Returning to the subject of re-classification (Chapter 28), let’s consider a different sort of classification, the classification by psychiatrists of certain behavior as “mental illness” in their manual, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.” The objectivity of psychiatrists came into question in 1964 when U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for President. Without ever examining him, 1,189 American psychiatrists responded to questions about the candidates in a (now-defunct) magazine and stated that Goldwater was mentally unbalanced. (Goldwater sued and won a substantial settlement; such behavior by psychiatrists has been banned as unethical.)
California psychologist Edward Dunbar has now circulated draft guidelines for a new category in the Manual for people who are “pathologically” prejudiced against gays, Jews, blacks, or others, but presumably not for people who are prejudiced against racists, homophobes, Christian fundamentalists, right-wing Republicans, and Nazis. ¹ Presumably, people who are “pathologically” prejudiced in favor of certain groups would also end up in the Manual. Since everyone has likes and dislikes about groups of other people, Dr. Dunbar can determine which feelings constitute “prejudice” only by determining whether or not those feelings are justified by the facts. If a Jew hates the Nazis, is he “prejudiced” or does he have a perfectly normal and justifiable feeling? Must every psychiatrist be an historian?
Why is certain behavior listed in the Manual as a mental illness? ² The reason usually given is that the behavior impairs the ability of a person to function “normally,” i.e., to work and take care of himself and his dependents. Biologically, such behavior is maladaptive because it reduces reproductive success. With few exceptions, the behavior that your genes induce in you (i.e., to nurse, care for your children, avoid danger, acquire resources, find a mate, have sex, etc.) is adaptive and behavior that is contrary to what your genes induce you to do, is maladaptive.
Let us first concede that any behavior, even behavior that is induced by our genes, is maladaptive if it so dominates a person’s life that he can not otherwise function. Someone who cannot hold a job because he is obsessed with sex, or with hating an ethnic group, or with fighting hatred of an ethnic group, probably has some psychological problems. Is racism, homophobia, etc. maladaptive, even if it is not obsessive, so that it could be described as a “mental illness”?
Homosexuality was actually in the Manual until 1973, when it became fashionable to the left and was removed. Homosexuality is hardly adaptive since it does not induce sexual behavior that passes on one’s alleles, and any argument that it is not maladaptive will be devious at best. ³ It is not contagious and it is not a threat to heterosexuals, other than the possibility that it might reduce the number of mates available to the opposite sex. Science is now uncovering more and more evidence that homosexuality is genetic, epigenetic, or due to exposure to the mother’s hormones in the womb ⁴ and is not a chosen behavior (except when the opposite sex is unavailable, as in prison). But a great many conditions in the Manual, such as schizophrenia, very likely also have a genetic basis, so that by itself should not keep homosexuality out of the Manual.
What about homophobia, a hatred of homosexuals? Should it also be in the manual? Homosexuality is accepted by some cultures and condemned by others, so there is unlikely to be a genetic inducement towards homophobia. But if homophobia is not so severe that it impairs a person’s ability to pass on his own genes (e.g., by physically attacking homosexuals and ending up in jail), it is probably less maladaptive than not liking broccoli.
Racism and ethnocentrism, however, are different. Certainly, caring for your family is adaptive, as they have more of your alleles than do strangers, so, by helping them, you help your own alleles to be passed on; conversely, it is usually maladaptive to not care for your family. Mathematical analysis of genetic distances has now shown – surprise, surprise – that your ethnic group also carries more of your alleles than do other ethnic groups, and the same is true of your race. (Chap. 7). Thus, using your resources to help people of your own race is adaptive and using your resources to instead help people of other races is, when there is no quid pro quo, maladaptive. In other words, it is the anti-racists who should be labeled “mentally ill” and worry about being put into the Manual, not the racists. Like the taxonomists and many social scientists, the psychiatrists have been corrupted by egalitarianism.
Man is a highly social animal and readily forms groups that compete with other groups for territory, mates, and resources. Given our social nature and the fact that resources are limited, the formation of a manageable group is the best strategy for surviving against competing groups. A loner, at least until modern times, would not have survived for long. For a group to be effective, it must be cohesive – the individuals in it must stick together and sacrifice for others in the group. Such cohesiveness cannot be easily obtained unless the people in the group are genetically similar so that any sacrifice for others is for those who have more of one’s own alleles and is therefore, in a biological sense, less of a sacrifice than it is a gain in fitness. Ethnocentrism and racism are built into our nature; ⁵ the alleles of those who support their own genetic family are more likely to survive than the alleles of those who do not, i.e., anti-racism is maladaptive. ⁶
“In 1998 President Clinton boasted to a cheering Portland State University audience that by 2050 whites would be a minority in America.” ⁷ Huh? White college students cheering for the loss of their homeland and their own extinction? And no one thinks there is anything “abnormal” about that? How can any people survive who cheer the prospect of their own demise? ⁸ Surely, this is as pathological as taking poisoned “Kool-Aide” at Jonestown, yet it is considered highly moral, not sick. Jews condemn and ostracize “self-hating Jews,” but a majority of whites love and lionize “self-hating whites.” Can there be any act of betrayal greater than rejecting the genetic heritage that made such betrayal possible?
Noel Ignatiev, who is white (but Jewish), ⁹ a fellow at Harvard’s WEB DuBois Institute, and the founder of the journal “Race Traitor,” whose slogan is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” wrote, “abolishing the white race is desirable.” ¹⁰ Another Jewish writer, Susan Sontag, wrote, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” ¹¹ Whites supposedly benefit from the “privilege” of being white, which consists of being able to live in safe, white neighborhoods, go to safe, white schools, have white friends, etc., in other words, enjoying and participating in the civilization that they themselves created. Condemning “white privilege” not only makes it hateful and racist for whites to create a society that others are not capable of creating, it also contradicts the multicultural argument that all cultures are equal.
The latest craze on college campuses is “whiteness studies,” which are courses or presentations, usually to whites by whites, on how evil whites are (e.g., “Exploration of Whiteness Week” at Occidental College). ¹² Tim Wise, another Jewish white-hater, earns $4000 plus expenses for speeches that induce white college students to flagellate themselves with guilt and shame (“my sin is my skin”), ¹³ thereby enabling him to live in a white neighborhood and send his children to white schools. ¹⁴ “It is an established fact that white people favor integration throughout the United States exactly in proportion as they do not need to practice it.” (Putnam, 1961, p. 36). 

Figure 33-1

On January 15, 2007 Jared Taylor was scheduled to take the “Weakness” side of a debate on “Racial Diversity: North America’s Strength or Weakness,” but when the “Strength” side of the debate, Professor David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, chickened out, Taylor decided to present his speech at a small conference room he rented at the Lord Nelson Hotel. The audience, mostly young, white protestors, shouted, banged pots and pans so he could not be heard, then surrounded Mr. Taylor, linked arms, forced him from the room, and tore up copies of the American Renaissance that he had brought to hand out and tossed them at his head. ¹⁵ (Fig. 33-1).
No arrests were made although the identity of the ringleader is known. ¹⁶One may wonder why whites would risk jail to silence someone who tries to speak for the interests of whites. With the exception of radical Muslims, the most ideologically committed people in white countries today are the white egalitarians. They are the people who are so incensed by perceived affronts to non-whites they will use violence against their own people.
The first step to mental health is to love yourself. Even if you are the worst SOB ever, you can still be a mentally healthy worst SOB ever if you love yourself. And, even if you are Mother Teresa, if you don’t like yourself, you are not mentally healthy – hence the Popeye quote at the beginning of this chapter. The white anti-racists don’t like what they are. ¹⁷
How could creatures evolve who are capable of not liking themselves? Surely, such creatures would have been driven extinct long ago by others of their kind who do like themselves. Part of the answer is that man, unlike most other animals, does not entirely follow his instincts. Man feels his instincts as urges, but since man has free will he can override those urges by an exercise of his will, and he often does so, sometimes choosing maladaptive behavior instead of biologically programmed adaptive behavior. ¹⁸ That is why we have suicides, ¹⁹miscegenation, and a host of other maladaptive behaviors.
We inherit urges to behave in ways that increase our reproductive success. Foremost among these, often ahead of even self-preservation, is sex, the urge to reproduce. But, like all urges, it can be satisfied in multifarious ways that do not achieve reproduction. Similarly, our urge to survive, so that we can pass on our alleles to the next generation, can be perverted to accomplish something else entirely – the reproduction of those who possess far fewer of our alleles than do our own children. This is the perversion of the left, who sacrifice the continuation of their own alleles to proliferate alleles they don’t possess. Urges demand to be satisfied, but they can be misdirected to obtain satisfaction without fulfilling their raison d’être.
Some of the actions of anti-racists are more maladaptive than if they just went out and killed themselves. For example, a white anti-racist who is responsible for bringing 11 Bantu s-S African children into a European country causes a loss to his genetic interests equivalent to the death of 10 white children. ²⁰ Being an anti-racist can be more maladaptive than behaviors that society rigorously condemns, such as murder, child molestation, and failing to support one’s children. Yet “anti-racism” is never likely to enter the Manual, though it may be quite a battle to keep “racism” out of it.
Every normal person is programmed to pass on his or her unique set of alleles; anyone not so programmed is an accident of nature who will die without issue. For both sexes, no price, not even the risk of death, is too high to pay to achieve this goal. If a person does not himself reproduce, does not help those who carry more of his alleles to reproduce or, at the very least, does not influence the reproductive choices made by others so as to increase the number of his alleles in the next generation (e.g., by discouraging miscegenation), he has failed his life’s biological mission and is but an inconsequential terminal twig on the Tree of Life.
He may be a financial success, a social success, or any other kind of success, but he is a biological success only if his actions increase the number of his alleles in the next generation, not only in absolute terms but as a percentage of all the alleles in the population. And, note carefully, some persons of the opposite sex carry more of his alleles than do other persons. It is those persons who carry more of his alleles who are the most important to his own reproductive success because, for each of his alleles that they also have, his children with them will have twice as many of those alleles. Table 33-1 gives the percent increase in kinship a parent gains with his child when the other parent of his child is from his own population. For example, if a European Caucasoid (left column) has a child with another European Caucasoid, his kinship with that child will be 66% greater than if he has a child with an African (2^nd column), and vice versa. ²¹ 

Here’s another way of looking at it. Because Africans and Pacific Islanders are so genetically unrelated, the child of two Africans would carry 100% more (i.e., twice as many) uniquely African alleles than a child of an African and a Pacific Islander.²² Table 33-1 shows only the loss of alleles from different mates, however, and loss of alleles from interbreeding is not the same thing as less reproductive success. Africans lose the most alleles by mating with other races instead of with their own race, but they may gain more reproductive success if their hybrid offspring have traits that make them more likely to survive, and that gain in alleles may more than offset the loss from not mating with another African.
A person also has a strong genetic interest in who reproduces with persons of the opposite sex who carry more of his alleles, e.g., his children, his blood relatives, and people within his ethnic group and race – because he can place more of his alleles in future generations if they mate with people who carry more of his alleles. It is those individuals who are most genetically distant from him, i.e., blacks for Eurasians, ²³who will most dilute his alleles in the next generation and most reduce his fitness, i.e., the likelihood of his alleles surviving in future generations will decrease. Thus, a normal, healthy person will be dismayed and angry when a person of his race mates with a person of different race, especially a black, because they are the most genetically different.
What are we to say, then, of whites today who not only make no objection to this coupling but actually encourage it? It is not believable that a lineage that has survived since mate choice began has produced an individual who has lost the most basic instincts that kept that lineage from going extinct. Of course, like the rest of us, he has been relentlessly subjected to the pervasive propaganda that permeates our society, so we should not be surprised if his brain has been so thoroughly washed that he now fears his own instincts more than the extinction of his lineage.
The egalitarians have succeeded, surely beyond their most extravagant hopes, for now almost all whites not only follow, but vehemently defend, the malignant ideology of egalitarianism, that people of all populations are genetically the same. Oprah, who is black, can say on national TV that is it hateful for whites to want to have more children in order to preserve their kind, and the only whites who are offended are a few racists. A white woman in Sweden says she likes seeing blond, blue-eyed children, and white Swedes condemn her. Today’s whites, males and females alike, cheer their own loss of fitness and eagerly anticipate the day when the presence of a white person, live or in history, is nowhere to be found. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.” Life is not a gift – it must be seized – and only those who love it above all else shall have it.
Before leaving this chapter, let us address the important question of why so many whites are anti-white. It has not escaped notice that the most fervent of the white white-haters are not only on the left politically, but many are Marxist. When the working class did not rise up against the exploiting capitalists, as predicted by Marx, the Marxists ideologues of the Frankfort school (Frankfort, Germany, which moved to Columbia University in New York City when Hitler came to power) sought out other classes of exploited victims who could be induced to rebel against the hated establishment. They settled on women, homosexuals, and minorities. The Marxists have no real concern with these oppressed classes, but find them handy weapons for weakening white societies so that they can be more easily overthrown. ²⁴ Why so many whites eagerly embrace white-hating, however, remains to be explained.
If you have been reading this book, you know that egalitarianism is clearly false – populations are not genetically the same and that is obvious even to small children. To hold a view that so clearly conflicts with reality is surely psychopathological, i.e., these people are mentally ill. Nor is it a trivial illness, as it perverts their most important biological function – passing on their alleles. It is only because psychologists and psychiatrists are also mired in the same psychopathology that egalitarians do not have their own special place in the Manuel.
I have written elsewhere on this subject, ²⁵ where I argue that the problem has its genesis in the inevitable conflicts that children have with their parents. If children decide that it is the parents who are wrong, unfair, even evil, they readily identify with those whom they see as similarly oppressed, urging them to overthrow the ruling class, i.e., initially their white parents but, by projection, all whites, including themselves. The parent’s justification for ruling over them, that there are biological classes, in this case, children and adults, must be refuted, hence fervently held egalitarianism, that there are no biological classes. Marxism, which promotes class warfare and hatred of those who have and rule (i.e., for children, their parents), is just an extension of this psychopathology. ²⁶ Unfortunately, the egalitarians will be with us forever unless children can be raised to see their parents as wise and loving guardians, not as arbitrarily frustrating obstacles. ²⁷