Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

When I first went away to school, I had known only the people in my neighborhood. They were mostly self-satisfied and hard-working citizens who were happy with a job well done, a family in a sturdy house, and a community which both gave and took from its members. I don't recall any of the sniping, challenging, passive or arrogant behaviors that I found when my family moved away from our rural Indo-European stronghold into the suburbs.

Outside of a medium-sized city, my family was the odd man out. My parents weren't divorced, and I didn't watch much TV, and so I wasn't in touch with the hip lingo the other kids used in my class at the local red brick public school. I hadn't spent much time in social competition, so was naieve to say the least.

The district was short on soccer balls, and our physical education coaches did not believe in team sports, so we were left to run around a large field with a few spare balls while the coaches sat in the gym office and drank diet colas. I remember the first day I was able to locate an unused ball, which I cheerfully kicked around with a friend for a few minutes until Joshua showed up.

"Hey, that's the ball I was using," he said. I apologized and handed it over to him, and he walked away chuckling. I didn't notice because I had assumed now reason to lie about such a thing. Being an innocent, I had no idea I'd been swindled until he pulled the same stunt for the third day in a row and I looked him square in the eye and said, "Really?"

He almost turned pale and said, "Just kidding," and walked off.

Being older and wiser now, I know what a fakeout is when I see it. So when I saw the headline screaming "Race Not Reflected in Genes, Study Finds," I rolled my eyes and thought: What is it this time? Because this argument has been tried several times in different forms and, while it fools many people, it doesn't affect others who have a bit of background in research or non-politicized science.

This articles is an interesting case in propaganda designed to assume the pseudo-consciousness of its audience. It starts out with broad statements and, only at the later point where the average reader is estimated to have headed off to the fridge for a beer, turns toward the real data. "The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said on Monday, confirming what scientists have long said -- that race has no meaning genetically," say the first lines of the article.

To keep themselves from the realm of pure hyperbole, they insert a brief fragment of data before more unfounded conlusions, "The Brazilian researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there is no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race." Here we first learn that this isn't a study of humans a whole, but racially-mixed Brazillians, although the article implies that conclusions for worldwide populations were drawn from this data.

After more rhetoric about how there is "wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists" that "human races do not exist," we get to the meat of the article:

They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart, genetically, 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome island on the west coast of Africa. But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair color, the researchers found. They next tested two groups -- 173 Brazilians classified as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin color, hair color, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white. They used the 10 genetic markers that differed between people from Portugal and Africa, but found little difference among anyone in their study. To their surprise, they found maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had, on average, 33 percent of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28 percent African. Reuters, December 16, 2002

We didn't need this study to tell us that in mestizo populations the genetics of people do not necessarily match the most obvious traits visible in their appearance; this was one of the reasons the Nazis condemned race-mixing, in that it introduced recessive traits which appeared in later generations at random. Further, as any die-hard racist will tell you, once you mix there's no going back, something this data supports.

The first comedy is that, in an article trying to disprove racial markers in genetics, these scientists have found markers of racial origin which they claim are reliable enough for use in scientific study. That contradicts their thesis/conclusion already. The second comedy is that they use "arm skin color, hair color, and nose and lip shape" as their only vectors for determining race, in a population they know is mixed-race. Hello? You don't find whites and blacks in a mixed-race population - you find degrees of "intermediate."

The laugh riots continue with this one "and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white." We can find all sorts of people who will claim to be related to Napoleon Bonaparte, but does that make it true? As if the obvious hilarity of finding "white" people in a mixed race population wasn't already staring us in the face. In essence, they built up a modified version of the case for racism they hoped they could defeat, and then launched a very controlled study that didn't actually address the question of race, and from it claimed that race as a whole does not exist.

Pretty funny considering they didn't test anyone of verifiably white genetics. When you live in a mixed population, terms like "white" and "black" become relative, so that someone less tan than your average Mexican is "white" but still not "white" in the Northern/Western European sense, and someone darker than your average Indian is "black" but still not "black" in the African sense. Word games and broad conclusions.

You can see ZOG under every bush or Masons in the etchings on a dollar bill, but what really matters, in my view, are the philosophies, attitudes and values of any civilization, as these influence individuals without the need for central control, causing them to enforce an unconscious "conspiracy" of people repeating the same ideas as dogma. A good example is the American press.

If you can make big money as a writer, you usually get out of newspaper and magazine journalism; it's hard work with not-great pay. Some love it and pursue it for their own enjoyment, but the majority of people in journalism are there because other options were closed to them. Thus they need some grand vision and overarching reason for their choice. They almost always pick something convenient which portrays them as selfless, noble, moral and merciful, namely that they made their career choices for "ideological reasons."

Having stated this, they feel a need to defend it; having gone through a liberalized educational system and being surrounded by fellow liberal arts majors on the job, they absorb the philosophies of the left if they aren't already indoctrinated. Futher, since extremes sell more than exhortations toward stability, most of their articles unconsciously get nudged closer to sensationalist, self-criticial pieces which appeal to the broadest humanist values possible.

Jews and Christians control disproportionate amounts of our media, but what drives these articles is a common idea among those who form our media, entertainment, and news personnel: liberalism, and a desire to "help" other races by lashing out at the idea of racial differences, regardless of their ethnicity and background. The important thing is to recognize when their grand conclusions based on almost no data and wrongly-contexted interpretation are just a ploy, just a fakeout. And if you call them on it, they'll probably back down.