You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

Diversity is not merely a range of different things or the state of being in a diverse range of things as defined by the dictionary. Our Western society currently considers diversity to mean non-White. I want to examine why this is because I think it is an existentially significant concept, and I hope this is the beginning of a conversation involving many people rather than me ponitificating from my high tower. If you think I am wrong, please tell me so and show me using evidence why reality is not as I describe it here.

Beginning with an example of what a celebration of diversity looks like according to societal norms, we can take this photoshoot from November 2017, which was reported in The Independent as "Student Organizes Powerful Photoshoot to Celebrate the Beauty of Black Women".

This photoshoot was controversial at the time as it was praised for being diverse- and some people pointed out that an entirely Black modelling shoot might be many things, but an example of diversity it is not. The criticism is legitimate from a conventional perspective. Indeed, given the broader diversity of human sub-species available in the United States, the argument can be made that a shoot featuring only Black women is not diverse. I disagree with this idea. As the organizer of the shoot  Sameria Gbieor herself said on Instagram:

"Black women, made with Raw cocoa butter, Virgin coconut oil and a truckload of several shades of melanin built in different shapes and sizes... Never be sorry for being black, Never. Keep the black woman, protect the black woman, cherish the black woman!"

As we see, Gbieor sees several diverse shades of melanin exhibited between the models, and you would have to be looking away on purpose to deny this is true. These women are different skin tones- they are variants of the black-skinned people in America. According to a 2014 study exhibit an average of 24% European DNA, which entered the gene pool primarily during slavery. In fact thanks to genetic testing services like 23 and me, there is a race purity conversation taking place within Black culture.

"While video makers regularly chastise people for making assumptions about “how black they are” based on skin tone alone, some do worry that the tests will change their sense of identity by revealing how "genetically black" they are. YouTuber OnlyMeMarilyn confessed that she “was scared” to open her results.

“I didn’t know what it was going to tell me," she said in her video. "For 27 years all I knew was that I was black.”

Mirroring perfectly is the conversation within White Identitarian groups who also used genetic testing to investigate their DNA history- with some instructive results. Both White and Black Americans appear to be concerned at some level with their ethnic 'purity' or lack thereof, and to which race these people feel they belong. Gbieor is taking steps through this photoshoot to make a similar case to White advocates like Jared Taylor in this respect, in that both agree that there is no purity and that, as Humans do not interrogate each other on a genetic level in nature, there is little need to bring back the Spanish Inquisition through science in order to decide who gets to be in the club.


Gbieor wanted to highlight all types of beauty, “promote black excellence” and convince women that, “No matter your size or your color, we are all beautiful.”

“What I wanted to get out there to my dark-skinned sisters is to love yourself.”

What a wonderful sentiment! The diversity of dark-skinned sisters is indeed a wonderful thing, as is the diversity of Asian or White sisters and indeed Black, Asian and White brothers. I believe completely that everyone should be free to celebrate this diversity in our species, both of other races and their own. After all, a subspecies is categorized as;

A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.” Mayr and Ashlock (1991:43)

The diversity of African people's within the subspecies is so varied and so diverse that there are on average greater genetic differences between two randomly selected African people than there would be between myself (a White Briton- I assume as I have never taken a DNA test) and a random person from Africa. That is incredible diversity, within a single subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, while remaining part of that subspecies. We can even drill down through our genetic records to define ever smaller subspecies which is how I define myself, for example, as a (probable) White Briton of the White Subspecies. We can go even further as we discovered when talking about the relation between Civic identity and ethnicity as we find that even within the White Briton subspecies of the European subspecies, there are (or at least, were) even smaller subspecies of genetically distinct individuals.


Imagine then that the breadth and scope of subspecies in Africa is even more complex and even greater thanks to the longer timeframe between common ancestors. Even so, the diversity within the African subspecies of humanity retains the genetic identity of the subspecies, and it is this and the turbulent genetic legacy of the Black people in the United States that Gbieor salutes. It is diversity, but only when we, like Gbeior, recognize the reality of racial subspecies and the diversity within the races. There is no such thing as a 'pure' race, there is no such thing as a superior race- we have through Darwinian evolution adapted to our environments, and therefore the entire concept of racial supremacy has to be rejected. That is not the same as not valuing your own race or denying that there are differences, it is recognizing that we are differently skilled for different environments and as such there is no possible reason or even context to decide which subspecies is 'best'.

Now, let's do White people.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center's mouthpiece website

"Racism is a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that does three things. First, it claims to find racial differences in things like character and intelligence. Second, racism asserts the superiority of one race over another or others. Finally, it seeks to maintain that dominance through a complex system of beliefs, behaviors, use of language and policies. Racism ranges from the individual to the institutional level and reflects and enforces a pervasive view, in White-dominated U.S. culture that people of color are inferior to Whites."

By the definition of the Southern Poverty Law Center, people who recognize that the genetic differences between races result in diverse results across the board are racist- so long as there is no scientific support. Given that definition we must accept that as there is ample scientific support for the variation of intelligence between human races before we even assess the character and physical differences, the SPLC should probably remove Jared Taylor from their list of extremists- or at least add racial celebrants like Sameria Gbieor for showing similar in-group bias- after all she is advocating against race-mixing at all, so if she is not an out an out Black supremacist, is she a Black seperatist? By the SPLCs standards she is, if those standards were applied to Black people as well as Whites. By any measure available we recognize that the races or subspecies of humanity are diverse, do we not? Is that not the point of all this tolerance and diversity education? Are we to believe that diversity is only skin deep, and in which case wouldn't this prove that the SPLC considers Whites to be evil and subhuman by virtue of their castigation of Whiteness?


The Southern Poverty Law Center set up this website to celebrate diversity. If it is racism to find racial differences in things like character and intelligence then when the director of Maureen Costello writes in her capacity as Teaching Tolerance Director of the SPLC:

"Schools with policies that deliberately increase racial integration and mix low-income and middle-class students have documented benefits.

These schools are the best bet for African-American and Latino children to close the achievement gap in math and reading, according to data from the National Coalition for School Diversity. For these students, attending integrated schools increases the chances of going to college and graduating – and decreases the chances of being incarcerated."

I take great note that African-American and Latino children close the gap on Whites and Asians when put into school with Whites and Asians. Remember, whatever reason it is that Asians top the education charts followed by Whites, it has nothing to do with race and IQ. Costello has noticed a difference in character between races without scientific evidence. When she writes that in 40 years the United States will be a minority-majority nation but then bemoans that thanks to the decision by the US supreme court diversity cannot be forced and Blacks, Whites and Latinos segregated themselves by choice into mostly homogenous schools and housing districts, is this not a difference in character between the races?

This makes Maureen a racist, by her own definition, as she has noticed the differences in character between races- primarily that people of a similar culture tend to live together. Is it some aspect of racism when people of South Asian descent and Muslim faith live in areas of Blackburn or Newham in England which are homogenous to their ethnicity?

Mohammed Tabrez Noorji, who opened his butchers last year, said:

“I do sometimes speak to the white people when they walk past but there is nothing for them to buy here.

“It is not good that we all live separately but how can we fix this problem? Asian families like to live in the same area as each other so we can support one another, but then the white people move out.

It's not that we deliberately choose to live separately – it is just what happens. We want to live in this area because we are close to the mosques and all our families are very close to each other.”

Teaching Tolerance themselves note:

"Students consistently identify the cafeteria as a place in their school where divisions are clearly—and harshly—drawn."

They mean that cafeterias are self-segregating on racial lines. It appears that time and again, whether it is choosing schools or choosing where to live or with whom to associate in society or at the school lunch table, human beings segregate- and this is not simply a racial issue, in ethnically homogenous societies we segregate on lines of faith, economic or social status.

If the subspecies of humanity did not exhibit some differences in character why would Humans behave like this at all? There would be no motive for it, no reason to seek out what is similar to oneself if one did not notice similarities and differences. This concept is so glaringly obvious I wonder what benefit is to be had for making it into a racialized controversy rather than something to be joyously celebrated. Can you imagine what is being lost in China right now after a century or more of supression of the distinct ethnic cultures and identities in service to communist ideology?

In my piece on the diversity engineer Yascha Mounk yesterday, I used this tweet to illustrate a point about how uni-directional the concept of racism has become in Western Civilization.

I suspect that Charlene is making a 'racist' jibe- at least according to the SPLC, but I also can rationalize based on the information above that the root cause of this segregation is unlikely to be racist at all- merely the natural aspect of human character to choose to associate with people who are broadly like ourselves- it is an inescapable tribalism from which there is no more escape than there is from our own parentage. We might not like our parents very much, but we are them. We are their progeny, and we are the progeny of our subspecies also.

Racism is also about superiority according to the SPLC which would no doubt classify our friend Charlene as a Black supremacist in some way.  Racism in the SPLC view is also self-aware, seeking to enforce dominance over other races through beliefs, behaviors language, and policy that "reflects and enforces a pervasive view, in white-dominated U.S. culture that people of color are inferior to whites." According to this view, racism itself is inherent in White culture and White culture alone. It is certainly an attractive idea, that all the ills of the United States are embodied in these evil Whites. Wouldn't that be simple? Easy? The Browning of America is thus framed as a universal good, that without the Whites there will be no racism as racism is only White in origin- all other examples of racial differentiation is some other kind of phenomenon entirely. The Japanese live in a racially homogenous land because nobody wishes to go and live among the smartest, wealthiest and most technologically advanced people on the face of the Earth, we must believe- or perhaps the Japanese are too wise to let the dreaded Whites into their country (again) because White people would conquer them and then surely oppress them all.


In any case, we must reject this genocidal thinking of the SPLC and other anti-White people organizations. I no more want to oppress other races of people than you do or Charlene really does in her heart or Sameria Gbieor wanted to with her photoshoot. I'm not sure if even racial supremacists like Tariq Nasheed would truly wish to oppress and dominate another race if given the choice. Given that the Western societies are objectively fair to all people on a constitutional level and there is so small a volume of violence from Whites towards other races, I cannot accept the assessment of the SPLC on the nature of racism given that the SPLC cannot accept the nature of race itself.

Still, the argument is that this bias in White people alone is unconscious, that micro-aggressions are real and only one-way traffic, committed again and again by Whites to marginalize others. This is an argument against the integration of minorities into the dominant culture. This is an argument that in reality justifies the innate feeling within all humans that they prefer to live among their own race, and I mean that in the most general terms possible. It is also a fundamentally self-centered perspective, as we see from this passage from a literature blog dealing with the idea of evil White people.

"You may ask, “but Sarah, can’t White people be marginalized too?” Yes, we can. White people can be marginalized if, say, they’re queer or disabled. That does not change the fact that they are still White, and therefore enjoy a level of privilege a person of color who is queer or disabled does not experience."

"Marginalized people exist within a society that oppresses them on a systemic level. No matter how hard a marginalized person works, where in the country they live, or what education they have, systemic forces work against one or more of their identities. It might not be conscious or intentional, but it is there."


Without consious intent and invisible to all current tests, Whites are defective and racist to the core. The systemic force exuded by groups of White people is so powerful it transcends detection by modern science, but it is racist to disagree with this theory. However, modern science can detect the genetic differences between races and through evolutionary psychology, biology, and sociology we can quantify what differentiates us from one another, but it is also racist to accept this as truth or at least an adequate description of reality that is in the process of being improved. The burden of proof has to reside with those attempting to prove a claim or we live in superstition- this is why we use the scientific method. Surely we are not to believe that the scientific process itself is racist too?

Ontologically we must accept reality as it is when we ask the question "Into what categories if any, can we sort existing things?" Because answers are uncomfortable does not make them any less true, even though we might all wish for an idealized reality with perfect equality for all. That is not the world we live in, and the attempt to supplant reality with this neo-Marxist ideology must be resisted for the sake of all people of all creeds.

Mind reading is not a skill that humans of any type have successfully developed as far as we know and yet we are to believe that this is an accurate representation of reality. The minority, we are told, will always be marginalized by Whites, because Whites are White. This is actual racism. This is actual bigotry and intolerance. Why is it that Whites built such a great civilization that today millions of people from around the world try and access the benefits of living in it if it is fundamentally built on our hatred for all other races? If that were so, would we not already have closed all borders? Instead in 2015 through misguided charity and naivety, Europe threw open the doors more than she had ever before, to all the world's people.

Was that a racist act if Europe has deliberately become increasingly diverse? If the institutions and governments are not racist, then is it the people of the countries who vote for non-racist governments who are racist? I know I am asking a lot of questions in this piece but these are not rhetorical. If there is anyone who can answer these questions I am incredibly eager to know.

Applying Occam's Razor we can attempt to drive towards truth with our own simple reasoning. Which is more likely: that the most successful, culturally rich and secular society in the history of Humanity is also secretly racist, or that in-group/out-group preference is a universal experience to all animals, including people? Within all nations that group together different ethnicities there is some level of friction- Iraq was a creation of empire, for example, as were Pakistan and India. After the partition of those countries scores of thousands of people displaced to live with their ethnic and religious kindred. Was that racist? Why did we not complain about the xenophobia of the new Pakistanis who left India for an ethnostate of their own? Ah, but it was all the fault of the White man for colonialism in the first place as if it was Europeans who invented conquest by force of arms, rather than being we who merely mastered the Human tendency for war thanks to our measurably superior capacity for invention and resource exploitation.

I wish to celebrate all our great human diversity, though that will be impossible very soon, as my subspecies will not exist. According to all figures regarding imminent demographic change, my people -the broad church of European people- will soon become a footnote in history. Like the Neanderthal, my culture will be little more than a genetic marker in some future ethnicity that comes to call Europe their home. I don't see why this is fair or just, but life is neither. As Palahniuk wrote, "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

Personally, I think that is a pretty sad scenario. Perhaps we need a Sameria Gbieor to say:

"Never be sorry for being White, Never. Keep the White woman, protect the White woman, cherish the White woman!"

Now, I ask you. Is that a racist thing to say?


The Editor

by The Editor