At the time of writing, there are only two members of the subspecies northern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) still living. This dearth is due primarily to poaching driven by the exorbitant demand in the Asian market for rhinoceros horns, which are believed by many consumers to cure a variety of ailments1. This has been decried by conservationists (whether by profession or interest) and met with unfortunately vain efforts to avoid extinction.
In contrast, it is estimated that there are 20,000 living members of the subspecies southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum). They belong to the same species, white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), as northern white rhinoceroses. As such, the two subspecies are nearly indistinguishable. Yet, conservationists deem the two dissimilar enough to both be worth conserving.
Indeed, the aim of conservationism is to maintain biodiversity, however slight.
The diversity among the various races and ethnicities of mankind has been waning for some time now. This is due primarily to mass immigration driven by the metastization of globalism. These groups are of such genetic, physical, and cultural (genotypic, phenotypic, and behavioral, to use technical terms) dissimilarity that conservationists ought to strive to conserve them—and, undoubtedly, they would were this a feature of any other species under consideration.
Yet, clearly most conservationists do not possess this view.
The justification that such conservationists would likely offer is that the races and ethnicities are too biologically similar to warrant protection. But this is based on shaky grounds at best.
One could make a solid case for the proposition that the races are, in actuality, different subspecies. I can imagine most people shrieking at such a proposition and fabricating the consequences of its widespread acceptance, such as leading to hatred, abuse, war, then, ultimately, genocide. If not for the fact that it is this reaction itself which has the dangerous consequences, such as stifled free speech2,3, it would be laughable. For, on the contrary, the recognition of the races as different subspecies would lead largely to the view that they should be conserved. And besides, any effect of a claim’s acceptance is irrelevant to the matter of whether the claim is justified. What is relevant is evidence, of which there is an abundance for this proposition. I will present, for the sake of brevity, only two pieces of this evidence.
Firstly, for most of the history of modern taxonomy, which began with Carl Linnaeus in the mid-18th century, the belief that mankind is composed of subspecies more or less corresponding to the races was held by most biologists/anthropologists4 (note that historically the meaning of the term “race” was equivalent to that of the term “subspecies”5,6). For instance, Linnaeus proposed four subspecies: Homo sapiens americanus, Homo sapiens europaeus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, and Homo sapiens afer (respectively corresponding to American Indian, white, Asian, and black). This view had no decline in popularity until relatively recently, coinciding with the spread of Marxism and liberalism in academia7.
To this day it is held by a large percentage—if not the majority—of biology-related scientists (biologists, anthropologists, etc.) worldwide, especially if you exclude scientists in the U.S. and Western European countries, where Marxism and liberalism have most securely captured academia. For instance, it is held by a plurality of scientists in Eastern European countries (the next most popular view is that races exist as defined other than as subspecies)8. And the overwhelming majority of anthropologists in China regard race as a valid concept9 (while it is unclear how they define “race,” it is safe to assume that they define it similarly to “subspecies,” judging by general Chinese racial attitudes10). While this is not a proof that the view is true, it lends credence to the view, especially when paired with a healthy skepticism of the objectivity of Marxists and liberals.
Secondly, despite Marxist and liberal influence, even modern criteria for classifying subspecies are met by the diversity of the races of mankind. While there is no standard criteria for subspecies classification, generally speaking, common criteria are based on average morphological (that is, physical) differences among the various proposed subspecies. This was the case when the northern and southern white rhinoceros were classified11,12,13. For example, one of the most common criterion is the “75% rule.” There are variants of this rule, the strictest requiring that 75% of the members of each proposed subspecies be distinguishable from greater than 99% of the members of every other proposed subspecies based on one or more characteristics, e.g., fur or skin color14. This can certainly be observed of the races by everyone with normal perceptual capabilities, especially when considering multiple characteristics like skin color, facial structure, hair type, bone features, and other characteristics that obviously vary by race.
Non-morphological criteria have become more popular in recent decades. Particularly, behavioral differences and geographic isolation are the primary factors used to determine if different groups within a species should be classified as different subspecies12. Each race and ethnicity have obvious behavioral differences and have historically been and, to a lesser extent, are today geographically isolated.
As genetic technology has developed, genetic difference has increasingly been advocated as the standard criterion for subspecies classification. This is the criterion that many declare that the human races do not meet. But as we will see, based on a couple of metrics, the races have been shown to substantially differ genetically.
The first such metric is known as “fixation index” (FST). There are variants of this metric, each quite technical, but suffice it to say that they all approximate the degree of genetic differentiation (differences) among groups. Race-deniers will cite the smallest measured FST of the races, which is 0.063 (6.3%)15, measured by Richard Lewontin, a proud Marxist. But they fail to mention values of other measurements that have been made, like 0.12116 and 0.15517, which are comparable to or greater than the fixation indexes of many recognized subspecies of species like the subspecies of the plains zebra, humpback whale, and puma with FST 0.1118, 0.1219, and 0.16720, respectively. But even the 0.063 measurement is comparable to or greater than the FST of many subspecies, like those of the red-winged blackbird, American buffalo, and jaguar (0.0121, 0.05922, and 0.06523, respectively). There are plenty of other examples24 which I will omit in the interest of conciseness. And all this is despite the facts that Lewontin’s measurement was shown to be misleading and his conclusion fallacious when his methods were scrutinized25 and that fixation index is far from universally accepted as the proper determiner of subspecies categorization, as there are many problems with it.
Another metric that measures genetic distinctiveness of populations is genetic cluster analysis. Put simply, this shows the degree to which the genetic makeups of a set of individuals tend to cluster into genetically similar groups. If there were no races and you performed genetic cluster analysis on a sample of people, with each race represented, you would find no clustering. Quite the opposite is the case26,27, and in fact, the clusters match up to people’s self-reported races28,29.
It is worth mentioning that, while most of the diversity of mankind is to be found between the races, there are nonetheless significant differences between the various ethnic groups too, as measured by FST30,31 and genetic cluster analysis32 and as seen clearly in cultural, i.e., behavioral differences, the latter of which is also a common taxonomical classification criterion12.
While the races of mankind do meet the criteria of modern academia to be classified as subspecies, the ethnicities do not; and the races are still not classified as such and might not meet the criteria of the future status quo—academics are at least as fallible and prone to corruption and confirmation bias as everyone else, to which history attests with countless examples wherein academia worked on behalf, not of the truth, but of those in power. But based on the honest science that has been done as well as basic observation and common sense, it is undeniable that the groups, major and minor, of mankind are different, whatever label one wishes to ascribe to them, whether “subspecies,” “races,” “ethnicities,” or something else. And based on the honest principle of conservationism, which applies to all unique biological groups, however slightly different they are, these groups of mankind ought to be conserved.
Upon closer examination, you will find that many who hold conservationist sympathies in fact do extend them to many ethnicities.
For instance, it would be unsurprising to encounter a typical conservationist who, if he is aware of it, supports the cause of the Free Tibet organization, whether financially or morally. The organization’s website states:
“Prior to China’s invasion in 1950, Tibet maintained a unique culture, religion and language for centuries. Today, this culture is under threat from mass Chinese immigration and the strict control of all expressions of Tibetan culture and national identity.”33
Yet in contrast, one would expect the same conservationist to delight in the fact that comparable phenomena befall white countries. For notable exemplars, see Russell Brand34,35,36,37 and Richard Gere34,38,39.
I find no better account for the inconsistency of conservationists than worldviews. Yet, I see no reason that atheism (at least materialist atheism) or theism per se would lead a conservationist to make an exception for mankind or all its groups, let alone only the white race or its ethnicities.
As for atheists, man is not objectively unique. He is merely another animal, no more or less valuable than the earthworm. And as for those who believe man was created by God, it seems to me proper that they should value the integrity of these groups—surely the formation of the races and ethnicities are no less providential than that of the Eurasian wolf and Mexican wolf. This is undoubtedly true for Christians. The Bible relates that God, upon observing that all mankind had migrated to the same city and spoke the same language, remarked, “the people is one, and they have all one language” then proceeded to “confound their language” and scatter them across the Earth (Genesis 11), ultimately resulting in separate races and ethnicities. Scripture also says that God made every nation (note that the original text uses the Greek word “ethnos,” from which the English word “ethnicity” is derived) and determined the “bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26).
Therefore it seems that other, more sinister worldviews must account for the inconsistency—ones that are anti-white, anti-human, or anti-God. Admittedly, they are seldom explicitly and publicly espoused. Yet, you will reliably find them advocated if you do some research. Some examples are Tim Wise, who celebrated the fact that demographic trends in America indicate that “in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown”40 and our current president, Joe Biden, who did the same41. Perhaps most do not actually have such worldviews, but those who would exclude any race or ethnicity from the purview of conservationism are certainly agents of their ends and influenced by their adherents. And they are not conservationists. It is only those that wish to conserve, in addition to all other lifeforms, all of the races and ethnicities of mankind that may be properly called conservationists.
Therefore, there is another label that befits them: nationalists.
-By Will Murphy
References
1. https://www.iapf.org/news/rhinos
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
5. Templeton AR. Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. Am Anthropol 1998;100:632–50.
6. Bodmer WF, Cavalli-Sforza LL. Genetics, evolution, and man. San Francisco, CA,USA: WH Freeman and Company; 1976.
9. Wang (2003), On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and Well
10. The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: A Strategic Asymmetry for the United States
12. Mayr, E. (1982). “Of what use are subspecies?”. The Auk. 99 (3): 593−595.
13. Monroe, B. L. (1982). “A modern concept of the subspecies”. The Auk. 99 (3): 608−609.
14. Amadon, Dean (1949), The Seventy-Five Percent Rule for Subspecies
15. Lewontin, Richard (1972), The Apportionment of Human Diversity
16. Elhaik, Eran (2012), Empirical Distributions of FST from Large-Scale Human Polymorphism Data
18. Lorenzen, et al. (2008), High variation and very low differentiation in wide ranging plains zebra (Equus quagga): Insights from mtDNA and microsatellites
19. Jackson, et al. (2014) Global diversity and oceanic divergence of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
20. Culver, et al. (2000) Genomic ancestry of the American puma (Puma concolor)
22. Hooft, et al. (2003), Microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) populations throughout Africa
23. Eizirik, et al. (2001), Phylogeography, population history and conservation genetics of jaguars
24. Woodley, Michael (2009), Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
25. Edwards, A.W.F. (2003), Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy
26. Jun Z. Li, et al. (2008), Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation
27. Rosenberg, et al. (2002), Genetic Structure of Human Populations
29. Shiao, et al. (2012), The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race
30. Nelis, et al. (2009) Genetic Structure of Europeans: A View from the North–East
32. (2014) Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestralpopulations for present-day Europeans
33. https://freetibet.org/about/history-religion-culture
34. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_independence_movement#Celebrity_support_and_Freedom_Concerts
35. https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/russell-brand
36. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7idh5BmsWk
37. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russell-brand-immigrants_n_6212604
38. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/understand/gere.html
40. http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/ 41. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_sSxre-1nA
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am. For this “fair land of freedom” I do not care at all. I’m glad I fit against it, I only wish we’d won, And I don’t want no pardon for anything I done.
