"That farewell kiss which resembles greeting, that last glance of love which becomes the sharpest pang of sorrow." - George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans)

Multiracialists Are Crazy, part 2

Top: Richmond, Virginia's Harvey family -- brutally murdered on New Year's Day, 2006 -- Ruby, 4, Stella, 9, Kathryn, 39, and Bryan, 49. Bottom: Ray Dandridge and Ricky Gray, arrested for the Harvey murders and a string of other killings

Racial self-determination is the sane way to organize societies; multiracialism is an irrational quasi-religion and is extremely dangerous.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WHAT IS A MULTIRACIALIST? He’s crazy — I told you that in my last installment. And he’s genocidal. Multiracialists believe that we should incorporate many races into our society, all under one government. Let’s take a brief look at just how crazy that is.

On New Year’s Day, 2006, in broad daylight in an old, established neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia, we found out about that kind of crazy. Dead crazy. Killing crazy. On that day a White family — rock musician Bryan Harvey and his wife, toy store owner Kathryn Harvey, and their two little girls Stella, 9, and Ruby, 4 — were getting ready for an afternoon party. They were last seen alive by a friend at 10 AM. By 1:40 PM they were all dead.

According to police, two Blacks, Ray Dandridge and Ricky Gray, entered the Harvey home, while a third Black, Ashley Baskerville, may have served as a lookout on the street. Dandridge and Gray overpowered the Harveys, bound them, tortured and beat them with blunt objects, then methodically slit all of their throats — and set their house on fire to destroy the evidence of their deeds. The Harveys, including their little girls, were obviously innocent of any offense against their killers — the motive was probably robbery according to reports — but the savage and bestial nature of the criminals led them inexorably to their acts. They are suspected of a string of similar killings. We will never know to what extent, if any, the “hate Whitey” attitude prevailing in the media fueled the rage of the killers, but we do know that Bryan Harvey’s evocation of White racial guilt in one of his songs — “White Folks’ Blood” — didn’t help him or his wife or children when the animals got out their knives.

FBI and local crime statistics show beyond doubt that Blacks are far less disciplined, far more violent, and far more criminal than Whites. No matter how differently the 5 per cent. or so of accomplished, educated Blacks and mixed-race Mulattos may act, the research report The Color of Crime reveals that on average “Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.” Mestizos commit violent crimes at three times the White rate. “Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 per cent. and Whites commit 15 per cent. …Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.” The proportion of Blacks and Mestizos in an area is, statistically, the single best indicator of how dangerous it is.

It is the quasi-religious and pathological belief system of multiracialism — the ideology that says that monsters like Dandridge and Gray should have free access to the neighborhoods and schools of Stella and Ruby and Kathryn and Bryan Harvey — that is ultimately responsible for this crime.

What exactly is multiracialism?

So, again I ask: What is a multiracialist? He’s a person who believes that it is wise and good to have multiple races in our society, all living together under the same government. Multiracialists believe in the opposite of the Maxim of Self-determination: “Every people that considers itself to be a people should, to the maximum extent possible, live under its own government.” To rephrase that maxim to fit their beliefs, it would read something like “All peoples, regardless of race or culture, should be able to come and live under our democratic government.”

You’ll notice I didn’t say “should be able to come and live under any democratic government.” I said our government. That’s because multiracialists are inconsistent. That’s to be expected, because multiracialism is not a well-thought-out philosophy. It’s less of a philosophy than it is a kind of crazy religion. And it is less of a religion than it is a pathology, a mental disease.

A multiracialist may claim to believe that all nations should open themselves up to unlimited immigration and racial mixing (which is roughly the same as an individual “opening himself up” by leaning back, making a sizable incision across his chest with a machete, and letting any creatures large or small that happen by have at his blood and internal organs in any way they want, including living inside them and feeding on them).

But the multiracialist really doesn’t think that “all nations” should open themselves up that way. No. He thinks that only White nations should open themselves up like that. You never hear multiracialists demanding that Japan or Korea or China open themselves up to mass immigration of Whites. Japanese racial-nationalism is real — Japan is virtually 100 per cent. Japanese — but you almost never hear this discussed as a “problem” in the controlled media, unlike the “emergency” that White-ruled South Africa constituted. You never hear a demand for Africa to open up its wide fields and magnificent mountains for the settlement of White people. You almost never hear multiracialists calling for Israel to let in more Blacks.

No, the multiracialists demand open borders and “racial diversity” only for White nations. America must become more non-White — Europe and Australia must become more non-White. That is their demand.

Only in traditionally White nations is it an “evil” bordering on an emergency when the native-born population wants to maintain its integrity. Australians wanting White cities and White beaches: total evil. Japanese wanting a Japanese nation: just fine. Germans wanting to stay German: a racist abomination. Israel wanting to remain a Jewish state: A-OK. White Americans wanting to preserve their heritage and culture, and organizing to do so: racism and hate. Africans wanting to preserve their heritage and culture, and organizing to do so: laudable and wonderful.

Solution to the Race Problem?

As columnist and wit Bob Whitaker says, the multiracialists may claim that racial mixing is the “solution to the race problem,” but that’s not what they really mean at all. What they really want, and what they’re really working for, is a “solution to the White problem.” Because, truth be told, everything they do is designed to exterminate us. The true-believing multiracialists, those who have accepted multiracialism as a kind of religion, have been in essence driven insane to the point where they are working to kill their own people. But those who crafted this anti-survival belief system, in my opinion, knew exactly what they were doing.

Multiracialists claim that culture — which is learned, they say — means everything and genes — which are inherited — mean nothing. But they are wrong — genes determine all human potential, including cultural potential..

Genes determine the structure of our brains, and our brains determine our behavior (including that of the culture-bearing stratum, if any, in a given race), and there are racial differences in all these things.

The culture of the West could not have arisen without the European race, any more than wasp’s nests can arise spontaneously without wasps.

(The environment is secondary, not primary, as a factor in culture and behavior. If you alter the alluvial deposits near a colony of mud-dauber wasps, it may be that the mud-daubers’ nests will then be of inferior or at least a different quality. However, if you eliminate the mud-daubers themselves and replace them with a different sort of wasp, there will definitely be no mud-daubers’ nests. )

If one hypothetically eliminated all non-White contributions to our civilization, it would still exist and still be recognizable. But if one eliminated all the contributions of Whites to Western civilization, one would for all practical purposes eliminate the whole of it, and certainly all of its distinctive characteristics.

What if our positions were reversed?

If Europeans were placed in Africa to fend for themselves, wouldn’t that be a demonstration of the relative effects of genetic structure on culture, versus the effects of environment? And such a test has in fact been done. In South Africa and Rhodesia and elsewhere we have examples of European man, sometimes largely the cast-offs and most poorly educated part of their societies, building magnificent nations hardly distinguishable from their European homes in just a few generations.

Give the Liberians New York City entirely for themselves and I suspect that trees would be growing up through the pavement of Wall Street in less than a century; give Liberia to European man and in the same amount of time great universities and spaceports would rise in the plains and valleys of Nimba and Lofa.

Would the Europeans in Africa produce exactly the same things they would have produced if they had stayed in Stockholm or Rome or Moscow? No. But they would express their characteristic mentalities and personalities in such ways as the new environment demanded or permitted, becoming a new and distinct nation — but still part of the European cultural and racial family, which is recognized as a unity by everyone except desiccated Western “intellectuals” and their puppet-masters.

If Africans were in every way the equivalent of Whites, would we not find the great writers and artists of Africa — or the African diaspora — standing shoulder to shoulder with the great Europeans? Surely, with multiracialists eager to promote “equality” at all costs, the names of this unmined vein of new Poes and Vergils and Homers from Uganda — or “the hood” — would be shouted from the housetops and on every TV channel 24 hours per day.

In these politically correct times, anyone finding them would get a PBS spot with Bill Moyers and an Inaugural reading. But alas, the best they can give us is Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou and other fourth-raters.

But cultures do change!

Multiracialists might object to what I have said, and point out that cultures do change, even while the gene pool remains substantially the same. So how can genes determine culture?

A stone-building culture will change, of course, if the people run out of stones. A whale-oil-burning culture will change if all the whales are killed. An asteroid collision with the Earth would certainly change our culture. That’s elementary.

Equally elementary is the fact that a race, placed by Nature on a rich and gigantic continent, which in the course of its entire existence and in all of its innumerable tribes and peoples and nations, never independently created a written language is significantly different genetically from the race which — in the same amount of time — produced Dante and the Parthenon and the Saturn V rocket. The gene pools of some races produce brighter and more creative people, on average, than others. More discoveries are made in the cultures of such creative peoples. When the whale oil runs out, or the ice sheet expands, they can adapt more readily than others, too.

“Culture” is merely a name we give to the things that some groups of human beings do. Human beings behave as they do because of the structure of their brains. Unless there has been a serious injury or illness, that brain structure is determined by genetic inheritance.

What will racial mixture bring?

Mixing will not mean one homogeneous mixed race — far more likely is an India-like scenario, with a multiplicity of new types and subtypes, with all the associated hostilities and conflicts of a bi-racial society multiplied by ten. That’s not a future I’d wish upon my posterity.

Furthermore, even wholesale mixing will not end the processes of racial divergence and speciation. It may set them back 100,000 years (and, in the process, extinguish forever the hope that Life will transcend the bonds of Earth), but they cannot be stopped.

Like storm-clouds building into thunderheads, race-formation is always on the horizon, always happening.

So the enforced multiracialism that now prevails in the former West is not only cruel, genocidal, and destructive — but since it must fail in its goals, it is also pointless.

It’s magic

Multiracialists don’t think much of borders, but in their insanity they do give borders some magical qualities. They believe that merely arriving on our side of the U.S. border makes one an American, for example. I am sorry to interrupt their dream, but “arriving” anywhere does not make one a member of the people currently residing there — who, by sharing a language, history, sense of community, and blood relationship constitute a nation.

Nations are biological entities; they are groups of living people. They are also movable and not necessarily fixed in one location or territory, though they obviously need territory to survive.

It is the loony equality crowd who claim that mere residence (or residence combined with a few legal formalities and hand-waving) makes one an instant member of the nation.

Legal formalities and hand-waving: a recent American naturalization ceremony

It would make about as much sense to claim that a Volkswagen becomes a Fiat when it crosses the Alps, or that a Jackson Pollock painting becomes art when it is placed in a gallery, or that an intruder becomes a member of the family he is robbing and raping and killing because he’s in their house.

The achievement of American greatness occurred when America was about 90 per cent. White; when Whites controlled virtually every level of government, virtually all media of entertainment, education, and culture, and virtually all businesses. Imposing American culture on Blacks and other non-Whites — with very limited success, I might add — did not result in equivalent greatness among those races.

France is indubitably a great nation. But the imposition of French culture on North Africans did not result in a new or greater France. The imposition of French culture on Indochina did not result in a new France, or anything even remotely similar. It might be interesting to compare the achievements of French Polynesia with those of France. Culture is secondary. Race is paramount.

The European race has proven again and again and again that it has the requisite mental equipment to found, maintain, and advance a high civilization. Brand X cannot make this claim, even when advanced civilization is handed to them on a platter.

Multiracialism cannot succeed in its goal of eradicating racial divisions and the racial divergence that is an inherent part of evolution. Multiracialism cannot bring about a race-blind society. Multiracialism cannot create human “equality,” which is an utter delusion which will never exist.

But multiracialism can destroy our culture. It can prevent us from advancing and ever reaching the stars. It can exterminate our race. It can kill little children like Ruby and Stella Harvey. National Vanguard is dedicated to the purpose of educating our people to prevent such tragedies. Please help us today.

*   *   *

Based on the American Dissident Voices broadcast for January 15, 2006