July-August, 1995, issues of American
Renaissance, Dept A, P.O. Box 1674, Louisville, Ky.
"The West] has not yet understood that whites, in
a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now
a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms
our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the
century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral
principles."[emphasis added] --Jean Raspail, The
Camp Of The Saints
The loss of racial identity in the Western world is symptomatic
of a deeper crisis within the European peoples, whose
culture and technology have provided the world with much
of what we know today as modern civilization. At its core,
the crisis is the inevitable consequence of a profound,
and perhaps fatal, misunderstanding of the nature of morality.
We have lost sight of ancient and eternal laws of Nature
on which our civilization must be based if we are to survive.
We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist
altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may
appear, have driven us to the brink of ruin.
Demographic projections based on American and European
immigration policies, as well as the evidence of one's
own senses as one walks the streets of any large Western
city, point to a bleak future. Within a century or two,
perhaps less, the peoples of the West, those whose ancestry
derives from the Nordic and Alpine subraces of Europe,
will have ceased to exist as a cohesive entity. How quickly
the end will come depends on immigration rates, differential
birthrates among ethnic groups, and mixed-race childbearing
rates. But the final outcome is fixed so long as we adhere
to our present course.
And yet, frank discussion of the outcome, the submergence
of the race that produced the world's first, and perhaps
only technological civilization, is usually silenced with
words like "racist," "bigot," and
"xenophobe." Neither the flawed moral system
that enforces this silence nor the people who support
it will outlive the demise of the West. But when the West
is gone, it will be of little consolation that those responsible
will have expired as well. If we are to reverse course,
it is vital that we take steps now, before it is too late.
If, today, the West's moral system is flawed, how can
it be corrected? The first question we must ask is whether
it is moral for ethnic groups as well as individuals to
seek survival. And if so, what are the moral actions we
may undertake to secure survival? What must be the moral
basis of our civilization if it is not to be lost? In
his book, Destiny of Angels, Richard McCulloch calls these
questions a matter of "ultimate ethics."
The dilemma of our people is the product of a deep misconception
about nature and morality. It arises from the mistaken,
sentimental belief that altruism can be extended beyond
its evolutionary origin--kinship and within-group altruism--to
the whole of humanity. It results from failure to accept
the role of genetic factors in defining human temperament
The standards that govern public debate are reminiscent
of the Dark Ages in that they have no basis in science
or in human experience. Instead, they consist of moralistic
assertions derived from a world view rooted in radical
egalitarianism. The long term consequence of adherence
to these principles is rarely examined, let alone subjected
to scientific scrutiny.
Most Western people would agree that an innate sense
of right and wrong plays a key role in the Western moral
system, a system that values individual worth and reciprocal
fairness. The tragedy of this moral view is that it has
been extended to the world at large--seemingly the most
noble behavior humanity has ever exhibited--and has become
the threat to the survival of the West.
As biologist Garrett Hardin demonstrated in his 1982
essay, "Discriminating Altruisms," universalism--a
chimerical One World without borders or distinctions--is
impossible. Groups that practice unlimited altruism, unfettered
by thoughts of self-preservation, will be disadvantaged
in life's competition and thus eliminated over time in
favor of those that limit their altruistic behavior to
a smaller subset of humanity, usually their own genetic
kin, from whom they receive reciprocal benefits.
"Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination
of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity
in time or space . . . . To people who accept the idea
of biological evolution from amoeba to man, the vision
of social evolution from egoism to universalism may seem
plausible. In fact, however, the last step is impossible
. . . . Let us see why.
"In imagination, picture a world in which social
evolution has gone no further than egoism or individualism.
When familialism appears on the scene, what accounts for
its persistence? It must be that the costs of the sacrifices
individuals make for their relatives are more than paid
for by the gains realized through family solidarity .
. . .
"The argument that accounts for the step to familialism
serves equally well for each succeeding step--except for
the last. Why the difference? Because the One World created
by universalism has--by definition--no competitive base
to support it . . . [Universalism] cannot survive in competition
with discrimination." [emphasis in original]
"[W]e must not forget that for three billion years,
biological evolution has been powered by discrimination.
Even mere survival in the absence of evolutionary change
depends on discrimination. If universalists now have their
way, discrimination will be abandoned. Even the most modest
impulse toward conservatism should cause us to question
the wisdom of abandoning a principle that has worked so
well for billions of years. It is a tragic irony that
discrimination has produced a species (homo sapiens) that
now proposes to abandon the principle responsible for
its rise to greatness." It is to the advantage of
non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion
as distinctive, discriminating groups, to exploit the
economic wealth and social order of the West, benefits
many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When this
cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing
Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the
near term, Europeans will be displaced by groups acting
in their own self-interest. In the long run, biological
destruction awaits us. Since those who displace us do
not, by definition, maintain our morals standards--for
if they did, they would not be replacing us--our flawed
moral system will vanish with us.
The fact that universal, self-sacrificing altruism destroys
its practitioners is its most obvious flaw. Any survivable
moral order must recognize this.
The dream of a Utopia in which racial harmony prevails,
has never come true. Today, racial encroachment is a threat
to the very existence of Western peoples. Lawrence Auster,
author of The Path to National Suicide, An Essay on Immigration
and Multiculturalism, has elsewhere summarized the situation
"Modern liberalism told us that racial differences
don't matter, and on the basis of that belief, liberals
then set about turning America into a multiracial, integrated,
race-blind society. But now that very effort has created
so much race consciousness, race conflict and race inequality,
that the same liberals have concluded that the only way
to overcome those problems is to merge all the races into
one. The same people who have always denounced as an extremist
lunatic anyone who warned about `the racial dilution of
white America,' are now proposing, not just the dilution
of white America, but its complete elimination. Race-blind
ideology has led directly to the most race-conscious---and
indeed genocidal---proposal in the history of the world."
This change of strategy was signaled by the cover story
of a Fall 1993 special edition of Time. The story featured
a computer synthesized image of a woman representing the
intermixture of all of the ethnic population elements
of the United States in their present proportions. The
subliminal message conveyed by this computerized android,
obviously still of predominantly European ancestry, was:
"Don't worry, this is harmless." Or, in the
current idiom of multiculturalism, "let us celebrate
our diversity." Of course, this image represents
the utter destruction of diversity, not its conservation.
This computer-generated android is a lie. The American
population base is in a state of rapid change. Whites
are now having fewer children, and there are thus fewer
whites of child bearing age than Time assumes. This is
happening worldwide. The question is, what would be the
result of this plan being carried forward on a larger
scale, carried to its logical conclusion in a world sans
borders? Time's android is but a way station on the road
to what some lovingly call the Cosmic Race.
People of European ancestry constitute something over
ten percent of the world's population, but since 1980,
white births amount to only a little more than five percent
of the world's new children. The birth rate in the West
has fallen to dangerously low levels, now about 1.8 children
per woman. A level of 2.1 is required to balance deaths.
Birth rates in the third world remain very high, thanks
in large measure to the infusion of Western food, medicine,
Because people are not computer morphs but have discrete
ancestors, let us assume that the fraction of people with
European ancestry is now one-sixteenth of the child-bearing
population. When the Time experiment is complete on a
world-wide scale, the resulting human will have only one
white great-great-grandparent. He will be visibly Asian
since about 60 percent of the world's population is Asian.
In round numbers, this amounts to ten of the sixteen great-great-grandparents,
including four from China alone. Three would come from
India and three more from Southeast Asia and the Middle
East. Africa would supply three and non-white Latin America
and the Caribbean basin the remaining two.
In this scenario, which is already unfolding on the North
American continent and in Europe and Australia, the single
European ancestor would leave no discernible residue in
homo cosmicus. Europeans would be extinct, fulfilling
the nightmare vision that Jean Raspail described in The
Camp Of The Saints. This is not a condemnation of any
real human being with such an ancestry. Nevertheless,
this process would eradicate the biological diversity
that multiculturalists claim to cherish. In its place
would be only uniformity, the irreversible submergence
of all races.
The passing of any race is an event of great significance.
The destruction of an entire population is, in fact, genocide
by the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention, which
defines genocide as ". . . the destruction, in whole
or in part, of an ethnic, racial or national group. The
acts so defined include. . . the destruction of the conditions
of life necessary for the physical existence of the group
. . . ."
The debate about race must be framed in these terms in
order to convey its true importance. The battle cannot
be won by allowing the other side to limit the terms of
debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion.
The consequences are too important.
Why, though, does race matter? The answer lies in the
biology of genes and in the impact of genetic kinship
on altruism. For many decades, altruism was a paradox
for theories of evolution. Darwin himself realized that
altruism was difficult to expalain in terms of individual
"survival of the fittest." In his book, Race,
Evolution and Behavior, Philippe Rushton writes, "If
the most altruistic members of a group sacrifice themselves
for others, they run the risk of leaving fewer offspring
to pass on the very genes that govern the altruistic behavior.
Hence, altruism would be selected against, and selfishness
would be selected for."
Prof. Rushton suggests that this paradox is resolved
by genetic similarity theory, a field pioneered by biologist
W.D. Hamilton and others. Prof Rushton writes:
"By a process known as kin selection, individuals
can maximize their inclusive fitness rather than only
their individual fitness by increasing the production
of successful offspring by both themselves and their genetic
relatives . . . . Genes are what survive and are passed
on, and some of the same genes will be found not only
in direct offspring but in siblings, cousins, nephews/nieces,
and grandchildren . . . . thus, from an evolutionary perspective,
altruism is a means of helping genes to propagate."
Over time, kin selection has resulted in a dual code
of morality, an altruistic code for one's genetic kin
and a non-altruistic code for everyone else. Anthropologists
have suggested that humans evolved through a process of
migration and tribal warfare between groups composed of
genetically related individuals. In A New Theory of Human
Evolution, Sir Arthur Keith wrote, "The process which
secures the evolution of an isolated group of humanity
is a combination of two principles . . . nmaely, cooperation
with competition . . . . I hold that from the very beginning
of human evolution the conduct of every local group was
regulated by two codes of morality, distinguished by Herbert
Spencer as the `code of amity' and the `code of enmity'."
Garrett Hardin writes, "The essential characteristic
of a tribe is that it should follow a double standard
of morality--one kind of behavior for in-group relations,
another for out-group." In-group relations are characterized
by cooperation while out-group relations are characterized
by conflict. Liberals have tried to discredit the role
of tribal conflict, claiming that such distinctions have
been lost as groups reached nation size. But in so doing,
they miss the vital message of genetic similarity theory.
National ethnic groups represent the growth and consolidation
of genetically related tribes over time.
Professor Hardin argues that, because of the nature of
altruism and competition, the dual code of morality is
inescapable and cannot be eliminated from human society:
"In the absence of competition between tribes the
survival value of altruism in a crowded world approaches
zero because what ego gives up necessarily . . . goes
into the commons. What is in the commons cannot favor
the survival of the sharing impulses that put it there--unless
there are limits placed on sharing. To place limits on
sharing is to create a tribe--which means a rejection
of One World. . . . A state of One World, if achieved,
would soon redissolve into an assemblage of tribes."
The in-group out-group distinction still operates today;
it is only the battleground that has shifted. Tribal warfare
has been replaced by territorial irredentism and competing
The liberal campaign to eliminate feelings of national,
cultural, or racial solidarity among Western peoples was
undertaken largely in the hope that the abolition of "tribalism"
would inaugurate an era of world peace. As Professor Hardin
has shown, tribalism cannot be eliminated. Worse still,
any idealistic group that unilaterally dismantles its
own tribal sense will be swept away by groups that have
retained theirs. Unless the current direction is changed,
the West will be destroyed in this new form of biological
The dual code of morality is therefore the cornerstone
on which any enduring moral order must be based. It is
also an answer to the question of ultimate ethics posed
earlier: "Is it moral for ethnic groups to seek to
survive?" Since it is impossible to eliminate "tribes"
from the human race, the answer to this question must
be yes. That which is built inextricably into the laws
of the universe cannot be immoral.
Universalists might try to caricature the dual code of
morality as an invidious double standard, but it is something
we practice every day without even thinking about it.
Without it, no group, be it a family, club, corporation,
political party, nation, or race would exist. It is how
groups distinguish between members and non-members. Employees
of the same company treat each other differently from
the way they treat competitors. Members of the same political
party cooperate with each other and run against opponents.
Families draw sharp distinctions between members and strangers.
It is easy to overlook the dual code of morality precisely
because it is so fundamental a part of human nature.
The "code of amity, code of enmity" explains
racial loyalties. It is an extension of the biologically
necessary fact that parents love their children more than
the children of strangers. Such feelings are normal and
natural. Yet "racism" has become the curse-word
that stops discussion. Those who use the word as a weapon
say that racial loyalty is racism when exhibited by whites
but is justifiable pride when exhibited by non-whites.
The word is simply a means of gaining power over people
who have exaggerated moral scruples.
Feelings of racial loyalty are grounded in biological
differences. These are discussed authoritatively in J.
Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, but
they do not imply that one race has a right to rule over
another. Frank discussion of real differences must not
be considered morally repugnant. Scientific truth cannot
be racism, at least not in the pejorative sense that the
word is now used.
Most forms of behavior (by whites) that are characterized
as racism do not involve unprovoked assault on people
of other races, but are simply the natural loyalty of
humans for their own group. They are necessary for survival.
Unprovoked violence is a moral evil, but by all statistical
measures, whites are overwhelmingly the victims of crimes
of racial violence, not the perpetrators.
Blacks are twelve percent of the population but commit
almost two-thirds of the violent crime in America, are
over twelve times more likely to murder whites than the
reverse, are more than a thousand times more likely to
rape white women than the reverse, and choose whites as
crime victims fifty percent of the time compared to whites
choosing blacks as victims only two percent of the time.
Interracial crime is just one manifestation of a fundamental
biological principle called Gause's Law of Exclusion.
In his book, The Mammals of North America, University
of Kansas biology professor Raymond Hall states the law
as follows: "Two subspecies of the same species do
not occur in the same geographic area." [emphasis
in original] One will inevitably eliminate or displace
the other. Prof. Hall specifically includes humans in
this rule: "To imagine one subspecies of man living
together on equal terms for long with another subspecies
is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and
oblivion for one or the other."
Oblivion need not come in the form of physical destruction.
It may simply involve the loss of habitat. Harlem, Watts,
East St. Louis, and many other black neighborhoods were
once occupied by whites. The arrival of blacks (or other
non-whites) in sufficient numbers makes it impossible
for whites to survive, whereas the process does not work
in reverse. Even without the carnage of inter-racial crime,
whites could be eliminated through sheer loss of territory.
Viewed in biological terms, ethnic diversity is prelude
The great majority of people, of any age and origin,
do not concern themselves with the rise and fall of civilizations.
Like fish in water, they are conscious of their environment
only when it changes rapidly and threateningly, a rarity
in most people's lifetimes. Yet civilizations do fall,
and the warning signs for ours have been present for more
than a century. Rudyard Kipling's line, "East is
East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,"
presaged the message of early twentieth century Americans,
Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, whose books, The Passing
of the Great Race and The Rising Tide of Color, helped
bring about the immigration restrictions of 1924.
The 1924 national origins quota system was dismantled
in 1965 during the wave of self-recrimination that accompanied
the Civil Rights era. Should Chinese historians of the
twenty-second century be writing the final history of
Western civilization, no doubt they will cite the 1965
Immigration Act as the blow that broke the back of Western
Elmer Pendell, in his book, Why Civilizations Self-Destruct,
surveyed historians' theories as to why civilizations
fall. They include Oswald Spengler's analogy to individual
aging and death, theories of moral decay, and theories
based on ecological deterioration. Concerning the latter,
Garrett Hardin notes in The Limits of Altruism: "No
civilization has ever recovered after ruining its environment."
[emphasis in original] All of these theories have their
appeal, yet none is a complete explanation for what is
happening to the West.
Pendell's own hypothesis seems closer to the mark. A
civilization arises when natural selection produces a
people of above-average intelligence. As the founders
conquer natural culling forces, those who would have been
removed from the population due to their lesser abilities
survive and produce more children than the more intelligent
founders. Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin and
author of Hereditary Genius, first noted that `men of
eminence' have fewer children than the average. Eventually
the intelligence level of the population falls below that
needed to sustain civilization.
Pendell suggests another factor in the collapse of civilizations,
the gradual adulteration of ethnically homogeneous founding
populations through losses in wars and, in ancient times,
the taking of slaves. The modern analogue of slavery is
immigration. Tenny Frank, in his book History of Rome,
wrote, "The original peoples were wasted in wars
and scattered in migrations and colonization and their
places were filled chiefly with Eastern Slaves."
We cannot speak of the spirit of Rome or the culture of
Rome, Frank said, "without defining whether the reference
is to the Rome of 200 BC or 200 AD."
Theodor Mommsen wrote in The History of Rome, "The
patrician body. . . had dwindled away more and more in
the course of centuries and in the time of Caesar there
were not more than fifteen or sixteen patrician gentes
(clans) still in existence." In 9 A. D. laws were
passed requiring each patrician family to have three children.
Lead poisoning has been implicated in the failure to reverse
the decline of Roman blood, but the reasons do not change
the outcome. Even in ancient Rome, slaves did not stay
slaves forever, and their gradual suffusion through the
population by intermixture would have contributed to Rome's
demise. The same situation, massive infusion of non-Western
peoples and a birthrate below replacement level, threatens
the West, and for reasons quite unrelated to lead poisoning.
Eric Fischer, writing in The Passing of the European
Age, said that a new civilization never arises where an
earlier civilization has died. If Pendell's theory is
correct and if the hypothesis of Tenny Frank and others
explains the loss of a hereditary capacity for civilization,
then Fischer's observation has a genetic explanation.
Civilization cannot arise on the site of an earlier civilization
once the hereditary character of the people is permanently
altered. This process is happening in the Western world
today through immigration, welfare, and liberal policies
that promote the submergence of ethnic groups into a global
Should the West suffer the fate of Rome, there will be
no recovery. Whether or not other civilizations arise
among other peoples remains to be seen. Present economic
success indicates that East Asia may be a future center
of civilization. However, modern innovations flow predominantly
from the creative wellsprings of the West. Whether innovation
could be sustained in the absence of Western peoples remains
to be seen. There is evidence that this might not happen;
intelligence testing of Asians shows a relatively small
standard deviation, suggesting a smaller right tail of
the IQ distribution and a smaller percentage of innovative
Although dire predictions about the future are often
ridiculed, it is wise to remember Rome--catastrophes can
and do occur, and in a globally linked world, the consequences
could be shattering. In The Limits of Altruism, Garrett
Hardin cites Harrison Brown, author of The Challenge of
Man's Future, as the first person to recognize the vulnerability
of the West's advanced civilization. Brown focused on
the role of metals in modern civilization and on the technology
required to obtain metals. Prof. Hardin summarizes the
"Looking only at the copper component of the problem,
we should note that preliterate man managed to create
the Bronze Age only because of the ready availability
of copper ores assaying greater than 20 percent. . . .
Only the most primitive of means are required to process
high grade ores. But now we are reduced to extracting
our copper from ores that assay less than 1 percent, and
soon we will have nothing better than 0.1 percent. It
takes a very sophisticated technology to deal with low-grade
ores, a technology that only a large population of technologically
advanced people can muster."
Prof. Hardin continues, "Our many technologies form
an incredible network of mutual support, mutual dependence.
If this network were disrupted . . . it is doubtful if
our kind of technology could ever be rebuilt. . . . On
all counts, it looks as though our civilization, once
fallen, will never be replaced by another of comparable
Prof. Hardin suggests two possible causes for the destruction
of modern civilization: nuclear warfare and a population
crash brought on by exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity.
However, genetic submergence of the peoples with the innate
ability to sustain civilization will do just as well.
The Map of Freedom, published annually by Freedom House,
graphically demonstrates that free forms of government
generally track population concentrations of people of
European descent, a strong suggestion that freedom has
a genetic origin. Although there are exceptions, notably
Japan, which lost a nuclear war to the West and had a
Western constitution imposed on it, the world of the free
is largely the world of the Western European. The partially
free include newly emerged Eastern Europeans and a scattering
of other nations around the world. Much of Africa and
Asia remains in the not free category.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw this. Fearing "importation
of foreigners," he wrote in Notes on Virginia, "They
will bring with them the principles of the governments
they leave, or if able to throw them off, it will be in
exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as
usual, from one extreme to the other. . . . In proportion
to their number, they will infuse into it [the nation]
their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and render it
a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."
Because economic inequality between groups inevitably
produces envy, stable societies are almost always homogeneous.
Multi-ethnic and multicultural societies live on the edge
of dissolution. In such cases, the role of government
turns to conflict management, as Brent Nelson points out
in America Balkanized. "Government as conflict management
is an emerging theme of public life in the U.S., a theme
which recurrently manifests itself in the concepts of
dialogue, mediation, sensitivity, tolerance, and balance.
The latter terms are increasingly the shibboleths of American
public life. The fiction is maintained that these concepts
. . . will produce a final resolution of intergroup conflicts.
. . . [T]he reality is something quite other." Laws
against "hate crime" and "hate speech"
reflect that other reality.
If today's ethnic minorities become a majority it will
be beyond the power of Western peoples to control, peacefully
by means of the ballot, the destiny of the nations that
were once their own. There is no guarantee that protections
prevalent in Western societies will be preserved in societies
that become non-Western. There is no historical reason
to believe that governments based on principles of individual
liberty will survive the disappearance of Western peoples.
Post-colonial Africa is enlightening. For the most part,
the Dark Continent is reverting to its ancestral ways,
suitably updated by the infusion of Western weapons, as
evidenced by carnage in Somalia and Rwanda. That this
disturbs our heightened Western sense of compassion is
understandable. But sentimentality should not blind us
to the long term implications for our own survival. Nature's
books are being balanced in Africa, and they will be balanced
in the West, either by us or by Nature itself. Just as
giving food to people who cannot feed themselves simply
hastens an inevitable population crash, bringing third
world people into the West simply hastens the transformation
of the West into an extension of the third world.
The European tradition of ordered, self-governing liberty
is probably part of our genetic heritage. Throughout the
third world, governments range from anarchy to dictatorship.
That too, is surely genetic. Those few non-European countries
that appear to be free have generally maintained democracy
through intimate contact with the West. If Europeans are
marginalized and ultimately absorbed by the third world,
the idealism of Western liberalism that permitted the
third world invasion will have proved to be a lethal genetic
Few concepts are more ingrained in Western thought than
respect for the "rule of law." The West has
a history of order that predates the eight-hundred-year-old
Magna Carta. Roman Law was supreme in the Mediterranean
world for nearly a thousand years. Unique among the peoples
of the earth, the people of the West recognize, at least
in theory, the subordination of government to individual