Defending Free Speech

Do racial differences exist?

          Professor Fraser of Sydney, Australia, has suffered persecution under the government's anti-free speech laws because he has pointed out the effects of racial differences upon society.
          This persecution begs the question: Do racial differences exist?
          The answer is a definite "Yes", racial differences do exist. Much documentation is widely available on this issue throughout the world.
          Unfortunately, due to "political correctness", research into racial differences is discouraged, and scientists researching this area can end up being harassed, persecuted, and abused by globalist bullies and thugs for revealing the truth. The reason for this is that the globalists fear that a widespread revealing of racial differences will show that their propaganda line "We are all the same" is a lie, and would reveal that racial differences can affect society and culture, and that therefore there are massive problems inherent in advocating multicultural and multiracial societies.
          Suppressing the truth about racial differences is a political tactic to further the cause of globalism, political Multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and the Asianisation of Australia.

Differences between sub-species

          Differences between sub-species (races) of animals is normal, and common to all species - including humans. These differences exist in the physical and mental make-up of animals. For humans to be different in this matter would be decidedly odd.

          Some examples of differences between sub-species of dogs are:[1]

  • Border Collies are known for their high intelligence and herding instincts.
  • Beagles are scent-hounds who can be oblivious to all else when they catch an interesting scent (and thus are well-known for having little sense of care when crossing the road).

  • American Pit Bull Terriers are commonly inclined towards aggressive behaviour.
  • Cavalier King Charles Spaniels generally have a friendly disposition (their temperament is why they are they are commonly recommended as pets for homes and children by Australian vets), especially compared to Pit Bulls. However, almost all Cavaliers suffer from mitral valve heart disease, and they are commonly prone to hip dysplasia.

          Some examples of differences between sub-species of fish are:[2]
  • Piranha are predatory, and have a higher rate of violence, compared to goldfish.
  • Bursa Triggerfish have an aggressive temperament.
  • Imperator Angelfish have a semi-aggressive temperament.
  • Glass Eye Squirrelfish have a peaceful temperament.

          [Note: For the benefit of any Multiculturalists reading this, with their sometime habit of being deliberately oversensitive to imagined "insults" - No, the above statement is not comparing Pit Bulls to any particular race of mankind.]
          If the animal kingdom was run by Multiculturalists, then it would be illegal to point out that American Pit Bulls are more dangerous than Spaniels. One can imagine the outrage: "How dare you say that Pit Bulls are proportionately more violent!!!" Apologists for "animal multiculturalism" would no doubt say that any differences between the two breeds were entirely due to culture, society, or "racism".

Racial generalities are broadly correct, although not all-encompassing

          Various things may be said about the different races of the world. For instance, compared to Europeans:

  • Asians have a higher proportion of people who are good at mathematics (mental attribute).
  • Africans have a higher proportion of people with fast-twitch muscle fibers (physical attribute).
  • Asians have a higher proportion of people who eat dogs (cultural attribute).
  • Africans have a higher proportion of people who are prone to violence due to an increased level of testosterone (physiological attribute).

          This does not mean that all or most Asians are great mathematicians or eat dogs, or that all or most Africans have fast-twitch muscle fibers or are prone to violence, but it does mean that there is a higher proportion of people in those populations to which those attribute apply, as compared to Europeans.

          Generalities of differences between racial groups are exactly that - generally correct observations or measurements of broad differences between groups. Generalities do not apply to everyone within a particular group, but they do apply proportionately to the group as a whole.

          To look at parallel situations, here are some examples:[3]

  • Most dogs are bigger than most cats.
  • Most men are stronger than most women.
  • Most men are taller than most women.
  • Most men have better visual-spatial abilities than most women.
  • Most women have better nurturing abilities than most men.
  • Most women have better multi-tasking abilities than most men.
  • Most books are taller/longer than most matchsticks.

          All of these comparisons are generally true, but do not apply in all individual instances. Comparisons of differences within groups will generally be reflected in statistical overlapping "bell curves", showing extremes at both ends of each group regarding the comparative data.
          These differences are quite correct when comparing the broader populations, but there will always be an overlapping percentage, which that means that there will always be a minority who are different to the norm; however, the existence of that minority does not change the truth of the generally attributed traits.
          For anyone to present an example, that differs to the general result for a group, as a means of disputing the validity of the established norm is simply demonstrating that the presenter does not understand what the words "average" or "common" mean. To present an example of a matchstick taller than a book does not disprove the fact that most books are taller than matchsticks, and to state otherwise would be ridiculous.
          It should also be noted that to state a difference between population groups is not to state a like or dislike, but is to merely state a truth.

Why do Multiculturalists deny racial differences?

          As far as Multiculturalists are concerned, they usually don't mind anyone discussing the positive attributes of other races, but they are trying to make it either illegal or unsafe to discuss the "negative" attributes of other races.
          For instance, it is quite safe for scientists to report their findings that Black adults have better hearing than White adults, but it is dangerous to report that Blacks have lower IQ than Whites and Asians; naturally, in a world of anti-White bias, it is much safer for a scientist to report that Asians have a slightly higher IQ than Whites - this is just another example of Multiculturalism stifling scientific research into the human races.[4]
          Many scientists are too scared to publish, or further investigate, information on racial differences as they are often "crucified" by Multiculturalist cosmopolitans, especially in the media. They stand to lose academic funding, support, or - like Professor Andrew Fraser in Australia - even their job. Multiculturalists are like the old type of religious fanatics who cannot bear to hear evidence that goes against their beliefs. In place of silencing their opposition by shouting "Heretic!", these new fanatics shout "Racist!" instead.
          Due to the new rule of liberal-cosmopolitan Multiculturalism, Western societies are entering a new "Dark Age" where intellectual inquiry is frowned upon; an era that is comparable to the times when the Church's Inquisition was the ultimate authority in all matters related to truth and belief. In pursuit of their political-social ideology, Multiculturalists are trying to turn the clock of enlightenment back by hundreds of years.
          The reason for this is because if people discuss the negative attributes of other races, then they are actually criticising the realities of immigration and Multiculturalism. The Multiculturalists want to stifle all criticism of their political ideology, so that their machinations can be forced upon Western nations without any organised opposition.
          Also, many Multiculturalists don't want to acknowledge that any racial differences exist at all, as to do so could show that some races are better in some areas than others, and this may imply that the issue of race does actually matter in world history and civilization after all.
          Multiculturalists have no regard for the people who will suffer the ill-effects of living with the realities of street-level multiculturalism.
          What Multiculturalists seek is the world-wide destruction of the European peoples by implementing schemes of immigration and Multiculturalism throughout all countries of majority-European ethnicity. This is racism and genocide at its worst.

The existence of race

          Thomas Jackson, in his review of Race: The Reality of Human Difference by Vincent Sarich (emeritus professor of anthropology at Berkeley University) and Frank Miele (senior editor of Skeptic magazine), discusses the issue of different races quite succinctly:

                Police can now easily test DNA samples to determine the race and even the racial mix of a criminal. In Britain, the Forensic Science Service uses DNA for what it calls photofitting, that is to say, to come up with the best estimate of the appearance of a criminal who has left behind a drop of blood or a bit of skin. ...
                Race is likewise important in medicine. Blacks, because of increasingly well-understood physiological reasons, do not get nearly as much benefit from standard hypertension drugs as whites, and studies are now underway to develop drugs specifically for them. Eskimos did not respond to early drugs for tuberculosis because, unlike other racial groups, they metabolized the medicine before it could act.
                Practically every discussion of race and biology begins with Richard Lewontin's famous observation that if all human genetic variation is given a value of 100, 85 percent of this variation is found within races, and only 15 percent more variation is found when different races are added to the mix. This was, indeed, a surprising finding, but does not mean, as Prof. Lewontin slyly implied, that whites are more similar to Asians, say, than to other whites. Nor does it justify Prof. Lewontin's conclusion, that race is an empty category. What it means is that the 15 percent that differentiates races is a very important 15 percent.
                The late Glayde Whitney used to point out that humans and macaque monkeys have similar genomes. If the total genetic diversity of humans plus macaques were given an index of 100 percent, more than half of that diversity would be found in the population of Belfast alone. This does not mean that Irishmen are more similar to macaques than to each other, only that there is significant genetic variation within distinct populations (AR, March 1997).
                Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele draw a useful parallel between humans and dogs. Breeds of dogs differ not only in appearance but in temperament and intelligence. Yet, it is almost impossible to tell Great Dane DNA from Pekinese DNA. The huge differences between the breeds are accounted for by tiny genetic differences barely detectable with modern analysis. As with human races, small genetic differences account for very important physical differences. ...
                In fact, a comparison of the most widely divergent human groups, such as Norwegians and Australian Aborigines finds physical differences as great as those between chimpanzees and gorillas.
                Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele do not fail to note the importance of these findings:
                "The amount of variation that took approximately one million years to evolve in chimpanzees took only 50,000 years to evolve in humans. This much shorter time for the evolution of comparatively larger racial differences must mean that these differences are more (not less) significant, and that adaptation, not chance, is the only mechanism capable of explaining this."

          Jon Entine, author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're No Longer So Afraid to Talk by About It, has recognised the influence of racial differences, especially in sports:

                Is race only skin deep? How have racial differences evolved?
                Although the move out of Africa by modern humans to Europe and Asia occurred rather recently in evolutionary time, scientists now know that even small, chance mutations can trigger a chain reaction with cascading consequences, possibly even the creation of new species, in relatively few generations. Economic ravages, natural disasters, genocidal pogroms, and geographic isolation caused by mountains, oceans, and deserts have deepened these differences over times. Using DNA evidence, scientists are now compiling maps of the waves of human migrations that have led to today's "races."
                Every population group has some unique physical and physiological characteristics, much of which has a genetic basis. Most of today's research focuses on finding cures for diseases, more than 3,000 of which are genetically based. For instance, blacks are predisposed to carry genes for sickle cell and colorectal cancer. Beta-thalassemia is most prevalent in Mediterranean populations. A form of diabetes has been linked to a gene most commonly found among North American Indians.
                So why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out Askenazi Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs, or blonde hair and blue-eyed Scandinavians, yet find it racist to suggest that blacks of West African ancestry have evolved into the world's best sprinters and jumpers?

          Steve Sailer makes some pertinent points regarding race:

                I am constantly informed that genetic differences between racial groups are absolutely insignificant because 99.9% of human genes are shared among all people. Yet we share over 98% of our genes with chimpanzees (and, supposedly, 70% with yeast). Does that mean genetic differences between humans and chimps (or yeast) are insignificant?
                You have to look at it relatively. If you were planning to climb Mt. Everest and somebody were to say, "The difference between Mt. Everest and sea level is insignificant, it's just a 0.15% difference in the distance from the center of the Earth," you'd roll your eyes. But, when somebody says the same thing about genetics, it's treated as a profundity.
                Similarly, we are constantly told, "there are more genetic differences within races than between races." This is, in general, true. But it hardly means that the differences between races therefore don't exist.

Globalist propaganda

          The "race is a myth" argument is a propaganda line pushed by globalists. It is not only wrong but is hugely damaging, especially to the European peoples. It promotes the outrageous and genocidal idea that no population should resist replacement by another. Globalist propaganda says "We are all the same", therefore implying that it shouldn't matter when a people is suffering dispossession by another people, and is being assimilated into oblivion. Globalist propaganda suggests that miscegenation is a myth, so that therefore no-one should be concerned about whom their children marry.
          In practical terms, these misconceptions hurt nations of European descent far more than anyone else. It is almost exclusively the European peoples who are being replaced by alien immigration, and who are failing to reproduce themselves and whose numbers are most dangerously thinned by miscegenation. The most significant and insidious effect of the current foolishness about race is to encourage Whites to resign themselves to dispossession, genocide, and oblivion.
          For the globalists to demand that all peoples must assimilate with each other is the height of genocidal arrogance - they have no respect for worldwide diversity, and so seek an end to the existence of all unique peoples and cultures.
          Globalists have the misconceived idea that the existence of racial differences must be denied, because they think that to admit the truth would mean admitting that one race is better than another, in a hierarchy arranged from the best to the least. However, it is exactly because the different races have different skills and aptitudes that such a comparison cannot properly be made, just as with comparing chalk with cheese.
          The existence of different races allows a wealth of cultural diversity in the world. Cultural differences arise from racial differences, and thus different races produce different cultures, each according to their own different strengths, different weaknesses, and different traits; these cultures are treasures of a living world - treasures that can only exist in a world of diversity, not in a world where all peoples have been mixed into one human soup. Each people has the right to retain their own unique culture and identity.
          To acknowledge the truth that racial differences exist is to acknowledge the diversity that is mankind. To want to preserve one's own people from genocide via immigration and assimilation is to want to celebrate, preserve, and protect that human bio-diversity. For our world to be a place of diverse cultures and wonders, globalists must accept the right of different peoples to exist. That right, to protect one's own people against genocide, to protect one's own culture and way of life against being overwhelmed by alien cultures, and to protect one's own unique national identity against globalist destruction is a a moral right of the highest order.

Further reading


[1] "Beagles: What's Good About 'Em? What's Bad About 'Em?", (Your Purebred Puppy: An Honest Guide to Dogs and Dog Breeds),
"Border Collies: What's Good About 'Em? What's Bad About 'Em?", (Your Purebred Puppy),
"Cavalier King Charles Spaniel", (Wikipedia),
"Cavalier King Charles Spaniels: What's Good About 'Em? What's Bad About 'Em?", (Your Purebred Puppy),
"American Pit Bull Terriers: What's Good About 'Em? What's Bad About 'Em?", (Your Purebred Puppy),
[2] "Prohibited Fishes and Aquatic Fauna", (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission),
"Piranha", (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia),
"Goldfish", (Wikipedia),
"Bursa Triggerfish", (Drs. Foster & Smith's,
"Imperator Angelfish", (Drs. Foster & Smith's,
"Glass Eye Squirrelfish", (Drs. Foster & Smith's,
[3] "Men and Women Achieve Intelligence Differently" (Vol.6, No.2, March 2005), (NeuroPsychiatry Reviews),
"Why Aren't There More Women Engineers?", (Frank Batten College of Engineering and Technology),
Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel, "Excerpts from Brain Sex" [from the book, Brain Sex: The real difference between men and women], (The Absolute: Truth, thinking, philosophy, genius),
Doreen Kimura, "Sex Differences in the Brain", 13 May 2002, (Scientific American),,
Doreen Kimura, "Sex differences in the brain" [from Online Scientific American, May 2002], (Jeff Matthews),
"Doreen Kimura", (Doreen Kimura [a sub-site of Simon Fraser University]),
J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1997, p.290.
[4] Antonio Regalado, "Scientist's Study of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash", [Wall Street Journal, 16 June 2006], (American Renaissance),
Mike Stobbe, "Study: Blacks Hear Better Than Whites" [AP, 15 June 2006], (American Renaissance),
J. Philippe Rushton, "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science" [Liberty, March, 1998, Vol.II, No.4, pp.31-35], (Stalking the Wild Taboo),
[5] Thomas Jackson, "Science Strikes Back" [American Renaissance, April 2004], (American Renaissance),
[6] Jon Entine, "Are White Athletes an Endangered Species? And Why is it Taboo to Talk About It?" [UK Mail, 29 January 2000], (Jon Entine Online),
[7] "It's All Relative: Putting Race in Its Proper Perspective" [2 August 2002], (,

Defending Free Speech