, but these genes alone account for 66% of
one standard deviation in cognitive ability. These genes are at least 50% more
likely to exist in one population than in the other. They can be found in at least 33% of
either population, and they positively affect Europeans or negatively affect Africans. A
conservative estimate has concluded that more than 200 genes which meet these
requirements exist. The differences between populations might be even larger
since the African sample included cohorts with European admixture.
The ASPM gene on Chromosome 1 has been shown to affect brain morphology.
Defects of this gene lead to smaller brains and low IQ. A new ASPM allele arose in
Eurasia several thousand years ago and has been suspected at increasing intelligence.
This new allele has been demonstrated to be absent in Africans. The MCPH1 gene
on Chromosome 8–with alleles known as microcephalin–partly determine brain size
and morphology. Beneficial alleles of this gene are common in Eurasians but rare in
Africans. The MCPH1 and ASPM gene correspond with the development of hand-
crafts and the development of sophisticated cities which were common in Eurasian
populations but unheard of in sub-Saharan Africa. The DCDC2 gene on
Chromosome 6 affects brain morphology and the ability to read. The allele frequency
of the A allele rs2274305 of the dyslexia-gene DCDC2 is about 0.28 among Eurasians
and 0.99 among Yorubas from Nigeria–and about 0.80 among black Americans. The
DTNBP1 gene has also been linked to intelligence, specifically the rs:760761, rs:
2619522 and rs:2619538 alleles. The T allele of rs:760761 restricts IQ, on average, by
roughly 8 points. 18% of Europeans carry this allele, compared to 37% of Africans. For
rs:2619522 carrying the G allele takes off 7 points, and is found in 18% of whites and
36% of blacks. The rs:2619538 T allele increases IQ by 6.5 points. 61% of Europeans
carry it versus 67% of Africans.


The preceding section was extremely technical and was affirmative in nature–
it posted a series of truthful statements. This section will be far less technical and be
negative in nature–it will disprove a series of false statements that are part of the
“politically correct” narrative. In some cases, these statements are generations old,
and therefore are now shrouded by many fallacies–such as the appeal to majority,
appeal to popularity, and even appeal to authority in some cases–and thought
to be true. The majority of the population may well believe most of these lies, and so

never question them even when their experiences clash with the truth. Scientific
authorities, as previously mentioned, are often blacklisted or censored when they try
to dispel these lies, because they know the truth about race and intelligence and
desperately want the public to know. But the people who own the media, the
government, and even the banks don’t want this information to become public
knowledge again, like it was in history. Let’s start simply.
“Race as we understand it is a social construct!”
An abject falsehood, as has already been proven. This idea comes directly and
exclusively from the communist worldview of egalitarianism, which states that all
persons are the equivalent of identical, interchangeable parts in a machine, despite all
genetic evidence to the contrary. Race is not a social construct; societies are
racial constructs. If race was nothing more than a “social construct,” what would
cause phenotypical traits in certain haplogroups? Different groups of people are
immune or weak to various diseases, based on their haplogroups. These traits arose,
in part, from the environments in which these groups lived. This is a
microevolutionary principle. If a group of people are genetically predisposed to live in
a certain environment, then they are different, biologically, from people who don’t
have ancestry there.
“Racial IQ differences only exist due to social biases for or against a race!
Things like social stigma, hiring discrimination, and purposely paying lower
As the Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study has already shown, when you run
an experiment that controls for racial environmental upbringing, significant IQ
differences still arise between, say, Europeans and Africans. The same holds true
between the other species of humanity. White-black academic and cultural
disparities–including an IQ gap of 1 standard deviation or more–are consistent across
geographic regions and technological eras. They persist throughout various cultures,
and in spite of massive uplift programs benefiting blacks at the expense of whites.
An undertaking to rival the aforementioned adoption study was done in Kansas City.
To summarize the events, in 1985, a federal district judge took partial control over the
Kansas City school district. He claimed that it was “unconstitutionally segregated.” To
bring the district into compliance with his interpretation of federal law, the judge
ordered the state and district to spend nearly $2 billion over the next 12 years to build
new schools, integrate classrooms, and bring student test scores up to national norms.
It didn’t work. 12 years later, black achievement hadn’t improved at all, and the
black-white gap was unchanged. The students had perhaps the best school facilities in

the country. For over a decade, the district got more money per pupil than any of the
280 other major school districts in the country. It’s not about funding. It’s about
biology. Intensive and extravagant education programs the world over have mostly
failed to raise black IQ or academic achievement, having minimal effect.
“For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, ‘You can’t solve
educational problems by throwing money at them.’ The education
establishment and its supporters have replied, ‘No one ever tried.’ In Kansas
City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage
desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District
to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and
state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it. Kansas City spent as much as
$11,700 per pupil–more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis,
than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought
higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-
sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and
animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model
United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to
Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12:1, the lowest of any
major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not
rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater,
integration. The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational
problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural
problems of our current educational system are far more important than a
lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted
attention from the real problem, low achievement.”
~ Paul Ciotti; Money And School Performance; Cato Institute; 1998

The standard deviation white/black IQ

gap is evident in the first tests of children at
age 3, when cultural differences are minimal,
and is consistent throughout the lifespan. It’s
not about income or “opportunity” granted
thereby, either. Very poor whites are
comparably intelligent to very wealthy
blacks. Even when using the SAT as a proxy
for IQ, the white-black gap is increasing.

“Well, those tests are just designed for whites and white culture!”
Africans do no better on intelligence tests that are non-cultural, such as Raven’s
Progressive Matrices, backward digit span, and reaction time tests. Blacks in white
nations not only enjoy the benefits of white civilization, but are also advantaged in
many respects. There is pervasive anti-white discrimination in education and job
hiring, high taxes/insurance premiums paid by whites for black welfare/benefits,
special education programs, and an entertainment media which extols blacks and
ridicules whites. Blacks have much higher self-esteem than whites, too. But how do
they behave in the face of all this?



“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But
my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them and
confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on
which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act
according to national customs.”
~ British General Sir Charles James Napier, regarding the Indian practice of
sati, whereby a widow is commanded to commit suicide by throwing herself
on her husband’s funeral pyre

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are
to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in
the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of
distinction between them.”
~ Thomas Jefferson; letter to George Washington on the physical removal of
Africans from the United States; January 4, 1786

We have seen that not only do genetic differences exist between the races of
humanity, these differences are great enough to perhaps warrant a total
reclassification of the races as separate species entirely. In doing so, a totally new
understanding of what the races/species of humanity represent must be achieved.
Our internal understanding of the world must be in consonance with the
physical reality of the world itself. If it is not, conflict arises–both internally and
externally. If we do not understand, within our own minds, the world as it truly is, we
cannot effectively communicate our intentions, emotions, beliefs, and goals. If we
miscommunicate our intentions to other races, we can be taken advantage of, take
advantage of, and even be killed.
Biologically, the races are at least subspecies, and perhaps even entirely separate
species. The morphological differences between us are simply external manifestations
of the fundamental internal differences in neurology, and therefore intelligence, and
therefore behavior. The range of thought afforded to an individual’s mind
defines the range of behavior engaged by that individual. Biology sets that

range of thought, and as the races/species of humanity differ biologically, the races/
species of humanity have entirely different schemes of behavior. These differences
are irreconcilable. Genetic mixture exacerbates them.

Multiculturalism doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work for reasons of biology,
before anything else. The neurotransmitter oxytocin makes people more cooperative,
benevolent, loyal, generous and trusting of others. It is involved in the parent-child
bond–new mothers and fathers have raised levels of oxytocin. Production also
increases when people hug and when they have sex. Recent research also suggests
oxytocin is produced after receiving psychological warmth. However, oxytocin has
been alleged to “foster racism.” Why? Because natural psychological bias for your
racial in-group “may modulated by brain oxytocin.” The instinctual desire to pursue
the interests of one’s own ethnic group–to further ensure the existence of one’s
people–is linked to racial bias, coinciding with the observation that diversity is a
weakness, not a strength. Another study has found that the part of the menstrual
cycle with the highest likelihood of conception causes increased racial bias,
particularly when the likelihood of sexual intercourse was increased. Despite claims
that only a “racist” would consider race when it comes to reproduction and mate
choice, this study observed a general, innate tendency to prefer one's own race when
most likely to be impregnated.
“Increased conception risk was positively associated with several measures of
race bias. This association was particularly strong when perceived vulnerability
to sexual coercion was high.”
~ Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle; Psychological
Science, vol. 20, no. 6; 2009

Studies have also shown that more attractive European women, for example, are
seven times more likely to exclude Africans from their dating preferences than less
attractive white women.
“Whoa, whoa, whoa, beauty is in the eye of the beholder! You don’t get to say
who’s more or less attractive!”
This, then, is a good time to link to scientific studies of the objectivity of beauty,
and the chapter thereon. Read it now–or in order, if you like–and then come back
here to race. It’s just one example, after all. Another study showed that people tend to
find their own face when morphed into the opposite sex most attractive, even when he

or she doesn’t know it’s his/her own face. It is perfectly natural that you prefer
people who look like you–in other words, their own racial/ethnic group. This isn’t
a cultural phenomenon, nor is it the result of lack of exposure to other races. By 9
months, babies are better able to recognize faces and emotional expressions of people
who belong to their own ethnic group. Studies of the brain have revealed that when
you view someone of another ethnic group, you don’t internally model their behaviors.
The brain goes so far as to not model anything at all. It doesn’t want to be caught up
in supporting something that might be detrimental to its survival. Supporting your
own race–even above other races–is both healthy and natural. A healthy society is
monocultural and homogenous, and that’s what forms a nation. We’ll come back to
this idea. Even at the community level, racial diversity strongly correlates with
negative social effects. A lavishly funded study of over 30,000 participants by Dr.
Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University showed that racial diversity in a community
corresponds to:
• Less confidence in local government, leaders, and news
• Less political efficacy/confidence
• Less likelihood to vote
• More protests and calls for social reform
• Less expectation of cooperation in times of crisis
• Less confidence in community cohesiveness
• Fewer contributions to the community, monetary or social
• Fewer close friends
• Fewer charitable contributions
• Less volunteering
• Lower perceived happiness
• Lower perceived quality of life
• More time spent indoors, watching TV
• More dependence on TV for entertainment
• Lowered trust in the community
• Lowered altruism
• More ethnic-based cohesion
• More interethnic violence
Each of the links in that list is to a different study which corroborates the point.
“Multiculturalism”–the act of of multiple races sharing a living space–
harms everyone involved. The ratio of the races doesn’t matter. Whether there’s a
clear majority, nor the magnitude thereof, nor an equal number of a variety of races,

the results are the same. There is, therefore, no scientific justification for different
races sharing the same living spaces. Ethnic/racial conflict over said living
spaces has been the primary cause of war and hostility in all of human
history. To end racial hostilities, we must end multiculturalism. Races which do not
originate from a region must leave said region, for the sake of the health and
happiness of all involved. As previously mentioned, miscegenation–the act of
interbreeding to erase the parent races–also does nothing to alleviate this problem. It
exacerbates it, and is demonstrably child abuse.

Some argue that miscegenation “averages out” traits, and that makes faces more
attractive. This logic is fallacious, as it assumes we are designed for perfect symmetry.
The magnitude of asymmetry is how attraction is measured, and this fluctuates. A
lower level of asymmetry correlates with increased attractiveness, not symmetry. But
does increased heterozygosity–meaning a greater mix in races–cause lower
asymmetry–meaning greater attractiveness? When analyzing 118 datasets across 14
studies a very weak inverse correlation was shown. Increased heterozygosity has no
beneficial effect on symmetry or asymmetry. One study on the craniofacial
morphology (the shape and form of the skull and face) in caucasoid-americoid mixed
race individuals found that over half of the 52 shape variables deviated from the
mathematical average, completely shattering the above argument. These studies also
found that European men and women with college degrees were also more likely to
stay within their own racial group for dating preferences.
A well-funded study of over 100,000 schoolchildren found that “Adolescents
who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than
those of 1 race.” Indeed, even when controlling for education, socioeconomic
status, and other factors, there is an across the board higher rate of health risks
among mixed race adolescents than mono-racial adolescents. One study found that
European-Asian mixes were twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychological
“When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however,
mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites.”
~ The Plight of Mixed-Race Adolescents; Harvard University study; 2008

disorder, such as anxiety, depression or substance abuse. This holds true despite being
raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.

The average rate of success for mixed race couples is around half that of same
race couples, 0.127 compared to 0.213. The more similar the two people are,
the happier their marriage tends to be. A study in Iceland showed that third
cousin marriages are the most fertile and successful. Mating within one’s ethnic/racial
group is more beneficial than outside of one’s ethnic/racial group.
The children of miscegenation suffer in ways more than just physical. The
damage done by a broken home is psychological, too. 92% of biracial children with
African fathers (regardless of the mother’s race) are born out of wedlock, 83% of
which never married thereafter. The effects of single parent households upon
children–regardless of race–will be discussed in greater detail later. 82% of them end
up in government assistance programs, because 88.3% of the fathers do not support
the families financially (because 90% of them abandon the mother once she’s
pregnant), and 79.3% of the mothers are either unemployed or make less than
$10,000 annually.

Multicultural societies lead to racial tension. Racial tension leads to violence, and
also crime. Let’s look at the Western world for our comparisons. In a given society,
measuring the percentage of blacks and hispanics–not poverty–is the best predictor of
crime. In the US specifically, 90% of gang members are non-white. Asians are nine
times more likely than whites to be members of gangs. Blacks are seven times more
likely than whites to commit murder, and are overrepresented in serial killings.
They’re also overrepresented among child abuse and pedophilia. Over 100 white
women are raped by black men every day in the United States. There have been 0
black women raped by white men in at least the last decade.
White immigrants to the West are a net addition to revenue, while non-white
immigrants are a net drain. 1% of Sweden's population is responsible for 63% of their
crime. As such, Sweden’s Human Development Index has declined, due to
immigration. Sweden is the rape capital of the West, due to immigration, where
just decades before there were no rapes for years at a time. These statistics even stand
in the face of evidence that police hesitate longer to shoot black suspects than white
suspects, and hispanics receive shorter prison sentences than whites for the same
This chapter has mostly covered the biological ways in which species differ, and
also shows scientifically how different behaviors manifest on the species level. So

what does this mean in practice? If humanity is really five species, their real-
world behavioral differences will reflect this. Let’s discuss those now.