What Is A Nation?
Radio/Audio; Posted on: 2006-07-11 20:04:51
In this radio broadcast, John Young puts forth the reasoning behind one of the most fundamental tenets of nationalism: the idea that the borders of sovereign states should coincide with ethnic populations. In other words, the fundamental basis for a nation. The audio version of this show can be found here.
by John Young
National Vanguard Boston
Since we live in the "One Nation" as described in the Pledge of Allegiance and the "Nation" described by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, as well as the "Nation" envisioned by John Jay and the other founders, it seems appropriate to first explore just exactly how a "Nation" is defined, and then take a look at the implications of that definition in a scientific sense.
Back in 1913, before political correctness ran amuck, and Americans were defining words the same way they defined them during the nation's founding, Webster's Dictionary defined a nation as follows:
"Na'tion (?), n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p.p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnaci, from the same root as E. kin. ?44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.]
1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock."
That seems pretty clear. That's why the Indian Tribes in North America are each referred to as their own "nations", like in the famous song about the Cherokee Nation. The members of the Cherokee Nation are a homogenous people united by ties of blood and having a common language and culture.
At the time of the founding of the United States, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, John Jay, wrote the following in Federalist No. 2 (emphasis added):
"With equal pleasure I have often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ..."
What John Jay is describing is a nation. And that is exactly what America was for the greater part of its history. To understand that John Jay's views were quite mainstream compared with the other founders of our great nation, consider that the first immigration law passed by the First Congress and signed into law by George Washington in 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons" only.
The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted that law in 1922 stating that the intention of our immigration laws, even up until that time was to "...confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the (founding) fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified." The Court went on to define white people as being people "... of what is popularly known as the Caucasoid race..."(1)
In that decision, it is clear that the founding fathers of the United States explicitly intended to limit citizenship in the United States, by race. And specifically to the White race.
Now that the dirty "r" word has been written - race - it is time to address the tremendous amount of sheer idiocy masquerading as science that declares race to be a mere "social construct." Such a declaration, were it not for the solemn pronouncements of learned men of academia, would appear to anyone with eyes to be insane. Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between a Swede and a Nigerian at a glance, and without reference to any manuals.
Nevertheless, numerous academics such as Dr. Noel Ignatiev, the current occupant of the prestigious W.E.B. DuBois chair at Harvard University, persist in not only declaring race to be an illusory social construct, but to extrapolate that logic into advocacy of the destruction of the White race in particular. One would expect the occupant of prestigious academic chair named for the first President of the N.A.A.C.P. to be a Negro, but that expectation is incorrect. Dr. Ignatiev is, in fact, an Eastern European Jew. Since Jews in America, for purposes of Affirmative Action and similar programs are classified as White, it is at first blush rather perplexing why Dr. Ignatiev would wish to abolish himself. But, for now, a quotation from his "What we Believe" statement should suffice:
"The White race is a historically constructed social formation. ... the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race."(2)
Dr. Ignatiev is, of course, not the only academic making such extraordinary claims; but his perspective is illustrative of a clear attempt to deny the facts of reality in order to specifically target White people as a means of achieving some sort of social agenda. Other examples include Dr. Joseph Graves, Jr. in his book "The Emperor's New Clothes", not to mention Dr. Stephen J. Gould in his "The Mismeasure of Man."
Like Dr. Ignatiev, Dr. Graves states his motivations outright:
"How can we design programs that progressively eliminate the detriments caused by the history of racist injustice...? ... A crucial part of the battle against the legacies of the social construction of race is to get across the messages that biological races do not exist. Dictionaries and encyclopedias need to be revised."(3)
It should be clear that the motivation of these cosmopolitan academic elites has nothing to do with proper zoological classification of members of the human species. Rather, a clear social, rather than scientific, agenda is at work here. As Dr. Ignatiev points out, he wants to abolish the White race in order to "solve the social problems of our age." Presumably, the "social problems of our age" which Dr. Ignatiev intends to solve do not involve minor inventions of the White race such as penicillin, vaccinations, anesthesia, flight, space travel, or semiconductors. What a plague we White people are - at least to the likes of Dr. Ignatiev.
In the current climate of what is colloquially called "Political Correctness", but what should more honestly be called censorship , a lot of academics who don't necessarily share Dr. Igantiev's or Dr. Graves' perspective are nevertheless constrained to pretend that they do. As Professor J. Phillippe Rushton reported in his 1998 paper "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science":
"Today, many campus radicals from the 1960's are the tenured radicals of the 1990's. They have become the chairs of departments, the deans, and the chancellors of the universities: senior political administrators in Congress and Houses of Parliament, and even the presidents and prime mimisters of countries. The 1960's mentality of peace, love, and above all, equality, now constitutes the intellectual dogma of the Western academic world. There are laws to prohibit platforms for those denounced as 'fascists' and others deemed to be not politically correct. ... In his book, 'Kindly Inquisitors', Jonathan Rauch showed that even in the U.S. with the First Amendment in place, many colleges and universities have set up 'anti-harassment' rules prohibiting - and establishing punishments for -'speech or other expression' that is intended to 'insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals in the basis of their sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and ethnic origin.' (This is quoted from Stanford's policy, and is more or less typical.) ...Irrespective of religious background, or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what has been called 'one-party science.' For example, only politically correct hypotheses centering on cultural disadvantage are postulated to explain the differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Cheap moralizing is so fierce that most people respect the taboo. This intellectual cowardice only encourages viscious attacks by activist groups on those who are engaged in legitimate scientific research showing that there is a genetic basis underlying individual and group differences."(4)
Professor Glayde Whitney also points out:
"The biological reality of race is a fascinating topic from a scientific point of view. For over half a century there has been a tremendous amount of propaganda aimed at making this a taboo topic. The race-deniers have been very successful in scaring off scientists. Even though most of what they spout is nonsense, the vast majority of serious scientists have learned their lesson well. For a youngster it would be career suicide to deal with race from a scientific perspective."(5)
In spite of the current environment where political doctrine is used to crush scientific research that yields results that aren't Politically Correct, more and more scientists are standing up to be counted, and saying that race is not only a biological fact of reality, but also that skin color is the least of the differences between the races.
The differences between races are so substantial that an admixture of as little as 5% Negro is detectable in an ostensibly White person through a simple genetic test available through DNA Print Genomics for only $158.(6) This simple fact of reality flies in the face of the absurd pronouncements of the politically correct that race is only a "social construct." How can a test differentiate such low levels of admixture if race doesn't even exist? The answer of course is that race does, in fact, exist.
Dr. George Gill, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the University of Wyoming states the matter plainly:
"I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me .... The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm."(7)
Professor Rushton expands on this:
"Race is a valid taxonomic construct because it allows us to make predictions about people's behavior, especially at the group level. ... Sometimes it is claimed by those that argue that race is just a social construct that the human genome project shows that because people share 99% of their 'genes' in common, that there are no races. This is silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes, Yet noone thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very differently. ... The scientific evidence shows that the politically correct mantra 'race is only skin deep' is a case of deep denial."(
Professor Gill goes on to note the political dimension of the problem as opposed to the science:
"Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship."(9)
The important things that should become clear from the foregoing are that race really does exist as a biological reality - meaning that races are, in fact,different in ways that are more than skin deep; that the concept of a nation is inextricably bound with the concept of race; and that America was clearly intended from its inception to be a homogenously White nation.
One suspects that the great minds who created the greatest nation on Earth must have had good reasons for wanting a homogenously White nation. With the benefit of modern science, it is now possible to ascertain that homogenous racial groupings create significant advantages that multi-racial groupings don't possess.
The first of these advantages is altruism.. Many older Americans still remember the days before Welfare Statism was implemented on a wide scale in the 1960's. What they remember is an era when anyone who needed a helping hand would get it through the local church, or even just a kindly neighbor.
But what drove that? Why do Americans now have a welfare state and high taxes instead? As America has become more and more racially heterogenous, people have become less altruistic. The tie is genetic. Professor Rushton points out:
"Charitable donations are typically made in greater quantities within ethnic groups than between them and social psychological studies have documented that people are more likely to help members of their own race or country than members of other races or foreigners. The reason people give preferential treatment to genetically similar others is both simple and profound: they thereby replicate their genes more effectively."(10)
So, in essence, the welfare state is necessitated by the fact that a White midwestern farmer isn't very likely to voluntarily donate funds for helping a Black inner-city child. Or vice versa.
America's founding fathers understood that, in order to maintain a nation where people were free to keep their own income rather than having it seized by government for purposes of redistribution, a racially homogenous White nation was necessary. In other words, racial homogeneity is a prerequisite of freedom.
But there are other benefits to the racial homogeneity intended by the founding fathers. For example, racial homogeneity promotes smoother cooperation, as Professor Kevin MacDonald writes:
"Genetic similarity theory extends beyond kin recognition by proposing mechanisms that assess phenotypic similarity as a marker for genetic similarity. These proposed mechanisms would then promote positive attitudes, greater cooperation, and a lower threshold for altruism for similar others. There is indeed considerable evidence, summarized in Rushton (1989) and Segal (1999), that phenotypic and genetic similarity are important factors in human assortment, helping behavior, and liking others."(11)
Of course, a casual examination of the number of local, State and Federal agencies dedicated to smoothing out the wrinkles between races, along with the huge number of private companies with staff dedicated to interracial issues should be enough to point out that racial diversity is actually an impediment to cooperation, rather than a lubricant.
One reason for this is the well-documented existence of ethnic nepotism. Professor Tatu Vanhanen states:
"Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence because it was rational and useful. It is reasonable to assume that ethnic nepotism is equally shared by all human populations. Consequently all human populations and ethnic groups have an approximately equal tendency to resort to ethnic nepotism in interest conflicts. It explains the otherwise strange fact that ethnic interest conflicts appear in so many countries where people belong to clearly different ethnic groups, and that ethnic interest conflicts have emerged within all cultural regions and at all levels of socioeconomic development." (12)
So, in essence, this is a biological characteristic of all humans, and so the racial problems that all of the alphabet soup government agencies are trying to address cannot be solved in that fashion. The best solution to the problems of ethnic nepotism is racial separation. Professor Vanhanen continues:
"Because every ethnic group wants to survive and at least manage its own affairs, if it is not capable of subjugating other groups, it would be advisable to give them sufficient autonomy, and leave them room to pursue their interests in national politics on the basis of equality. If ethnic groups occupy separate territories, it might be useful to establish federal structure even in relatively small countries."(13)
So, the matter comes full-circle: the wisdom of America's founding fathers. While they did not have the science at their disposal that their descendants have today, they were keen observers of human nature. They understood what needs to be re-learned: That our race is our nation, that racial differences are very real, and that multi-racial states are recipes for ethnic conflict as soon as resource competition rears its ugly head.
The founding fathers understood that racial separation was the only way to guarantee freedom from ethnic conflict, and secure a free country without need of a welfare state and ruinous taxation. Will White Americans reclaim the wisdom of their founders?
1. Ozawa v. United States 43 S. Ct. 65, decided Nov 13, 1922. In this case a Japanese person was denied the right to become a United States citizen because he was not a member of the White race.
2. Taken from Dr. Ignatiev's website at http://racetraitor.org
Confirmation that this information wasn't taken out of context can be gained by reading the interview with Dr. Ignatiev in the March 1997 issue of Z Magazine.
3. Graves, Joseph, "The Emperor's New Clothes", 2001 pp196-200
4. Rushton, Phillippe J., Liberty, March, 1998, Vol. II, No. 4, pp. 31-35
5. Whitney, Glayde, Mankind Quarterly, Spring 1999, Volume XXXIX, No. 3
7. Gill, George W., Does Race Exist? http://Http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
8. Rushton, Phillippe J., Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct? The Occidental Quarterly Vol2 No 1 Spring, 2002
9. Gill, George W., Does Race Exist? http://Http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
10. Rushton, Phillippe J., Evolution, Altruism and Genetic Similarity Theory. See also Rushton's "Race, Evolution and Behavior", Chapter 4
11. Macdonald, Kevin, "The Numbers Game: Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World"
12. Vanhanen, Tatu, "Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism", 1999
13. Vanhanen, Tatu, "Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism", 1999
Source: National Vanguard Boston ? Printed from National Vanguard