The Western Contribution to World History
James C. Russell

“I shall begin by speaking about our ancestors, since it is only right and proper on such an occasion to pay them the honor of recalling what they did.” Thus wrote Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War1 and so it is fitting to pay tribute to those whose deeds contributed toward the creation and defense of our Western Civilization. The deeds of our ancestors, which we have chosen to commemorate today, include those of a military, cultural and scientific nature.

In his book entitled The Birth of Europe, medieval historian Robert Lopez posed the question: “What enabled Europe to emerge finally on top?” His answer was “the absence of great invasions for a thousand years.”2 Hence we begin our survey of Western contributions by paying tribute to those who, throughout the history of the West, courageously repulsed alien invading forces. (more…)

The Spitting Jackson
by Will Varner
from the American Times Today

Former Black Panther leader Jesse Jackson admitted in a November, 1969 “Life” magazine interview that when he worked as a waiter in a Greenville, South Carolina hotel he spat into the soups and salads of White customers. “[Spitting into the food] gave me a psychological gratification,” Jackson said.

During his early years in the communist civil rights movement Jackson often repeated this story to audiences. In fact the New York “Times” in a July, 1972 article, said: “Jesse would spit into their soup or salad before he brought it to the table, and watch with enjoyment as Whites ate gobs of saliva as though it were, say, oil and vinegar dressing.”

Jackson’s formerly self-professed behavior as a waiter reflects his contempt for Whites. When he was an adolescent he often made fun of Whites, recalls Horace Nash, a classmatte of Jackson’s in Greenville.

“He [Jackson] made up foolish jokes about Whites, about how stupid they were,” remembers Nash. “He used to turn things around, and he actually looked down on White people.”

As a self-professed preacher Jackson sometimes delivers sermons on the legacy of slavery, and many of his campaign speeches are laced with strong racist overtones.

We urge all Whites that frequent fast-food chains and who are concerned about their health, to remember that if there are negroes preparing food there, you can bet that they are doing the same thing.

Introduction to Nationalism
By Arthur E. LeBouthillier

We hear much about nationalism in the news and even from some in the White movement. Usually, nationalism is maligned as a bad thing leading to disintegration and mass violence. To the media, it is the stability-threatening force that causes governments to fall. To those in the White movement, it is the force that causes White brothers to fight each other. However, a better understanding of nationalism is necessary to appreciate its true role in world politics and how it relates to our own movement.

There are many myths about what nationalism is. For many, nationalism only evidences itself as warfare between ethnic groups or as the force that destabilizes multi-ethnic countries. However, this view misses a much more important fact about nationalism: that it is something that affects people’s everyday actions in many positive ways while never causing them to engage in acts of violence. Another myth about nationalism is that it is something fundamentally different from racism. In fact, the basis of nationalism can be one or more of several influences such as religion, race, language or other factors.

Nationalism

Nationalism is a complex phenomenon that is not always immediately easy to grasp. It is a whole ideological viewpoint that affects all aspects of one’s every day political, cultural, economic and social life. As Anthony D. Smith defines it in Nationalism in the Twentieth Century, it is “…the ideological movement for the attainment and maintenance of autonomy, cohesion, and individuality for a social group, some of whose members conceive it to be an actual or potential nation.” In accordance with this definition, it can be seen that virtually any activity taken on behalf of the nation (a social group) could be considered a “nationalistic act.” Such things as writing poetry to spread the ideals of the nation, learning the historical dances of that nation, speaking in the historical language of that people, or engaging in politics on behalf of the nation’s interests are all “nationalistic acts.” In extreme cases, nationalism does evidence itself as ethnic warfare when two or more ethnic groups compete at the expense of each other’s interests. According to John Breuilly in Nationalism and the State:

A nationalist argument is a political doctrine built upon three basic assertions:
There exists a nation with an explicit and peculiar character
The interests and values of this nation take priority over all other interests and values.
The nation must be as independent as possible. This usually requires at least attainment of political sovereignty. [Breuilly, 1982. p 3]

In accordance with the above definitions, one can see that our own movement to ensure the survival of the White race is a nationalist movement. This is even more strikingly evident when one considers Aryan Nation’s own slogan: “Your race is your nation.” This slogan is an obvious statement linking racial and nationalistic arguments and ideals.

The State

Nationalists make explicit distinctions between the nation, which is a social group, and the State, which is a government that rules over one or more nations. Therefore, nationalists often state that nationalism is love of one’s people, whereby patriotism is love of the State. It is important to understand this difference between nationalism and patriotism since most arguments against nationalism are patriotic attempts to ensure the survival of a particular State.

As a political institution, the State is an entity with its own interests. States derive their power from the number of people whom they are able to tax and control through laws and by force. Because of this, there is a conflict of interests between the State and the nation. Often, States find it necessary to suppress nationalistic feelings and disenfranchise national groups in order to secure their dominance. Where several ethnic groups exist in a single State, the State must compromise one group’s national interests in order to satisfy the desires of minority groups or to assure standing in the eyes of other nations or States of the world. Often, minority groups are able to assume control of the State apparatus and thus make it an instrument of their own ends. To the nationalist, often the only viable State is one that is expressly structure to protect and promote his own nation above all others; therefore, multi-ethnic States are seen as illegitimate.

The Nation

The key concept in understanding nationalism is knowing the meaning of the word nation. Contrary to the everyday use of the word nation, which often includes the many different ethnic groups existing in a certain State, the nationalist definition of nation is those people who believe they belong together because they are a social group bound by blood, language, culture, religion or other factors. As Walker Conner says, “The essence of the nation is a psychological bond that joins a people and differentiates it, in the subconscious convictions of its members, from all non-members in a most vital way” [Conner, 1994. p 197]. There are many such bonds, but perhaps the strongest national identity is that founded on race (lineage or bloodline). “In sharpest contrast with most academic analysts of nationalism, those who have successfully mobilized nations have understood that at the core of ethnopsychology is the sense of shared blood, and they have not hesitated to appeal to it” [Conner, p 197]. Other bases of ethnic identity include many other features such as language, folkways, historical viewpoints and other characteristics.

The White Nationalist Perspective

With the above understanding of nations and States, we Whites can examine our own situation better. Phrasing our position in terms of the basic nationalist arguments, one can state that we Whites are a nation, that the interests and values of that nation take priority over all others and that we must be as independent as possible. Therefore, we must embark on a program leading towards greater sovereignty and security for our nation. We must not let ANY government impose policies and programs that are harmful to our nation’s interests.

We must recognize that the U.S. Government, as a State, has subverted the interests of our nation and that unless measures are taken to bolster our nation, all that we hold as dear will be destroyed.

Conclusion

Nationalism is a social movement by a people seeking the maintenance of their group. The key element in nationalism is the nation, a social group of those people who believe that they belong together because of common characteristics and interests. By putting the interests of their social group ahead of all other interests, they are able to ensure its survival. Because they put the interests of their people first, nations are often in conflict with the States in which they reside. This most often results in a desire for political sovereignty by nations. The nationalist model applies to the White movement in North America. With a better understanding of nationalism, one can learn to utilize the tactics of other nationalist movements around the world.

References

Breuilly, John. 1982. Nationalism and the State. ISBN 0-312-56005-2.

Conner, Walker. 1994. “Beyond Reason: The Nature of the Ethnonational Bond.” in Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02563-0.

Smith, Anthony D. 1979. Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. ISBN 0-8147-7803-8.

What Is Racism?
by Thomas Jackson

Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8

There is surely no nation in the world that holds “racism” in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. “Racism” is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about “racism.” If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today’s whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday’s whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word “nigger” while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as “racist,” but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 “historically black” colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of… the same thing. To resist would be racist.

“Black pride” is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver’s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected “civil rights” organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is “celebration of diversity.” It has begun to dawn on a few people that “diversity” is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has “diversity” been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To “celebrate” or “embrace” diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to “diversity.” It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of “diversity.” It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being “culturally enriched?” What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren’t citizens, who clamored for “affirmative action” in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to “celebrate” their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white.”

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of “diversity” and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one’s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one’s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be “racist.”

What then, is “racism?” It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

Research Finds that Immigration Costs Nearly $30 billion a year

Immigration is expensive and the best way to reduce the expense is to lower the level of immigration. Until recently, it has been difficult to get estimates of how large the cost is. But, with the American public more and more concerned, the public debate over immigration reform has sparked a spate of new reports on the cost of immigration. While there have been studies before on isolated costs of immigration to particular areas, it is only recent studies that have estimated the overall cost of immigration to the United States.

There are three principal reports that try to calculate the amount of tax revenues immigrants generate and weigh it against the cost burden they impose to come up with an estimate of the net cost. These three reports are the Huddle study, the Urban Institute study, and the CIS study.

The Huddle Study

“The Costs of Immigration,” by Dr. Donald Huddle of Rice University, commonly known as the Huddle study, was the first report to estimate the net cost of immigration to the United States. It was first released in 1993, and has since been updated. In its most recent version, it esitimates that post-1969 immigrants create a net deficit of $44.2 billion annually.

The Urban Institute Study

“Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight,” by Michael Fix and Jeffery Passel of the Urban Institute, commonly known as the Urban Institute study, was specifically designed to counter the net cost claims of the Huddle study. The Urban Institute study, released in 1994, found that post- 1969 immigrants create a net benefit of $28.7 billion annually.

The CIS Study

“The Costs of Immigration: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” by the Center for Immigration Studies, commonly known as the CIS study, seeks to correct the flaws of the Urban Institute study. The CIS study calculates that post-1969 immigrants create a net deficit of $29.1 billion annually. In our view, the CIS study remains the definitive report on the cost of immigration to the nation.

Federation for American Immigration Reform, October 1994,sg.

Crime
by Jared Taylor

from National Review magazine, May 16, 1994

“IT HAS now become acceptable to discuss black crime,” writes Mr. Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City. I’m not sure this is a compliment to those of us who have been doing it for years — Patrick Buchanan, Samuel Francis, and especially Professor William Wilbanks of Florida International University, to mention just a few. But we welcome Mr. Koch into our midst nonetheless.

In fact, the significance of black crime is even greater than Mr. Koch realizes, for without it, the level of violence in the United States would not be appreciably greater than that of the European nations with whom we are most often compared.

As the chart at the bottom of this page shows, Americans as a whole are more violent than Europeans: twice as likely as Frenchmen to commit murder and more than five times as likely as Germans to commit robbery. However, as is clear from the separate calculations for American blacks and whites, it is very high rates of violent crimes by blacks — eight times as high as whites for murder and more than ten times for robbery — that yield this result.

These figures actually overstate the white crime rate, since the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports classify Hispanics as “white.” About 9 per cent of the population is Hispanic, and jurisdictions that treat them as a separate category report that they are two to six times as likely as whites to commit murder and robbery.

These figures have a bearing on the debate over gun control. White Americans, who have easy access to guns, are less likely to kill each other than are the British, who are almost completely disarmed. Would gun control be so widely advocated if America were less violent than Britain?

This comparison with Europe suggests that the United States has neither a unique “culture of violence” nor inadequate gun laws. It has a high rate of violent crime because it has a large number of violent black criminals. Let us hope Mr. Koch will agree that it is now respectable to say so.

CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

A-Britain B-France C-Germany D-Italy E-U.S.A. F-American Whites G-American Blacks

Murder: A-7.4 B-4.6 C-4.2 D-6.0 E-9.3 F-5.1 G-43.4

Robbery: A-62.6 B-90.4 C-47.4 D-68.6 E-263.0 F-126 G-1,343

Source: Uniform Crime Reports for U.S. data, The Economist for European data. European data for 1990; American data for 1992

Mr. Taylor is the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. He is also the Editor of American Renaissance magazine, a publication dedicated to telling the truth about race, racial differences and their meaning.

Whatever Happened to Eugenics?
Glayde Whitney
Florida State University, Tallahassee

Review of:

Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science
Roger Pearson
Scott-Townsend Publishers, Washington D.C., 1996
ISBN 1-878465-15-5 162 pps.

“Most of those who have sought to suppress human knowledge about heredity have done so with kindly intentions, but sound policies can never be constructed on bad science or unsound data. Any society that sets itself against the immutable causal laws of biology and evolution will ultimately bring about its own demise” (Pearson, p. 140).

Whatever happened to Eugenics? How is it that the prevention of human suffering came to be considered as the greater evil? In this delightful little book Roger Pearson takes us on an excursion through history, science and ideologies.

In so doing he illuminates the origins of great concepts and names the heroes and the villains in a saga that is not yet complete. In recommending this book to a Seminar in Evolutionary Psychology I told the graduate students that it is “an anti-PC, anti-egalitarian, historical polemic, well referenced and worth reading this is not the story you got in cultural anthropology class.” This is a story well-told that needs wide telling, and serious pondering by all who are concerned for the welfare of our civilization.

The opening chapter (The Concept of Heredity in the Ancient World) serves to remind the reader that heredity has been considered important since before the beginning of recorded history, and at least until earlier in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, these observations will be new to many students who have suffered a modern deconstructed education. Pearson announces his agenda in that the opening chapter “illustrates the deep belief in the importance of heredity and race which prevailed from the earliest times until roughly the end of the nineteenth century. Subsequent chapters document the rise of politically-motivated egalitarian ideology which, heavily supported by the media, eventually succeeded in making the idea of biological inequality taboo. Despite the fact that there is today a rapidly developing body of scientific research which validates the age-old comprehension of the role of heredity in shaping human abilities, too many people are unaware of the mechanics behind the swing toward the notion of the biological equality of mankind” (p. 9).

The mechanics of the swing will be well understood by the readers of this book. Pearson reasonably speculates that an appreciation of heredity probably existed at least as early as the Neolithic origins of agriculture and animal husbandry. It is well documented with ample quotes (Plato, the Odyssey, Theognis, etc.) that the ancient Greeks had a keen appreciation of hereditary contributions to both physical and mental traits. Unlike the matrilineal and patrilineal clan systems of many other peoples, the ancient Germanic “kindred” acknowledged the actual degrees of genetic relatedness on both paternal and maternal sides. This Germanic kindred is the basic traditional approach to family shared today by most North Americans of European descent.

Multicultural egalitarianism reared its civilization destroying head in the ancient world. Early on, freeborn Romans could only marry among certain stocks under the system of connubium. But with military and bureaucratic successes the empire grew to become a “multicultural giant”, “ripe for the rise of egalitarian political ideologies” (p.13):

The coming of Christianity plunged logic and classical philosophy into centuries of near-oblivion and clashed with the established and ancient European belief in the inequality of men. Spreading first among the slaves and lowest classes of the Roman empire, Christianity came to teach that all men were equal in the eyes of a universal Creator God, an idea that was totally alien to older European thought which had recognized a hierarchy of competence among men - and even among the gods. Opposing the traditions of classical philosophy and scientific enquiry, Christianity introduced into Europe the concept of a single omnipotent `God of History’ who controlled all the phenomena of the universe - with men and women being creations of that God. Since all men and women were the `children of God’, all were equal before their Divine Maker! Faith in the church’s interpretation of supposedly prophetic revelations became more important than scientific or philosophical enquiry; and to question the church’s view of reality came to be perceived as sinful. …. Christianity carried the anti-intellectualism of the Middle Eastern prophets to its extreme (p. 14).

And the weakened, multicultural egalitarian Roman Empire soon fell “before the onslaught of the smaller, more homogeneous, Germanic nations, which still retained a sense of group identity” (p.13).

Across the centuries of church domination the notions of hereditary differences among men were discouraged in the service of Church power. The “divine right” to rule, given by God, became quite different from the earlier concept of hereditarily noble ruling lineages. Stripped by the Church of belief in the importance of human heredity and of the notion of the state as a kinship unit - “a family writ large” (p.16), believing instead in the essential equality of all God’s children, the stage was set for the development of egalitarian-espousing secular political movements:

Such was the case of the Levellers who fought alongside the Parliamentarians in seventeenth century Britain; of the Jacobins, who decimated the accomplished aristocracy of eighteenth century France; and of the Bolsheviks who wrought genocidal slaughter among the more successful members of Czarist Russian society …. In recent times, calls for political revolution have frequently invoked attacks on `genetic determinism’ in favor of the alternate, wildly illogical, philosophy of `biological egalitarianism’…. The suggestion that one individual might be inherently more creative or productive than another was unlikely to fuel the feelings of resentment necessary to incite the masses to revolutionary action (p. 17).

After more than a thousand years of intellectual suppression, there eventually was a renaissance. By the eighteenth century thinking people were well aware of inherited differences among individuals and races. Thomas Jefferson certainly did not confuse rule of law [ …. all men are created equal ….] and hereditary reality. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson states that “I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. …. For experience proves, that the moral and physical qualities of man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from father to son” (Jefferson, at Monticello, October 28, 1813). Jefferson’s view concerning the profound inherited differences between the black and white races are well known, and are documented in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” and elsewhere throughout his writings.

In the chapter “The Discovery of Evolution: Eugenics and the Pioneers of Modern Science” Roger Pearson presents the scientific heroes of early eugenics. The topmost trinity are Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, and Karl Pearson. By all accounts a kind and gentle man, Charles Darwin delayed over twenty years between formulating his theory of evolution by natural selection and its publication (Desmond & Moore, 1991). His feeling for his wife’s religious sensitivities, and a reluctance to be excoriated by correct society, contributed to the delay.

Were it not for Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin may well have traveled the road of such luminaries as Copernicus and Descartes and not published until beyond the reach of disapprobation. However, Darwin received instant acclaim among important scientists when appeared in 1859 his masterpiece The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Among those profoundly influenced was Darwin’s half-cousin (same grandfather - Erasmus Darwin - different grandmother) Francis Galton. Already an eminent scientist, explorer, and inventor in his own right, Galton later wrote to Darwin:

I always think of you in the same way as converts from barbarism think of the teacher who first relieved them from the intolerable burden of their superstition. ….the appearance of your Origin of Species formed a real crisis in my life; your book drove away the constraint of my old superstition as if it had been a nightmare and was the first to give me freedom of thought”. (from Karl Pearson, 1924).

It was Galton who immediately took up the scientific study of human diversity, human ability, and the evolution of civilizational capacity. By 1865 Galton published two important articles which shared the title “Hereditary Talent and Character”, in 1869 he published Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences. From the beginning Galton’s work on heredity combined science (which later developed as human genetics) with notions of applications for the benefit of humanity. Galton founded, and then in 1883 named, the new science, eugenics. The term was from the Greek eugenes (”well born”), and Roger Pearson tells us:

In Galton’s own words, the purpose of genetic science was “to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.’(p. 19).

The humanitarian goal of eugenics was summarized by Galton in 1908:

Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective. …. Natural Selection rests upon excessive production and wholesale destruction; Eugenics on bringing no more individuals into the world than can be properly cared for, and those only of the best stock. (Galton, 1908, p.323).

Heartened by Galton’s applications of evolution to humanity, and by his investigations into the laws of heredity, Darwin was encouraged to prepare his own notes and thoughts concerning human evolution, and, in 1871 published The Descent of Man. In light of what came after it is important to emphasize that neither Galton nor Darwin, nor I dare say any competent scientist, doubted that the races differed profoundly in hereditary characteristics. As illustration Roger Pearson provides the following excerpt from chapter seven of The Descent of Man:

” …. the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other - as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotion, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck by the contrast between taciturn, even morose aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted talkative negroes (p. 20).

In order to study heredity Galton revolutionized methods, becoming “The Father” of modern statistics. The younger applied mathematician and social activist Karl Pearson [later to be Galton’s major biographer] became an important colleague. Karl Pearson generalized the mathematical foundations of Galtonian statistical concepts, and further developed statistics in his quest of eugenical science. He was one of the most influential scientists at the turn-of-the-century, and emphasized eugenics in books with titles such as National Life from the Standpoint of Science (1901), and Nature and Nurture: The Problem of the Future (1910). Karl Pearson had deep concerns for the welfare of the British Empire, he feared that current conditions were having dysgenic consequences such that the quantity of qualified persons would be insufficient to maintain the Empire. Judging from the changes to the British Empire over the century from 1896 to 1996, there is certainly nothing apparent that contradicts his concerns. At one point he lamented “We have placed our money on environment, when heredity wins in a canter”.

Roger Pearson makes abundantly clear with extensive documentation and fascinating text that the period up until approximately 1930 saw the flowering of eugenics in science, society and law. Many humanitarians of both the left and the right were united in an enthusiasm to improve human stock and prevent human suffering, rather than to only treat suffering after the fact. Eugenic ideals were embraced by such luminaries as George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Havelock Ellis, A. J. Balfour and Winston Churchill, to list but a few in Britain. In the United States such influential people as Henry Ford, Madison Grant, Margaret Sanger and Theodore Roosevelt were enthusiastic. The Carnegie Institute of Washington established, with Harriman family funds, the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office under the leadership of the geneticist Charles Davenport.

Organizations such as The Galton Society and The Race Betterment Foundation were founded with ample scientific and social support. Writing for a majority (only one justice dissented) of the United States Supreme Court in 1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., noted:

It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. ….. Three generations of imbeciles is enough (Buck v. Bell, 1927).

With such widespread support eugenics might have continued to develop as a major component of progressive society. Alas, such was not to be. Within the movement, R. Pearson points out, there developed schisms between those interested in race betterment and those more interested in prevention of specific genetic diseases - a breach between positive and negative eugenics. At the same time the “eugenic ideal - the desire to engineer a healthy genetic heritage for future generations - came under increasing attack from those who were ideologically committed to egalitarianism. The latter refused to see the eugenic ideal in any light other than as an hierarchical concept implying superiority and inferiority - the precise pattern of thought they sought to eliminate from social consciousness. They, too, sought to engage in social engineering, though engineering of a political nature which would have unanticipated dysgenic consequences, and the stage was set for the intense emotional struggle which today dominates both academia and the media, about the political correctness of permitting research into behavioral genetics, as well as the right to propagate information about the role of heredity in shaping the limits of human abilities and behavior.” (pp. 52 - 53).

The arch villain on the academic front, instrumental in supplanting and then demonizing eugenics was Franz Boas, aided by a large entourage of students and fellow-travelers. One of the main take-home messages is that honest empirical science does not fare well, at least in the short run, when up against ideologically inspired polemics in which almost anything goes in the service of a greater good [the end justifies the means]. In Chapter V (Radical Egalitarianism Penetrates Academe), and the following few chapters, Roger Pearson exposes the players and the agenda promoting the egalitarian fallacy. It is a fascinating expose of names, dates, and events, too rich to be dealt with adequately in even a lengthy review. The reader is reminded of the Verona files, recently released documentation of the extensive infiltration of American government and society by communist agents. In very important respects Joe McCarthy was neither paranoid nor mistaken. Roger Pearson here makes clear that the academic and anthropological/psychobiological scientific fronts were not immune from the same intellectual infestations.

Born of a pair of politically radical socialists who were active in the 1870-71 wave of revolutionary movements across Europe, Franz Boas emigrated to the United States in 1886. In coming to America he was following Abraham Jacobi, an uncle by marriage, who came after being released from prison for armed violence in the Cologne revolution of 1848. Jacobi was active in the revolutionary socialist movement in the United States, and was in a good position to provide influential contacts for his kinsman. Boas “became the head of a department of anthropology established at Columbia University, where he trained and awarded doctoral degrees to numerous selected students. Equipped with the earliest American doctorates specifically designated as being in the field of anthropology, his students by default became the leaders and prime builders of academic anthropology in the United States, rapidly establishing themselves as the arbiters of anthropological research, publishing and teaching in American universities.

Interestingly, as late as 1911, in his book The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas had admitted that: “[d]ifferences of structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of differences of structure between races, so we must anticipate that differences in mental characteristics will be found.”

However, Boas was shortly to reverse this position when he realized that the recognition of genetic forces conflicted with the goals of his egalitarian and internationalist ideology, which sought to demolish the unity and coherence of national units. Instead he began a massive campaign to undermine national and ethnic consciousness and `combat racism’ in whatever form it might find expression. In particular, his [books] were devoted to downplaying the concept of heredity and undermining the eugenic ideal. …. The spread of Boasian doctrines was further facilitated by the position of world dominance then enjoyed by the Western nations. Spurred by an ethical desire to shoulder `the white man’s burden’ in a shrinking world, many academics came to believe that Mankind should now abandon the Darwinian struggle and treat the diverse subspecies of mankind as members of a single, international gene pool. This …. was an ethical concept not shared by the non-Western nations, who adhered to more functional, self-promoting, competitive patterns of behavior. …. the desire that biological egalitarianism should be true gained strength as human altruism was redirected away from the immediate group ..[to].. an ideology which favored overall sapiens homogenization. The new radicals in U.S. social science found it convenient to downplay heritability; and Boas’s earlier acknowledgment of human biological disparities was edited out of his 1938 edition …. . Those to whom Boas awarded doctoral degrees in anthropology generally shared his ideologies and became prime disciples of egalitarian universalism” (pp. 57 - 59).

Among his many students were Margaret Mead, the “mother of American anthropology”, eventually exposed as a hoaxster and communist propagandist, and Israel Ehrenburg (A.K.A. Ashley Montagu) whose “entire career was built around a bitter crusade against the work of respected scholars such as Carleton Coon, who recognized race as a vital product of human evolution” (p. 62). Others too numerous to even list are exposed in their infamy.

Many world events contributed to the growth of anti-eugenic egalitarianism, not least among which was the suffering associated with the world-wide depression which followed World War I. The growth of Nazism and the outcome of W.W.II provided an unfortunate boost to anti-eugenic sentiment. It was a propaganda coup of tremendous proportions to be able to paint eugenics with the tar brush of Nazi anti-Semitism. Never mind that it makes no more sense than to condemn all of pharmaceutical science or medical surgery because German science and applications were well developed in those fields. The propaganda damage was done, and it became unacceptable to even mention the possibility of race differences in behavior at the same time that Lysenkoism, condemning all genetics, was taking hold in the Soviet Union.

Biological egalitarianism became the only ‘politically correct’ doctrine among Marxists throughout the world, and …. permeated Western [universities] through the teachings of faculty members who were ideologically attracted to egalitarianism but were balefully ignorant of even elementary biology.” (p. 71).

The Science for the People movement sprang up as part of the counter-culture protests in the era of the Vietnam War; “The political left-wing had now achieved ascendancy in the universities of the Western world. Indeed, many contemporary evolutionary scientists still seem to wish to be perceived as believing in equality, …. in a degree of malleability of human nature that does not exist. .. [Pee-Cee evolutionists focus] their writings on the ‘panhuman’ traits shared by all living hominids” (p. 73). They attempt to deny any genetic diversity among living races. Indeed, some even deny the existence of races. A sickly accurate joke has it that “It takes a Ph.D. in biology from Harvard to not be able to discern any difference between an Eskimo and a Hottentot”!

The second half of the book deals in fascinating depth with essentially current happenings, both in eugenical science [genetics], and in ideological countermoves to empirical science. On the one had, DNA fingerprinting can now establish, from a drop of saliva or dried blood, the race of origin to a probability of error of less than one-in-a-hundred-million. Incredibly, at the same time popular media and scientific publications stridently proclaim that biological [genetic] races do not exist. We are now in critical times, a race is occurring around us between humanitarian applications of modern genetic science (eugenics, that is) and the suppression of knowledge by PeeCee ideologues. The media, by-and-large trained by egalitarians, know no better than to attack as “racist”, “repellent”, or “repugnant” almost any admission of information concerning behavior and genetic diversity among human races. Yet at the same time the human genome project in combination with a wide variety of research in the neurosciences [brain science] and behavioral medicine and genetics in general, is quickly taking us beyond the point where race differences can be obfuscated or denied. So? It is ominous that there is a proliferation of ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ laws being considered or already in existence in various European countries, Australia, and Canada. While in the United States, under the umbrella of first amendment freedom-of-speech protection, academic tenure is under wide-spread attack and previously respectable academic publishers are censuring authors and censoring their book lists, even withdrawing from publication a title deemed “repellent” for including mention of race differences.

Whatever happened to eugenics? In China it is alive and well. The “Maternal and Infantile Health Care Law” went into effect on 1 June 1995. A media mention states “The official Xinhua News Agency reported that China currently has more than 10 million disabled people whose births could have been prevented if such a law had been in effect” (Tallahassee Democrat, 1994).

Meanwhile, in the West, eugenics continues to encounter politically motivated attempts to suppress. As the scientific advances continue at an accelerating pace, it remains to be seen if rational humanitarian applications of sound genetic knowledge can be implemented for the benefit of mankind, or if we will slip into another era of anti-intellectual totalitarianism. Anyone concerned for the future of mankind should carefully read this book. It is not the story you were told in cultural anthropology class.

… there is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but …. eugenics ….. can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilizations” (p. 136).

References

Buck v. Bell.

1927 274 U.S., pp 201-208.

Desmond, A., & J. Moore.

1991 Darwin. London: Penguin Books

Galton, F.

1908 Memories of My Life. London: Methuen (3rd. ed., April 1909).

Galton, F.

1996 Essays in Eugenics. With biographical introduction by Roger

Pearson. Washington D.C.: Scott-Townsend.

Jefferson, T.

1813 Letter to John Adams, October 28, 1813. Reprinted in: Peterson, M.D. (ed.) 1975 The Portable Thomas Jefferson. New York: Penguin Books, pp 533-539.

Pearson, K.

1924 The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton. vol. 1, London: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, R.

1991 Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe. Washington D.C.: Scott-

Townsend.

Rushton, J. P.

1995 Race, Evolution, and Behavior. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction.

Tallahassee Democrat

1994 China: Lawmakers approve eugenics law. 28 October. Tallahassee FL: Democrat news service.

Chapter 16: Jewish Supremacism, Pg. 1 of 12
ORDER NOW!

Powerful and enigmatic, intelligent and creative, idealistic on the one hand and materialistic on the other, the Jewish people have always fascinated me. Few teenagers growing up in the middle ’60s, as I did, could have avoided acquiring a positive image of Israel and the Jewish people. Because of my years of Sunday school, my perception of the Jews was even more idealized than most. I was 11 years old when I saw the movie classic Exodus.1 It made an enduring impression on me, so much so, that for a few months its beautiful theme song became my favorite, one that I would often hum or sing.

I remember an episode of embarrassment when my sister and her teenage friends stumbled upon me loudly singing the stirring words, “This land is mine, God gave this land to me.” Heroic Israel inspired me. It was as if the Israelites of the Bible transposed themselves to modern times to live out their Old Testament adventures again. My image of Israel strongly reinforced my acceptance of the idea that Gentile intolerance had caused every historical conflict with Jews.

After I had discovered the extensive Jewish involvement with early Communism, which I had hoped was an uncharacteristic blight on Jewish history, I began to ask questions one dared not ask in polite society about this interesting people and religion. I had read about the many persecutions of the Jews throughout history, including their great suffering now called the Holocaust (in the mid-60s that term had not yet been appropriated by the Jews to apply exclusively to their sufferings during the Second World War - holocaust merely meant, as it always has, destruction of anything by fire).

Mark Twain wrote, “Every nation hates each other, but they all hate the Jew.” Somehow I found the impertinence to ask why. In a historical context, almost every major nation of Europe had expelled them, some repeatedly, after renewed waves of Jewish immigration. What was it, I wondered, about the Jewish people, that inspired such hatred?

Normally, when we study historical conflicts between nations or peoples, we do it dispassionately. For instance, in examining any war from long ago, we list as objectively as possible, the grievances and rationales of the opposing sides. When studying the War for Southern Independence, every American school child learns the Southern arguments for secession and the Northern arguments for forced union. In contrast, when studying the historical disputes between the Jewish people and others, only the Jewish point-of-view is acceptable.

In early 1995, Congressman Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, fired his newly appointed congressional librarian, Christina Jeffrey,2 for having once suggested that history students, when studying the Holocaust should also be exposed to the German point of view. She was fired in spite of her high standing in her profession and notwithstanding her long and cozy relations with the powerful Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith). The very suggestion that there could be another side to any issue affecting Jews is decried as “anti-Semitic.” In both the entertainment and news media, the only permissible opinion is that Jews are always innocent victims persecuted by intolerant Christians and other “anti-Semites.” Maybe they were always innocent, and all the other peoples of the world were always unjust, I thought. But they weren’t so innocent in the Russian Revolution. I realized I could not evaluate the issue fairly until I had read both sides.

Exodus (1960). dir. Otto Preminger United Artists.
Kurtzman, Daniel. (1995). Ousted House Historian Seeks Restitution and a Straight Record. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. October 31

The promotion of integration in public and private schools has created enormous problems in classrooms across America. Violent behavior has increased as multi-culturalism and diversity programs have forced races together. Many White parents remove their children from such schools due to lowering standards and increasing violence, choosing instead to enroll their children in private or religious schools. Those White students remaining as a minority in public schools are often the victims of reverse discrimination, racial intimidation and violence. In such “diversified” schools, teachers and school administrators are finding it increasingly difficult to provide a safe atmosphere. Even teachers themselves are frequently intimidated and threatened in such schools.

White students have become alienated as textbooks now promote minority pride, while texts focus on White guilt for slavery and past racial discrimination. Whites are collectively blamed for slavery even though historically only a very small percentage of Whites owned slaves. Blaming Blacks as a group for high levels of black crime (a 1,000 percent higher rate than White crime) would be considered hate speech. However, condemning the White race, as a group, for slavery is considered acceptable. Chronic recital of the evils of slavery and racial discrimination increases Black hostility and aggression toward White students and teachers. That hostility, when combined with the high rate of Black violence, poses an increased danger of racially motivated criminal behavior. Thus, most of the campaigns against “racial hate” actually foster hatred and violence against White students and teachers.

Shasta is 15. Her biological father is in prison, three of her brothers have been jailed for various offenses - one for murder. Her mother is on welfare. Shasta is Black, poor and pregnant - for the second time with an illegitimate baby. She receives housing, electricity, food stamps, and welfare payments. She knows that her assistance will in-crease upon the birth of her second baby. Her first child was born premature in one of the largest public hospitals in the nation, Charity Hospital in New Orleans. Her and her baby’s medical bills amounted to more than 78 thousand dollars. Thousands of taxpayers in New Orleans, Louisiana, and the rest of the USA shoulder the burden of Shasta and her offspring. Elaine is 32. She and her husband Ron both work hard and pay a great deal in taxes. They are trying to buy a home and start a family, but they just can’t afford it because Elaine would need to quit work for a while. They are hoping, in a couple of years, to be able to afford one child, but they know that it will be extremely expensive sending their child to a private school.

They feel it wouldn’t be right to send their child to the 85% Black, crime-filled, drug-laden school in their district in New Orleans. With the sales tax at 9% and their state and federal income taxes at close to 30%, they feel resentful that, not being able to afford children of their own, they must support welfare illegitimates.

Fifteen-year-olds like Shasta are an increasing occurrence in our major cities even though the government spends better than ten times more on welfare than two decades ago. America has more poor, more crime and more ghettos, more alienation than ever. Why? It must be painfully obvious to almost everyone by now: the high welfarite birthrate outstrips our ability to finance meaningful programs to help the poor. To solve America’s poverty problem, the soaring illegitimate birthrate must be curtailed.

Those who say we can’t slow the birthrate aren’t being honest. To slow it, we must make it clear that there will be financial benefit to the individual recipient if she practices birth-control and financial penalty if she doesn’t. If this is combined with rigorous orientation and “qualification” on birth control methods in order to qualify for public assistance, the high birthrates would drop like a rock.

The truth is, however, that the politicians don’t really want this to occur. Those Black births mean more political power for the liberal-minority coalition. Among themselves, Blacks admit that they will eventually take political control through their birthrate. Pictured on this page is Morris Jeff. In an interview a few years ago with the “Times-Picayune” in New Orleans, Morris Jeff, who was President of the National Association of Black Social Workers, and director of the New Orleans Welfare Department, thinks the high Black birthrate serves a long-range purpose for the Black race. Jeff said,

“should they have children? I don’t think they should not have children .. .1 think reproduction patterns are based on self-interest, although not in any conscious sense. When you look at the gains the Black community has made, it hasn’t been based so much on opportunity as on the profoundness of numbers. In the political arena, you count votes. . .

“The best self-interest of the Black community is for it to have its numbers. I could not support a position that would decrease our numbers. In some in-stances, this is what Darwin was talking about, the name of the game is just to be there in the future.”

Unbelievably, he states the grim reality that faces White people more honestly than any White politician (except me!). He muses,

“It’s not just an idle concern for White people. There is a future self-interest involved in this thing. It has a profound effect on the future and I think there are those in the White community who are threatened by it–not only nationally but inter-nationally.”

Finally, he reports, “I don’t know how conscious and on-the-table this issue is, but when I travel around the country listening to the concerns of White people, I can hear the underlying message.” The head of the Welfare Department of a major city and the President of the Black Social Workers Association is openly talking about overcoming the White People politically through a high Black birthrate. He openly speaks about how he could not support a position that would decrease Black numbers. Yet, as White numbers decrease in proportion to the invasion of almost two-million non-Whites per year through immigration, and as we continue to finance the sky-high minority, illegitimate birth-rates, there is not a White public official from Maine to California who will speak out openly.

I am betting that millions of Americans have not lost their instinct for survival. Read these lines and understand the importance of what is written here. Don’t delay another moment. Invest yourself in this struggle for our survival. Carry the message to your friends and family and demand that they join with you in this sacred cause. Whether they join us or not, we can’t stop working until Americans stand together and say, ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

The ultimate issue is as Jeff states “Darwinian.” Either America will be populated by types such as Elaine and Ron, or it will be dominated Shasta and her kin. The choice is clear. You and your actions over the next few decades will decide who will propagate and who will not, who will control and who will be controlled. Is there any sincere White person who really wants their children to live in the nightmare that we are rushing toward? Let’s wake up our people and stop financing our own destruction. We demand our basic human right, that to survive and have our nation reflect the values that we love.

America is at the crossroads. Americans have a simple yet very difficult decision to make. Are they willing to let this nation inevitably become a Third World society, or are they willing to stand up and fight, while they still can, for their heritage, traditions, and values?

Multi-Culturalism and “Diversity” are lies. The non-White birthrate, coupled with massive immigration (both legal and illegal) and racial intermarriage, will reduce the founding people of America into a minority in our own nation. As the racial composition of America changes, so will America. Our children and theirs will live in an America where alien cultures and values will not simply be present, but will dominate us.

It may be politically-incorrect to state it, but this alien influxis a disaster for our country, our people, and our families. Crime will continue to escalate, as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.

One can see clearly the change coming by observing America’s capitol, where despite the federal flood of our tax money, brutal crimes of violence, drugs, illiteracy, and corruption flourish.

This transformation is personified in the mayor of Washington, Marion Barry. Barry was ousted in 1990 when, as DC’s mayor, he was caught on videotape, smoking crack cocaine in the hotel room of a prostitute. He was convicted, but received very little jail time. Upon release, he ran for the DC City Council and was elected! And after “serving” without distinction on the DC City Council for one term, he ran for Mayor and was elected!

Many other cities are also becoming unlivable. My home city of New Orleans has a young mulatto mayor who has fathered at least one illegitimate child, and has been hospitalized for a drug abuse. He, too, was elected by the overwhelming Black bloc. His first three years in office correspond with a murder rate in New Orleans of more than 1-per-day (city population just over 500,000).

Louis Farakhan (who is virulently anti-White) is the most popular Black leader in America. He attracts the largest Black turnouts of any “Afro-American” and although the “Million Man March” did not draw enough devotees to live up to its name, the Muslim minister had still orchestrated the largest Black demonstration in American history, a day long orgy of anti-White hatred.

When the American people saw the LA riots and crowds of Blacks cheering O.J. Simpson (who was acquitted by the almost all Black jury), they received a peek into their future.

Could a Marion Barry or Louis Farakhan-type eventually become President of the United States? Unthinkable? Remember that a Marion Barry as mayor of our country’s capitol, LA riots, and Affirmative Action also would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago.

Most of the largest cities in America now have nonwhite mayors, councils and judges. Many parts of the Southwest and sections of American cities more closely resemble Mexico than “Anglo” America. Check out Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, El Paso, Houston, Miami, Midland-Odessa, Las Cruces, or Albuquerque.

Non-white majorities are now on the horizon in many states, with California and Texas acutely in danger. However, it will not take a numerical majority of aliens to bring us down, just a sizeable enough minority.

It is not necessary to dwell too long on the implications for America. The darkening of our nation mimics histories of many other nations. The nations of the Caribbean, Central, and South America, are predictive examples of the fate that awaits us. The Third World awaits our children. It is on our streets, in our taxpayer subsidized housing projects, in our jails, and in our mayor’s chairs. Whites in Haiti once produced most of the world’s sugar and their nation was called the “Jewel of the Caribbean.” Most of them could not have imagined the Haiti of today. Are we so short-sighted that we cannot see where America is heading?

Great nations do fall. In history, every great nation which once graced this planet with high civilization and great achievement - has fallen. America though, is a young nation. We should be vibrant and entering our greatest age. Instead our children grow up in an alien society that our forefathers would not recognize.

The Government and the mass media have become enemies of the founding heritage of this nation.

They support immigration quotas that are over 90 percent non-White. They have made sure that we do not adequately enforce our laws and protect our borders.

They have supported and financed (with our own tax money) a massive non-White welfare birthrate that is producing chronic crime, degenerated schools and cities, huge costs in welfare, medical care, education, housing, policing, courts, and incarceration.

They have fostered intense discrimination against White people in jobs, promotions, scholarships, college admissions and union hiring.

They have destroyed the quality of many of our schools, the civilized quality of our major cities, and the safety of our neighborhoods with forced integration and HUD subsidized housing.

They have attacked our heritage with an endless array of hate literature, movies, and television that vilifies our White history, character, values, and traditions.

They have hurt American businesses and workers, and are reducing the overall standard of living and independence of the American people through New World Order inspired trade policies such as NAFTA and GATT.

They have attacked our Christian values, heritage, and traditions.

We must strive to save our nation and its beseiged heritage. I will fight to stop the massive immigration, and the welfare-financed, illegitimate birthrates that are reducing us to a minority in our own land. We must awaken our people of the disaster that looms before us, and inspire them to join the fight for our survival.

I will fight to limit the power of the Federal Government that is taking more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights.

I will fight for personal responsibility. The welfare system that proliferates the underclass and all its social ills must end as we know it.

I will fight to limit overpopulation and protect our environment by stopping illegal immigration and almost all “legal immigration” into America.

I will fight for a simple and fair national sales tax to abolish the income tax and the abusive IRS.

I will fight for the constitutional right of Americans to Keep and Bear Arms.

I will fight for reform in the Political process by ending all large political contributions and having free and open broadcast time and debates for all qualified candidates.

I will fight for freedom of choice in education and in association by ending forced busing and integration.

I will fight for an absolute end to the racial discrimination called “affirmative action.”

I will fight for fair trade and against agreements such as NAFTA and GATT that hurt the American people.

I will fight for real freedom of speech for the American people not just for the politically correct by ending the control of a few conglomerates over the American media.

I will fight for America First by putting an end to foreign aid and the New World Order.

Although the media has unfairly depicted me as a racist and a hater, I am neither. For although I recognize the important inherent distinctions between the races, I do not seek to oppress Blacks and other minorities, nor do I hate them.

I do, though, have an abiding love for our White race and the civilization and values that it created. I want my children and all my descendants to live in a free and healthy society, not a Third World hovel. I want to preserve the unique character and beauty of my people the same way that, as an ecology-minded individual, I desire the preservation of the Blue Whale or the great African Elephant.

I demand the same things for our progeny that all healthy people throughout history have sought: the right for us to live and go on generation after generation;

for our heritage to be enriched rather than degraded;

for us to be free and not constrained by tyranny;

for us to be safe and secure in our homes and when about in society;

for us to be happy and fulfilled, and not alienated in a culture foreign to us;

for us to achieve all that our talents and abilities allow.

America is at the crossroads.

Now is the time for all real Americans to journey with me. Together we can secure the existence of our people, and a bright future for our children.

I am asking for you to join our efforts to save our heritage and our country.

Kayla Rolland: One More Victim of Racial Integration.

by David Duke

Kayla Rolland,
six-year old
White victim of integration.

Dedrick Owens, snarled, “I hate
you,” before
shooting Kayla.

The murder of six-year-old Kayla Rolland, a White little girl, by a Black student, Dedrick Owens, highlights the damage that forced racial integration has done to European Americans. Sheriff Robert Pickell said Owens’ father told him that Dedrick fought with the other children because “he hated them.” Kayla Rolland’s violent death is just one example of thousands of White children who have suffered from criminal violence at the hands of minorities in public schools across America. It cries out for an honest discussion of racial integration’s incalculable damage to European Americans.

Six-year old, Jake Robel, killed by black carjacker.

The news media have made concerted efforts to hide the interracial aspect of the slaying of Kayla Rolland. None of the national news agencies reported that the victim was White and the perpetrator was Black. Contrast that with the media coverage of the acquittal of four police officers in New York. Even though there was no evidence of racial animus and although the jury

Ronald Taylor,
White hater.

included four Blacks, many headlines read, “Four White Officers Acquitted in Death of Black Immigrant.” Compare that headline with the coverage of the dragging death of a White, six-year-old little boy, Jake Robel, by a Black carjacker in Kansas City. The headlines in the Robel murder did not read, “Black carjacker drags White Child to His Death.” The media carefully avoided any mention of the fact that the killer was Black and the victim was White. The double standard finds ample illustration in the news coverage of a recent murderous rampage in Wilkinsburg, PA. The Black killer said that he would only shoot White people and called his victims “White racist pigs.” Many articles one the did not even identify the race of the shooter or include his anti-White statements as he shot 5 White people. If it would have been a White killer of Blacks, the headlines would certainly have read something like, “White Racist Murders Three Blacks — Wounds Two.”

In America, one cannot talk frankly about the racial differences and their powerful impact on many aspects of American life. Integration of education is one of those areas in which one cannot speak frankly. The murder of Kayla Rolland brings home the need for us to honestly address this issue that is so critical to the well-being of European Americans.

Why Schools Were Integrated

Joseph Healy, white victim in Wilkinsburg.

In 1954, The Supreme Court and subsequent Federal Court proceedings ruled that racial segregation of education harms Black students. The rationale used by the Federal Courts was that Blacks as a group are harmed by a “separate but equal” segregation policy. Yet, one has to ask how Blacks are harmed simply by having their own schools when those schools are equally-funded. Obviously, Black students are not physically harmed by segregation. In their own schools, populated by their own people, tailored to their own needs, Blacks do not have to fear physical attacks or any sort of intimidation by Whites. There is no evidence that “separate but equal” harms Blacks in any way. It may be surprising, but evidence suggests that it can actually harm Black students. And, there is unequivocal evidence that forced racial integration profoundly harms White students.

Did Segregation Harm Blacks?

Dedrick Owens father, currently in jail, said his son “hates those kids”

The pivotal study which was said to have caused the Supreme Court to ban racial segregation was one that showed, when given a choice, Black children in segregated schools routinely chose to play with White dolls rather than Black ones. The proponents of integration concealed the fact that the same study showed that Black students in integrated schools actually chose White dolls at an even higher rate than those in all Black schools. Therefore, the study that was used to show that segregation harms Black self-esteem actually proved the opposite. The truth is that integrating Blacks with White children actually magnifies Black failure rates as compared to White students. The result is a lowering of Black self-esteem at first, and then as the racial disparity becomes more pronounced, Blacks then tend to blame White racism for their own failures, which in turn leads to resentment and hostility toward White students.

Achievement tests of Black students show them to be, on average, two to four grade levels behind Whites. By pretending that they are on the same level as Whites, and forcing them into White schools, they are not getting the special attention they need to overcome their learning deficit. Whites who are in overwhelmingly Black schools, which consistently are behind academically, are held back in their educational development. Of course, for whites, academic inferiority is just one of the harmful effects of forced integration. Millions of White students today face racial intimidation, harassment and violence in heavily integrated schools.

Does Racial Integration Harm White Students?

One can answer that question unequivocally by looking at the racial makeup of criminal violence in America. The U.S. Department of Justice annually conducts the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of crimes in America. The most recently released report from 1994 shows that a Black is 56 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White than is a White to commit violence against a Black. Blacks commit over 90 percent of the interracial violent crime, although they are only 13 percent of the population. Let these facts sink in. Blacks don’t commit simply 50 percent more interracial crime or even 100 percent more interracial crime, they commit 5,600 percent more!

Dedrick Owens brother, charged
with stealing gun used by Dedrick
to murder Kayla Rolland.

In the area of gang attacks as illustrated by film footage of the Decatur, Illinois school riot, Blacks are 100 to 250 more likely to be involved in gang attacks on Whites, than the reverse. Some may argue that Blacks attack Whites because they expect them to have cash or valuables, but only 20 percent of Black attacks are robberies. Assault and rape do not usually have economic motives. It is popularly assumed that most Black violent crime is committed against other Blacks. However, the NCVS shows that this is a media myth. Over 55 percent of Black crimes of violence are committed against Whites. Not only are the interracial violent crime rates greatly disparate, but Blacks also a have tremendously higher general violent crime rate than whites, running from 300 to 800 percent higher. Because significant portions of the violent crime are committed by juveniles, it is obvious that these extremely high levels of Black criminality greatly affect crime and intimidation in public education.

Of course, the intolerable level of Black crime in the schools is just one aspect of the harm to European Americans caused by racial integration. Black disciplinary problems deteriorate the learning atmosphere for White students. Black IQ and average learning levels are far lower than comparable White students. Thus, Whites in heavily integrated schools suffer from a school environment that does not educate them to their fullest academic potential.

The moral climate in heavily integrated schools is also less desirable than most White schools. Illegal drug use is at least 400 percent higher among Blacks than Whites. Studies show that the Black venereal disease rate for AIDS, gonorrhea and syphilis are between 7 and 50 times higher than that of Whites. The Black illegitimacy rate is many times higher than Whites. Gangster rap and the crude and obscene ghetto language permeating these schools could certainly be said to harmful to White students as a group.

If is legitimate for the U.S. Supreme Court to set educational policies by how they affect Black students as a group, why is it not appropriate to look at how they affect Whites?

Whites Flee Public Education

Memorial in Michigan to the
memory of Kayla Rolland.

The forced integration of public schools has caused millions of White parents to abandon the public educational system that their own taxes disproportionately finance. In every American major city there has been both a White flight to the suburbs and a inner-city resegregation into private or religious schools. Parents, in good conscience, can’t send their children to the public schools, and those who are unable to afford private education, must endure the harmful conditions brought on by racial integration. In reality, Whites face a far more serious denial of basic rights than what Black students faced by segregation. Blacks obviously did not face physical attacks and intimidation from Whites in their own schools.

Which is a more important “right,” the “right” for a Black student to sit next to White, or the right of a White child to be free from violence and intimidation in school. Integration has destroyed a safe and quality educational environment for millions of Whites, and has resulted in denial of the far more basic right of European Americans to use the public schools their own taxes finance.

The U.S. Supreme Court abolished racial segregation by saying it was harmful to Black students as a group. Overwhelming evidence shows that racial integration has damaged public education in every major American city and has been terribly harmful to millions of European Americans. It is a failed experiment in social engineering that must be ended. Our children must have the right to use our public schools, and have those schools be safe as well as providing an excellent learning environment as well as cultural and moral climate suited to our people. We have a right not to be forced out of public schools by violence, intimidation, and a dysfunctional educational environment. The only way we can exercise those rights is by ending forced integration and allowing freedom of choice for our children. Surveys have repeatedly shown that most Whites and Blacks want to go to school with their own. For the lobotomized minority of Blacks and Whites who want integration, let them, in magnet school programs, have all the integration they can stand.

In the case of Kayla Rolland, racial integration forced her into an environment with Black students who disproportionately come from criminal backgrounds. Integration of education ultimately caused her murder. The facts of extremely higher Black crime and drugs, when combined with forced racial integration, do have tragic consequences. One of those consequences robbed a beautiful child, Kayla Rolland, of her life. Kayla is one more victim of Racial Integration, and she is one victim that we, who are dedicate

Siler City and Immigration

by EURO National President David Duke

May 4, 2000

What is this new God called “diversity” that the liberal press worships?

From the throats of politicians to pundits, actors to educators, we hear the mantra, “diversity is our strength.” Or even more oxymoronically, “Unity through diversity.”

We are told by these high priests of egalitarianism that the minoritization of Whites in Chatham county and Siler City, indeed in all of America — shall enrich our lives and make our communities and nation stronger and more vibrant. But, will it really?

In the most elemental sense, the more that individuals in group have in common, the more they are harmonious. Conversely, the greater the racial, religious and cultural differences, the greater disharmony, discord and conflict. For instance, in Northern Ireland you have a chronic struggle between the Scots and the Irish exacerbated also by religious contention between the Catholics and Protestants. Is Diversity Northern Ireland’s strength or has it been the source of incalculable human pain and suffering.

Relatively homogenous Ireland and Scotland are far less contentious than the ethnically and religiously diverse Northern Ireland. Another example is the bloody conflict in the former state of Yugoslavia, a nation once rich in diversity that was held together by the tyranny of Soviet-style communism. Since the fall of communism, it has been severed by perpetual ethnic hatreds and conflict. Was diversity its strength? Is the ethnic diversity of the current Russian Federation, including the Chechen people, causing unity or a massive waste of money and lives? In all of these states, massive amounts of unity propaganda did nothing to mitigate the disasters of diversity.

A vast majority of wars being currently waged around the world of both civil and international character are driven by racial and ethnic diversity. Even in a depressed, agrarian nation such as Rwanda, tribal diversity bubbled up into the worst case of genocide since the ending of the Cold War. The conflicts I have cited: Ireland, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, have all been driven by ethnic differences far less dramatic than the differences among major races.

If any country should serve as the poster nation for racial diversity, it is Brazil; it has already achieved the level of racial diversity the egalitarian high priests seek for America. It is a land dominated by Indians and Mestizos, (or mixed breeds), Africans and a European minority. How harmonious, well adjusted, prosperous and safe is Brazil? It is no surprise that even though Brazil is abundantly rich in resources and land, she is strikingly poor, uneducated, and racked by epidemic violence. Rio De Janeiro, Brazil’s signature city, the topographically beautiful metropolis with the famous landmarks such as Ipanema Beach and Sugar Loaf, has 6,000 murders a year. It has suffered from 60,000 murders over the past ten years, more than the entire American causality count from the Viet Nam War. If you want your monument to the wonders of diversity, there it is, the tens-of-thousands of graves, a grim recital of its song of the harmony of diversity.

As America is transformed from a 90 percent European American nation, as it was in the 1960s, to one where we will soon be a minority, should we not ask some pertinent questions. Is this racial diversity enriching, or will it be damaging to our social fabric?

Forced racial integration, or “diversity in education,” has accompanied a precipitous decline in American educational quality. It has caused a mass European American exodus from schools “enriched” by crime, drugs, gangster rap and inferior educational environments and standards. As with our schools, the same process has occurred in our major cities. Millions of European Americans now fit the United Nation’s description of internal refugees, as they have “fled from areas of violence and intimidation.” In a quest for diversity, the civil rights of Whites are trampled upon by so-called affirmative action programs that are nothing more than racial discrimination against the better qualified.

Our most basic cultural traditions are also under attack. Not only is the Confederate flag to be sacrificed at the alter of the Goddess of Diversity; the very foundations of our republic are at risk. For instance, in my hometown of New Orleans, the Black-dominated school board took George Washington’s name off a public school and replaced it with a Black hero, after Washington was declared “an immoral example for children.” Even the right of American children to sing Christmas carols in school is now denied because, in the name of “diversity,” it may offend certain minority elements.

In Siler City, Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, are transforming the community into a very undesirable place for European Americans. The drug and crime problem has increased exponentially; Social services such as health and housing have become overwhelmed and are necessitating tax increases for the local residents. White children, now often a minority to Mexicans and Blacks in their neighborhoods and schools, face a daily dose of alienation and intimidation.

In my visit to Siler City, I talked to a resident whose direct antecedents had lived there since the days of the American Revolution in the late 1700s. In the course of a decade, he has seen the city of his forefathers become a place where he now walks almost as a stranger. He is planning to move. But, if immigration continues, where does he go? The process occurring in Siler City is going on all over America.

If we want to preserve our country, our traditions, our values, we must make our government enforce our laws against illegal immigration and limit legal immigration drastically. If we don’t, the day will come when we will no longer live in America. We will live a nation more like Brazil.

David Duke

President

European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO)
Box 188
Mandeville, LA 70471
www.davidduke.com
www.whitecivilrights.com

Is Russia the Key to White Survival?

By David Duke
EURO National President
www.whitecivilrights.com

David Duke speaks at the Mykovsky Museum

Everyone reading the David Duke Report understands the crisis faced by the White World. All White nations have a severe non-White immigration crisis. Every White nation has a critically low birthrate that will result in a greatly diminished White population. In America, even the U.S. Government has officially projected that those of European descent will become a minority in four or five decades. We will be outnumbered and outvoted in the nation our forefathers built!

When that happens our people will be politically prostrate at the feet of those who have envied and hated us for generations, and the result will be similar to the wide scale murder and dispossession White farmers now face in Zimbabwe. If the dispossession of our people would occur only in our beloved America, at least our genetic and cultural heritage would survive elsewhere, but every White nation on earth is undergoing a racial transformation similar to America’s.

Even a nation such as Italy, traditionally famous for its large families, now has a catastrophically low birthrate that projects a reduction of its White population by 40 to 50 percent over the next 50 years. Every White nation is saturated with equalitarian propaganda spawned by a Jewish-dominated news and entertainment media around the world. Not only are White numbers dwindling, but racial intermarriage has risen dramatically among the remaining Whites. Also, within our race itself, as is true among the non-White minorities, the brightest and most successful have the fewest children, while the least intelligent and responsible have the highest reproductive rates. So even those Whites left are being dumbed-down.

Our race faces a world-wide genetic catastrophe. There is only one word that can adequately describe it: genocide. It is a relentless and systematic destruction of the European genotype. It is not the genocide of fire and sword (although such is likely to occur in the final stages). Neither is it as emotionally evocative as the death of displacement of millions of Germans in Eastern Europe with the onslaught of the Soviet armies in the winter of 1945; Stalin’s starvation of the Ukrainians through forced collectivization; the displacement and death of many Jews in Second World War; or the 1838 westward relocation of 15,000 members of the Cherokee nation in the “Trail of Tears.” Yet, though it lost millions, the German people survived the war, the Ukranians survived Stalin’s murders, the Cherokee people persevered, and the Jews, despite their losses in the Second World War, emerged from it more powerful than ever before in their long history.

Unchecked, low White birthrates, massive non-White immigration and intermarriage will mean the complete genetic destruction of the great European race that produced an overwhelming share of the world’s great art and literature, scientific and economic advancement. Make no mistake about it: unless our people wake up and act courageously, our very genotype; our people as a unique, living breed of life upon this planet - will be wiped out! Such would be the greatest ecologic and evolutionary disaster ever to befall our planet!

Years ago, when I came to this realization, it changed my life. Every other personal interest and issue shrank to insignificance. Compared to the loss of our heritage and our very people itself, nothing else truly matters. Anyone who truly understands this, must shoulder the immense responsibility associated with this impending catastrophe. All the sacrifices, all the suffering, all the genius, all the beauty and high culture our people have created-will go tumbling into a biological abyss - unless we preserve our genotype.

David Duke and revisionist Juergen Graf

What role does Russia and the former Eastern Bloc countries play in this scheme of things? Russia is a White nation! Of the many capital cities of Europe, it is accurate to say that Moscow is the Whitest of them all. Although there is the presence of some ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation, Russia has a greater sense of racial understanding among its population than does any other predominantly White nation. There is a common awareness among the people of the Bolshevik-Jewish invasion of 1917, commonly referred to in the United States as the “Russian Revolution,” a term as inaccurate as calling the crime syndicate started in Russia and now spreading around the world: the “Russian Mafia.” The so-called “Russian Mafia” is neither Russian nor a Mafia, it is overwhelmingly Jewish, and it is now the most dangerous and powerful organized crime syndicate in the world. The Russian people also have a much greater knowledge of the power of International Zionism and the dominant Jewish role in orchestrating the immigration and multiculturalism that is undermining the West.

For the past few months, I have been researching and finishing my new book, Jewish Supremacism, An Examination of the Jewish Question, in Russia and elsewhere in Europe. I have also been working on a book I will complete later this year called For Love of My People, a book that expresses the spiritual commitment necessary for European mankind to win the coming struggle for our survival and evolutionary advancement.

I believe that Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe are critically important to the coming struggle. At this time, there is no national government that openly stands up for the interests of our people. Russia, now that it is freed from 70 years of Bolshevik murder and repression, may become that nation. In Russia, over the past few weeks, I have met with the leaders of the White patriotic movements there. I have met with members of the Russian Duma (Congress) and many public officials who openly speak about Zionism and the need for White people around the world to defend our heritage. In my opinion, Russia and other Eastern countries have the greatest chance of having racially aware parties achieve political power. If just one nation would break through for our people, I think it would cause a domino effect that would cascade throughout the whole world.

Russia has an economy that has been plundered by the Jewish oligarchs and organized crime figures such as Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Tobias, and Mogilevich. Three years ago, their currency was destroyed in a scheme hatched by Berezovsky and his partners in crime, Goldman-Sachs, Inc. in the United States. Russia has a revolutionary climate where a patriotic party can rise. Although there are many reservations about President Putin, he is perhaps the only leader in the Western World to take any measures against the Jewish-Supremacist media bosses. Gusinsky, head of the largest private TV network in Russia and also a leader in the World Jewish Congress, was actually arrested and jailed a few weeks ago. He was subsequently released after agreeing to relinquish his illegally acquired TV network. Such an event illustrates the very different political climate in Russia in comparison to the United States.

Many Russians have urged me to get my new book on Jewish supremacism into the hands of the Russian people. I have devoted time and money to having my book translated and printed in Russian. I think Russia is so important to the world-wide efforts for our people that the new book will actually have its first printing in Russia a few weeks before the English edition will appear.

In addition to writing and researching, I have traveled throughout Russia and other Eastern European nations, and have met with hundreds of leaders who have become committed to saving our race. All across the Western world, I see our racial consciousness growing, our movements increasing, our spirit rising. Everywhere, our people are putting aside petty differences and nationality divisions and understand that now we must have White Pride Worldwide and White Unity. I am doing my best to carry this spirit wherever I travel, and I can tell you that this spirit is contagious! Never have I been so encouraged.

David Duke with Jean Marie Le Pen

The leaders I have met have included, National Front leaders Jean Marie Le Pen and Bruno Gollnish at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. Ahmed Rami, one of the leading anti-Zionist publishers in the world, Juergen Graf, the educator who has faced persecution in Switzerland for daring to historically challenge some aspects of the Holocaust story, and many other Russian, Ukrainian, Estonian, Swedish, French, Italian, German, Austrian, Danish, Spanish, and British researchers and leaders who are part of the growing worldwide movement for truth, freedom and heritage.

Shortly before I left Russia, I spoke at the Mykovsky Museum, which is situated directly across the street from the infamous Lubyanka Prison and KGB headquarters in Moscow. The packed audience of 400 White Russian patriots cheered my speech from start to finish. It looked like a campaign stop in my political races in Louisiana; yet I was 5,000 miles away. A sense of European brotherhood permeated the room and it inspired me, as I know they were inspired by my words and passion. How ironic and how fateful, that only a few meters from the most infamous site of bloody violence against Russian Christians by the Bolsheviks, one could now openly talk about the murder and torture that occurred there, and reveal the identity of those responsible.

When I spoke, the emotion of the moment burned the words into my memory.

I need not tell you that those who control the governments and mass media of the world are of the same heritage as those who slit the throats of so many of your fathers and grandfathers in the blood-drenched prison of infamy only a few steps from this hall.

They no longer wear the same uniforms and some of their methods have changed, but make no mistake: their dark purpose is the same. They not only seek the destruction of the great Russian people but of every White nationality the world over. We have here tonight, Americans and Russians, Ukranians and Estonians. Our nations have had their conflicts in the past, but although we are proud of our respective nationalities and want to preserve every cultural nuance and manifestation of our people, we all know that no White nationality can survive unless every White nationality survives.

We cannot win this struggle unless we stand indivisible against an implacable enemy whose hatred for us has grown and deepened for two millennia.

We fight not for revenge, but for our freedom. We fight not to destroy any people, but for the sacred task of our own survival.

In this holy cause we must share one immutable principle: all people of European descent, no matter where they reside in the world, are brothers. As brothers we shall fight, as brothers we shall spread our truth, as brothers we shall win!

Russia has always been a bulwark to the East, the frontier of our race, and it is now on the frontline of our current struggle. It is my prayer that Mother Russia be strong and healthy, may Mother Russia be free; may she always be White.

When a racially aware Russia and reawakened America become united in our cause, the world will change. Our race will survive and together we shall go to the stars!

I left Russia three weeks ago, yet my ears still ring with their cheers; I can still feel their strong handshakes, and my heart continues to resonate with the reawakening spirit of our race worldwide.

Subscribe to the Duke Report printed edition.

There is no Escape!

By David Duke
European-American Unity and Rights Organization, National President

There is no escape from the terror of the future.

You can run away for a while.

But the terror will catch up to you.

It will destroy you and everything you love.

For more articles like this, subscribe to the David Duke Report. Click here.

No, I am not talking about a new Hollywood horror movie. I am talking about America. America is changing from the land of our forefathers to a place where we are no longer at home in spirit, and where our families are no longer safe in their own homes.

New Orleans has become increasingly like Haiti since the 1960’s Civil Rights movement integrated the schools. Since then, White civil rights have steadily disappeared.

First the schools deteriorated into cesspools of violence, drugs, ignorance, barbarity and venereal disease. Blacks always had access to public schools, but now, almost all Whites were driven from them. They went from a majority, to less than four percent today. Whites were driven from the buses and streetcars. In the buses where Blacks once rode in the back, now Whites dare not ride at all! To do so is just too dangerous. Friendly and tidy White neighborhoods discovered the true joys of forced racial integration: junk cars, prostitutes and drug dealers on the streets. The only Whites remaining in many neighborhoods fearfully live now behind bars in homes that have become reverse jails meant to keep the criminals out.

Police sketch of the Black murderer of a White 25 year-old mother of four.

Black political power transformed New Orleans into a corrupt Black banana republic. Taxes went up, services went down. The condition of the streets wrecks the cars. Housing projects are so strewn with trash they look as though they belong in a Third World Country. Rape, murder and robbery are daily occurrences in the same city where I could once walk anywhere as a child. Of course, traditional American values and culture are gone now also. America founding fathers names such as George Washington’s are removed from schools by the Black school board because he is, “an immoral example for the children.” Kwanzaa, a Black pagan celebration, has replaced Christmas celebrations in schools.

For the last forty years, Whites have steadily fled the city of New Orleans. They left thousands of the beautiful and stately homes; many of the beautiful, oak-lined boulevards; and