Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

The Best of Chopin

Published on April 3, 2013 by in Blog

This month’s special program comes from The Best of Chopin on YouTube. It will be broadcast each Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday starting at 9PM ET and streaming until the next scheduled program.

Frédéric Chopin, Wikipedia:

Frédéric François Chopin (pron.: /ˈʃoʊpæn/; French pronunciation: <200b>[fʁe.de.ʁik ʃɔ.pɛ̃]) or Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin[1] (1 March or 22 February 1810[2] – 17 October 1849) was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist. He is widely considered one of the greatest Romantic composers.[3] Chopin was born in Żelazowa Wola, a village in the Duchy of Warsaw. A renowned child-prodigy pianist and composer, he grew up in Warsaw and completed his music education there; he composed many of his mature works in Warsaw before leaving Poland in 1830 at age 20, shortly before the November 1830 Uprising.

Following the Russian suppression of the Uprising, he settled in Paris as part of Poland’s Great Emigration. During the remaining 19 years of his life, Chopin gave only some 30 public performances, preferring the more intimate atmosphere of the salon; he supported himself by selling his compositions and teaching piano. After some romantic dalliances with Polish women, including an abortive engagement, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French writer Amantine Dupin, aka George Sand. For most of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris in 1849 at age 39.

The vast majority of Chopin’s works are for solo piano, though he also wrote two piano concertos, a few chamber pieces and some songs to Polish lyrics. His piano works are often technically demanding, with an emphasis on nuance and expressive depth. Chopin invented the instrumental ballade and made major innovations to the piano sonata, mazurka, waltz, nocturne, polonaise, étude, impromptu, scherzo and prélude.

Length 1:54.

(Note: There is no audio download for this program – please tune in via the MP3 Stream.)

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on The Best of Chopin  comments 

Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 1

An Overview on Organ Transplanation (PDF), by Arye Durst:

Source: ASSIA – Jewish Medical Ethics,
Vol. III, No. 1, January 1997, pp. 7-10

In 1966 the HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen) system was discovered, assisting in the determination of organ compatibility. In 1980 a new breakthrough was achieved by Borel, a Swiss researcher from the Sandoz company, who developed Cyclosporin A, a new immunosuppressive substance which is still widely used.

Owing to the shortage of organs, organ trade is flourishing, and it is well known that kidneys may be bought from live donors not related to the patient. People from all over the world travel to India to buy kidneys and even undergo the transplants there. Organ trade also exists in Egypt.

There are well-founded rumors from South America con- cerning the kidnapping of children, particularly from the poorer sectors. These children disappear, supposedly taken to resorts for treatment and support, but it is believed that their organs are removed and sold. With evidence of such worldwide trade, we are particularly careful in Israel. However we do treat Israeli patients who have undergone organ transplantation in India, particularly kidney transplants, and who come back to us for continued treatment following the operation.

A review of the results of kidney transplants shows that there is 90% success during the first year for kidneys from live relatives, and 75% success during the first year from dead donors. Currently there are approximately one hundred kidney transplants carried out each year in Israel, with the demand reaching around two hundred and fifty. The organ-demand curve in recent years has been rising exponentially while the supply of organs has remained constant, giving rise to various phenomena which are entirely unethical.

Jews discussing unethical phenomena. How intriguing.

But first, a bit about Human Leukocyte Antigen. HLA is a complicated subject. Essentially it is to organ transplants (AKA grafts) what the ABO antigen system is to blood transfusions. As with the ABO antigens, racial variation is evident in the types and distribution of HLA.

History and naming of human leukocyte antigens, Wikipedia:

Each person has two HLA haplotypes, a cassette of genes passed on from each parent. The haplotype frequencies in Europeans are in strong linkage disequilibrium. This means there are much higher frequencies of certain haplotypes relative to the expectation based on random sorting of gene-alleles. This aided the discovery of HLA antigens, but was unknown to the pioneering researchers.

Human leukocyte antigen, Wikipedia:

These haplotypes can be used to trace migrations in the human population because they are often much like a fingerprint of an event that has occurred in evolution. The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The “A3-B7-DR2-DQ1” is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia.

Back now to the jews. Let’s start with their attitudes.

Organ donation in Jewish law, Wikipedia:

Some ultra-orthodox Jews (haredim) are vehemently opposed to organ donation. Haredim in Israel have recently issued an anti-organ-donor or “life” card which is intended to ensure that organs are not removed from the bearer after brain death or brain stem death. It states: “I do not give my permission to take from me, not in life or in death, any organ or part of my body for any purpose.”

Organ Donation – Death & Mourning, Chabad.org:

Jewish law distinguishes between donating organs during your lifetime and organ donation after death.

It is forbidden to tamper with a corpse in any way unless it is in order to directly save a life. But when you sign a consent form to have your organs removed, not all of those organs will necessarily be used for an immediate transplant. They may be used for research, or stored away, or even discarded if not needed. Jewish law only allows organ donation if it can be ensured that the organs will indeed be used to save lives.

But there is a much more serious concern. To be usable in a transplant, most organs have to be removed while the heart is still beating. But Jewish law maintains that if the heart is still beating, the person is still alive. The moment of death is defined as when the heart stops. So to remove organs from a brain dead patient while the heart is still beating is tantamount to murder.

While the medical and legal world has accepted brain death as a new definition of death, the vast majority of experts in Jewish law have not.

Some countries offer an option to give consent to organs being removed on condition that a rabbi is consulted beforehand, who will ascertain that they will only be removed after absolute death and be used only to save lives. In countries where no such option exists, we don’t consent to the removal of organs after death.

“Jewish law” is a cover, an excuse. Using it, jews discriminate themselves from everyone else, and at the same time rationalize their expectation for special, preferential treatment.

In Israel, a New Approach to Organ Donation, NYTimes.com, by DANIELLE OFRI, M.D., February 16, 2012.

This article informs us that it is a “well-known fact” that jews do not donate organs. Most countries have either one of two legal systems for organ donation: opt-in or opt-out. But of course, Israel is special:

A third way to increase donations is being pioneered in Israel. Until now, Israel ranked at the bottom of Western countries on organ donation. Jewish law proscribes desecration of the dead, which has been interpreted by many to mean that Judaism prohibits organ donation. Additionally, there were rabbinic issues surrounding the concept of brain death, the state in which organs are typically harvested. As a result, many patients died waiting for organs.

So Israel has decided to try a new system that would give transplant priority to patients who have agreed to donate their organs. In doing so, it has become the first country in the world to incorporate “nonmedical” criteria into the priority system, though medical necessity would still be the first priority.

The Israeli program was initiated by Dr. Jacob Lavee, a cardiothoracic surgeon who heads the heart transplant program of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer. In 2005, he had two ultra-Orthodox, Haredi Jewish patients on his ward who were awaiting heart transplants. The patients confided in him that they would never consider donating organs, in accordance with Haredi Jewish beliefs, but that they had absolutely no qualms about accepting organs from others.

That Haredi Jews would not donate organs was a well-known fact in Israel. But this was the first time anyone had openly admitted the paradox to Dr. Lavee.

The unfairness of a segment of society unwilling to donate organs, but happy to accept them, nagged at Dr. Lavee. After he operated on both patients, giving each a new lease on life, he put together a proposal that would give priority to those patients willing to donate their organs.

Working with rabbis, ethicists, lawyers, academics and members of the public, he and other medical experts worked to create a new law in 2010, which will take full effect this year: if two patients have identical medical needs for an organ transplant, priority will be given to the patient who has signed a donor card, or whose family member has donated an organ in the past.

A critical component of the law’s success was engaging the country’s highly influential religious leadership, which had long been resistant to organ donation. Even among the half of the country that is devoutly secular, when faced with death and whether to donate organs. “Suddenly the families become very religious,” said Dr. Yael Haviv, the medical director of the organ donation program at Sheba. “Suddenly they ask the rabbis.”

The initial claim is that haredi are the ones who don’t donate. Then, at the end, they reveal that even the non-haredi jews use the same “jewish law” excuse.

Jews have organizations dedicated to identifying and advocating for their narrow concerns. For example, HODS – Halachic Organ Donor Society: Mission:

  • To save lives by increasing organ donations from Jews to the general population (Jews and non-Jews alike).


  • To educate Jews about the different halachic and medical issues concerning organ donation.
  • To offer a unique organ donor card that enables Jews to donate organs according to their halachic belief.
  • To provide rabbinic consultation and oversight for cases of organ transplantation.
  • To match altruistic living kidney donors with recipients.

Despite their lame attempt to spin it otherwise, their clear concern is for the jews, and especially what more altruistic donors can do for them. HODS – Halachic Organ Donor Society: Frequently Asked Questions about the Halachic Organ Donor (HOD) Society:

6. Has the HOD Society saved any lives?

Yes. The HOD Society has helped to save more than two hundred people who need a donated organ. Some organ donations were directly enabled by the HOD Society, such as in the pairing of altruistic, live kidney donor Eric Swim of the U.S. with ten year-old recipient Moshiko Sharon of Israel.

Yiddish Phrases:

SHANDA: A shame, a scandal. The expression “a shanda fur die goy” means to do something embarrassing to Jews where non-Jews can observe it.

Debate Over Jewish Guidelines for Organ Donation Crosses the Atlantic, Forward.com, by Michael Goldfarb, January 26, 2011:

London — The controversy over what is dead according to Jewish law is no longer an intramural question among Orthodox rabbis on either side of the Atlantic. In Britain it is now being played out in public. As in the United States, the emotional question of organ donation is the battlefield.

The most recent round of arguments began in early January, when the London Beth Din, the religious court associated with the United Synagogue — Great Britain’s Orthodox umbrella group — and its chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, issued guidelines on organ donation. The beit din’s ruling was that brain stem death is not death for the purpose of heart and lung donation; a person is dead under traditional Jewish law, or Halacha, only when there is a cessation of cardio-respiratory function.

The matter might have remained an obscure dispute among Jews. But on January 12, The Guardian, a prominent British daily with national distribution, published an article outlining the beit din’s decision and reported that the chief rabbi had issued an edict ruling that “organ donation and the carrying of donor cards are incompatible with Jewish law.” The paper quoted the British Medical Association asking the chief rabbi to meet with organ donation experts as a matter of “urgency.”

Protect organ donation, JPost, 01/02/2011:

Particularly galling has been the sense that halachic authorities, in America and in Israel, are permitting Jews to receive organs, but not to donate them.

Orthodoxy has been increasingly hijacked by religious fundamentalism

This fanaticism has swept America as well.

Of course, as noted above by the jewish paper of record, the New York Times: most jews go in for this fundamentalist fanaticism excuse when it comes to not donating their organs.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 1  comments 

Race and Organ Transplants – Part 2

Effect of Race Upon Organ Donation and Recipient Survival in Liver Transplantation, Nov 1990:


The effect of the race of the donor on organ donation and on the outcome of clinical liver transplantation has not been addressed previously. The aims of this study were to determine: (1) the number of organs donated by each of the major racial groups of the United States, (2) the outcome of transplantation of these organs across racial groups, and (3) the pattern of liver disease that required transplantation in each of these racial groups. A significantly higher proportion of organs were donated by white non-Hispanic Americans than either black or Hispanic Americans. There was no significant difference in survival when an organ was transplanted between black and white Americans and vice versa.

Currently, donors for liver transplantation are matched with recipients only according to ABO blood group compatibility and body size. Nonetheless, it is well known that man as a biological species is polymorphic, with significant variation occurring within the species. Despite genetic differences in the prevalence of blood groups and HLA antigens between the various races, the effect of the race of the donor and the race of the recipient on the outcome of clinical OLTx has never been investigated.

A retrospective analysis of all adult patients undergoing their first OLTx at the Presbyterian University Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1988

The race of the donor was determined by what the family members considered was their racial grouping, while that of the recipient was determined by what the patients considered their racial group to be. For the purpose of this study, a transplant failure was defined as a graft failure leading to retransplantation and/or the patients death within 60 days of the initial liver transplant.

The total number of livers donated by blacks (69) was far less than that by whites 795 (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). Of the 51 black recipients, only 5 (10%) received an organ donated by a black, while 46 (90%) received an organ donated by a white; conversely of the 813 white recipients, 749 (92%) received an organ from a white donor while 64 (8%) received an organ from a black donor (P < 0.001). The total number of organs donated by blacks for either black or white recipients was far less than that observed for whites and is well below their population fraction.

A breakdown of the white population into Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups (Table 3) shows that the number of organs donated by the Hispanic group is even smaller than that donated by the black population. Thus, most donors are white non-Hispanics and both Hispanic and black recipients are most likely to receive an organ donated by a white who is non-Hispanic.

PubMed Central, Table 1: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table indicates the failure rate of black recipients of White livers is twice the rate for Whites recipients of any liver.

PubMed Central, Table 2: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table excludes “hispanics”. A more honest term would be mestizo, meaning “people with a various degrees of Caucasian, Amerindian and African admixture”. The black recipient failure rate is still roughly twice the White failure rate. The article says:

The failure rate for an organ transplanted from a black donor into a white recipient was 14.1% (14.8% in the case of a white non-Hispanic) while the failure rate for an organ obtained from a white donor and transplanted into a black was 28% (30% for white non-Hispanics). These differences were not significant.

PubMed Central, Table 3: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table directly contrasts White with “hispanic”. Note that it indicates the White failure rate is more than doubled when the donor is “hispanic”.

PubMed Central, Table 5: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table indicates that the mixed race cases consistently result in higher failure rates.

Because of the small numbers involved, there was no statistically significant difference in the failure rate for recipients with either PBC, PSC, or AHF among the various races. Among recipients transplanted for PNC, no differences in the failure rate was evident when the donor and recipient pairs were either matched or mismatched for race.

When race was considered in addition to other variables such as age, sex, and ABO blood groups, no difference in outcome was found, although the number of blacks within each of these subsets was small.


No data exist with respect to the outcome of organ donation between racial groups in clinical liver transplantation. This is related in part to the difficulty in classifying individuals in one or another racial group based solely upon their physical characteristics—commonly referred to as the “typological approach.” Our definition was determined by what the patient or the donor’s family members considered themselves to be.

The main difficulty with the “typological approach”, or for that matter most any empirical approach to race, is that it runs afoul the anti-“racist” dogma that race doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter or is a social construct of oppressive Whites. Race is not supposed to be real or important or objective despite all the indications that it is. The fact that any deliberate measure of the actual effects of such obvious biological differences could be put off for so long, despite the potential (and apparently substantial) life-threatening impact, is a good indication how all-important anti-“racist” ideology has become.

The present study confirms the low rate of donation of livers among blacks and Hispanics. It also shows that transplantation across racial groups has no effect upon the transplant outcome. The importance of determining the severity of the recipient’s illness and correcting for such is also illustrated in this study. The apparent higher failure rate for organs obtained from white donors and transplanted into black recipients was due entirely to the fact that a higher proportion of the black recipients who died were more seriously ill (4–6 on UNOS scale) than were the white recipients who were transplanted in this series (Table 4). However, a difference in survival rate for transplants performed between white Hispanics and white non-Hispanics also was noted. The numbers within this group are small, however, and thus no definitive conclusion can be drawn from the data.

The genetic differences owing to race per se are not considered to be major, as the genetic variability within each race is greater than the variability between the races. Moreover, it has been variously estimated that black Americans have a 30–50% chance of having a white ancestor (10). Because of this fact and because of the findings in this study, the likelihood of graft failure solely as a result of the presence of a genetic difference between the race of the donor and recipient is not tenable. This conclusion is consistent with studies recently reported for renal transplantation from our center (11). Thus transplantation of organs across racial groups can be performed without fear of an additional problem occurring as a result of some inherent difference between the donor and recipient races. Our data indicate that the major problem in success of liver transplantation is the severity of the illness of the recipient immediately prior to the transplant.

The numbers in the tables contradict the textual denials which accompany them. The reasons provided – statistical insignificance, severity of illness – are not accompanied by any detailed exposition. The raw numbers indicate a consistently higher failure rate for cross-race transplants, and at the very least suggest that more deliberate research is warranted.

They claim similar results for kidney transplants. Similarly flawed perhaps. The problem with cross-race kidney transplants is described in the following reports.

Donor Race May Impact Kidney Transplant Survival, Oct 2009:

“We found that transplant between races had better outcomes than transplant across races,” says Anita Patel, M.D., transplant nephrologist at Henry Ford Hospital Transplant Institute and lead author of the study.

By regression analysis, the non-black recipients who received a kidney from black donors had a significant lower survival rate compared to those who received a kidney from a non-black donor (hazard ratio 1.111, p=0.014) after adjusting for all known variables.

“Hepatitis C infection in the donor or recipient was seen as a significant risk factor for mortality,” says Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel presented a similar study earlier this year which looked at race and the effect on renal allograft survival in different donor/recipients pairs. In that study, Dr. Patel found an increased risk in graft failure in non-black recipients of non-heart beating black donor kidneys. They appeared to have a two-fold increased risk of graft failure.

Twelve percent of living donors are African-American.

Genes, not race, determine donor kidney survival; Implications for kidney transplant recipients and kidney donors, May 2011:

“It’s been long observed that kidneys taken from some black donors just don’t last as long as those taken from non-black donors, and the reason for that has not been known,” said Barry I. Freedman, M.D., John H. Felts III Professor and senior investigator. “This study reveals that the genetic profile of the donor has a marked affect on graft survival after transplantation. We now know that these organs aren’t failing because they came from black donors, but rather because they came from individuals with two copies of a specific recessive gene.”

Long observed, and long ignored.

The researchers identified that kidneys from donors who had specific coding changes in a gene called apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) did not last as long after transplant as those from donors without these changes. These coding changes in the APOL1 gene that affect kidney transplant function are found in about 10 to 12 percent of black individuals. Recent studies, led by Freedman and his colleagues, have shown that these genetic changes are associated with an increased risk of kidney disease, which prompted researchers to investigate the role of these changes in transplant success.

“In looking at the records and follow-up of the recipients of these organs, we accounted for all the usual factors that are known to contribute to more rapid loss of kidney function after transplant,” said Freedman, chief of the section on nephrology. “What we found was that the kidney disease-causing risk variants in APOL1 were the strongest predictor of graft loss after transplant. The effect of having two copies of this gene was stronger than the impact of genetic matching between donor and recipient, the amount of time the organ was out of the body, and the antibody levels. APOL1 dwarfed all these other factors known to affect survival.”

A more honest title for this article would be, “Race denial causes death”, or “Genetic factors finally discovered despite race denial”.

There is no “black gene”. There are many black genes. This is one of them.

The problem is avoided entirely by avoiding cross-race transplants.

Citation: Sade RM. Transplantation, the Organ Gap, and Race. J So Carolina Med Assoc 1999; 95(3):112-115 (PDF):

Institute of Human Values in Health Care • Medical University of South Carolina

The issue of race poses special problems in transplantation. Because of the prevalence of hypertensive renal disease in the black population, that group has a disproportionately high representation on the kidney transplant waiting list. While blacks compose 12% of the general population, they comprise 37% of the kidney transplantation waiting list, yet receive 25% of the kidney transplants. Other organs are not so disproportionate.

A variety of factors contribute to differences among races: biological, medical, social, and personal. Biological factors include different rates of ABO blood groups within races, as well as differences in major histocompatibility complex antigens. Because of these differences, organs from black donors have a better match with potential black recipients than white. Blacks have a lower donation rate than whites, for reasons discussed in more detail below, contributing to fewer available biologically compatible organs for blacks than for whites.

Confirms racial differences reflected in disparate incidence of disease, distribution of blood types, donation rates.

Such a program is likely to disproportionately benefit the rate of transplantation in the black community. Blacks donate organs at a lower rate than whites. There are many reasons for this, but prominent among them are distrust within the black community of the health care system and of medical authority, and the belief that donated organs from blacks will go to other races. A system in which black persons could specify that their organs could go only to other blacks would give them a special reason to donate. An additional benefit of an increase in black donation rate is that blood groups and histocompatibility antigens have different distributions in different races. Therefore, as the black donation rate goes up, the number of transplants into blacks will increase, and longevity of the implanted organs will improve as well.

As with blood, an examination of organ transplants indicates that race not only exists but has significant consequences. When something is perceived to be somehow negative for non-Whites the “medical community” argues openly and unabashedly to help them, even if that means acknowleding race and racial differences. Meanwhile, concern for White lives is pathologized and demonized. This dishonest regime is called anti-“racism”. Anti-“racism” causes White deaths.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

Race and Organ Transplants – Part 1

In the spirit of the topic of this installment, race-related donations, I’d like to echo the appeal and rationale expressed by Carolyn Yeager at the beginning of Upholding Standards Within the Truth Community, broadcast on 18 March 2013. Please show your support for our work by contributing money, recommending tWn to friends and family, linking tWn at forums you frequent, and also by making helpful, intelligent comments here on our site.

The main topic of this installment are the racial disparities in organ disease and donor rates, including in the pro-non-White spirit reflected in the attitudes with which these disparities are commonly discussed.

Organ and Tissue Donation 101 – The Office of Minority Health

Why is it Important for Minorities to Donate?

The need for transplants is unusually high among some ethnic minorities. Some diseases of the kidney, heart, lung, pancreas, and liver that can lead to organ failure are found more frequently in ethnic minority populations than in the general population. For example, Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to suffer from diabetes. African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are three times more likely than Whites to suffer from kidney disease. Many African Americans have high blood pressure (hypertension) which can lead to kidney failure. Some of these diseases are best treated through transplantation; others can only be treated through transplantation.

The rate of organ donation in minority communities does not keep pace with the number needing transplants. Although minorities donate in proportion to their share of the population, their need for transplants is much greater. African Americans, for example, are about 13 percent of the population, about 12 percent of donors, and about 23 percent of the kidney waiting list.

Successful transplantation is often enhanced by matching of organs between members of the same racial and ethnic group. Generally, people are genetically more similar to people of their own ethnicity or race than to people of other races. Therefore, matches are more likely and more timely when donors and potential recipients are members of the same ethnic background.

Here, with the imprimatur of the US government, is a clear enough statement that race exists and is in fact critically important. It is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race when the purpose is to better serve anyone but Whites.

Attitudes and beliefs about organ donation among different racial groups.


Many people on the waiting list for organ donation die each year without receiving organs. The shortage of organs is even more pronounced in minority communities. Despite the fact that minorities are at higher risk, they may be less likely to support or consent to organ donation. This investigation was undertaken to study racial factors in organ donation, by focusing on differences in awareness, attitudes, and behavior.

From the PDF:

The shortage of organs is even more pronounced in minority communities. For example, due to their increased incidence of hypertension with end-stage renal disease, a disproportionately large number of African Americans await kidney transplants. Despite this greater risk, African Americans are less likely than other racial groups to support or consent to organ donation (Gallup, 1993, unpublished data).25 An additional concern is that African-American recipients face a decreased likelihood of successful transplantation due to poor tissue match if the donor is not also African American.6 Although Hispanic Americans have not been shown to represent a larg- er than expected portion of patients on organ recipient lists, it has been documented that they are less likely than whites, but more likely than African Americans, to express their support of organ donation in surveys and to consent to organ donation (Gallup, 1993, unpublished data).5’7

Several studies have investigated why minorities are less likely than whites to support organ donation. Some of this is attributable to differences in access, ie, minorities are less likely than whites to have access to adequate medical care and to information about organ donation.2’5’7 In addition, the relatively low confidence in organ donation that has been found among African Americans has been attributed to differences in religious beliefs and a distrust of the medical community as a whole.6’8 Among Hispanics, differences in language and the role of the family in decision making are reported to be barriers to organ donation.7’9 It also has been reported that a person’s level of education, which often is associated with minority status, is directly correlated with his or her support of organ donation and the likelihood of signing an organ donation card (Gallup, 1993, unpublished data).

Here and in subsequent examples many reasons are considered to explain and excuse non-White failure to donate. Most often it includes the fact that non-Whites simply don’t trust “the medical community”. Note the one explanation that isn’t considered is “racism”, even though that is always the first and foremost explanation when some perceived “failure” on the part of Whites is discussed.

Organ donation and culture: a comparison of Asian American and European American beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. [J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000] – PubMed – NCBI:


The well-known gap between organ-donor supply and demand in the United States is particularly acute for Asian Americans. Lower participation in organ donation programs by Asian Americans has been hypothesized as one explanation for this observation. This study finds that, relative to European Americans, Asian Americans hold more negative attitudes toward and participate less frequently in a large, urban organ-donor program.

Once again, they have “more negative attitudes” and “participate less frequently”, but it’s perfectly understandable, even if the actual reasons aren’t yet understood.

The need for increasing organ donation among African Americans and Hispanic Americans: an overview. [J Emerg Nurs. 1999] – PubMed – NCBI:

We know that most Asian countries, such as Japan, have only recently begun organ donation programs. The United States represents one of the most culturally heterogeneous populations in the world today. Health care workers are called on every day of their lives to overcome cultural or ethnic differences, and at no point during the health care process is culturally competent care more necessary than during the final hours of a person’s life. Organ donation is a question that should be asked of every family that loses a loved one so that they can have the opportunity to give of themselves in an effort to save the lives of others.

Overcoming differences, culturally competent care – these are just a few of the costs of the multicult. The burdens imposed by heterogeneity make it less likely that anyone will “give of themselves” to “save the lives of others” – behavior which comes naturally in the homogeneous White societies that the multicult destroys.

Racial disparities in organ donation and why. [Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2011] – PubMed – NCBI:



High prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, hepatitis B and C, in minority groups, results in racial minorities being disproportionally represented on transplant waiting lists. Organ transplantation positively impacts patient survival but greater access is limited by a severe donor shortage.


Unfortunately, minority groups also suffer from disparities in deceased and living donation. African-Americans comprise 12.9% of the population and 34% of the kidney transplant waiting list but only 13.8% of deceased donors. Barriers to minority deceased donation include: decreased awareness of transplantation, religious or cultural distrust of the medical community, fear of medical abandonment and fear of racism. Furthermore, African-Americans comprise only 11.8% of living donors.

This article speaks fairly directly about racial differences in disease and donorship. But the length of the waiting list is not only because of the race-based disparity between supply and demand rates. What is known but left unsaid here is that the wait, especially for kidneys, is also because race-based organ compatibility is important.

Race matters more than most of these articles are willing to admit, at least all at once. Each ignores or plays down or even flatly denies one or more aspects of race, which are revealed by consulting other sources which conceal a different mix of the facts.


Transplant center-based education classes significantly and positively impact African-American concerns and beliefs surrounding living donation. Community and national strategies utilizing culturally sensitive communication and interventions can ameliorate disparities and improve access to transplantation.

Stripping of its “culturally sensitive” trappings, this is an open call for more government-backed efforts to urge blacks to do what’s best for blacks.

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue – TIME, Jun 2010:

Devan would need a marrow transplant. The prospect of going through chemotherapy for a second time and needing a transplant is daunting to anyone, but it’s especially harrowing if — like Devan — you’re of mixed race. Multiracial patients often have an incredibly hard time finding life-saving marrow matches. When Devan, whose father is Caucasian and mother is part Indian, was first diagnosed with leukemia, his family did a search of the international marrow registry that contains over 14 million donors and came up empty. “We knew there was nothing out there for him,” Tatlow says.

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

To find a marrow match for anyone is hard. Even within one’s own family, the chances of finding one are only about 30%. According to the World Donor Marrow Association, while two out of three Caucasians find a match, the chances of a patient from another ethnic background can be as low as one in four. Despite rapid improvements in marrow registries around the world, the global registry is still disproportionately represented by the U.S., U.K. and Germany — all predominantly Caucasian countries. For a multiracial person, the chances are usually even worse. Athena Mari Asklipiadis, the founder of the California-based Mixed Marrow, one of the only outreach groups devoted to recruiting mixed race donors, says “the numbers are quite staggering … People compare it to winning the lottery.”

It’s difficult to ascertain the exact chances of finding a match for a mixed race person because the different combinations have different success rates, and the U.S.-based National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), which has about eight million donors in its registry, does not have statistics on the success rates of mixed race patients. But Asklipiadis maintains the rates are lower — much lower. “God forbid I need a match, because I’m a very rare combination,” Asklipiadis says of her mixed Japanese, Italian, Armenian, Egyptian and Greek background.

Recall how in the 1940s the Boasian/jewish/commie anthropologists behind The Races of Mankind said race and race mixing doesn’t matter, and “science” proved it? They were lying. Organ transplant incompatibility, most obvious in the case of bone marrow, is an undeniable, biological down-side of race mixing. The subject is only broached here to help mixed race people after the fact. It would be far better to inform people of this reality before they create mixed-race children.

Tatlow recently received another call, this one bearing good news. Devan’s doctor informed the family a cord blood match had turned up. It’s not a perfect solution, but Devan’s doctor says it’s good enough. Blood from the umbilical cord is rich in blood-forming cells, and cord blood doesn’t have to match quite as closely as marrow from an adult. In the U.S. registry, compared to the over eight million potential marrow donors, there are only about 160,000 cord blood units. Tatlow urged pregnant women to donate their cord blood: “For pregnant women, your baby’s umbilical cord, which is otherwise thrown away, can save a life. It just seems like a very simple thing to do for the greater good of mankind.”

Except, as with organ donations in general, it is not “for the greater good of mankind”. It’s for the greater good of race mixing and non-Whites, to the detriment of the greater good of the rest of mankind, i.e. Whites.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 

Race and Blood – Part 2

Human blood types have deep evolutionary roots, Science News:

The A, B and O blood types in people evolved at least 20 million years ago in a common ancestor of humans and other primates

O for the German “ohne,” meaning “without” (without the A or B antigen)

Not quite. See below.

Depending on blood type, people are more or less susceptible to particular pathogens. Type O people, for example, are more susceptible to cholera and plague, while people with type A are more susceptible to smallpox.

BLOOD GROUPS [PDF], Stedman’s, which describes itself as:

Welcome to medicine’s most authoritative word reference site

STEDMAN’S® is the authoritative, comprehensive, and trusted brand that the medical community has relied upon for accurate medical information for the past 100 years.

ABO blood group

Cells of type O do not simply lack antigenic substance; most have an antigen called H that is chemically similar to antigens A and B and is probably the precursor antigen that is modified under the influence of genes A1, A2, and B into their corresponding antigens.

The designation “Bombay” phenotype was assigned to those whose cells lack A, B, and H antigen and whose serum contains anti-A, anti-B, and anti-H; they are also referred to as having the “Oh” phenotype. In addition, weak variants of antigen A have been described with phenotypes designated A3, A4, A5, Ax, and Az; more rarely, weak variants of B have been found. The ABO types are of prime importance with respect to blood transfusion, and maternal-fetal incompatibility is a frequent cause of fetal death and erythroblastosis fetalis.

As sober and factual as Stedman’s is, it makes no mention of ABO distribution/frequency differences. It does however mention other racial differences.

Dombrock blood group

This group includes antigens Doa and Dob and is found slightly more often in white patients.

Duffy blood group

Blood from whites is agglutinated by one or both antigens; most blacks, however, and some Yemeni Jews have negative test reactions to both antigens.

Duffy antibodies occasionally cause transfusion reactions or erythroblastosis fetalis.

Gerbich blood group

Incidence of the three high-incidence antigens is found in all populations, except in Melanesians.

Anti-Ge2 and anti-Ge3 are noted to elicit acute reactions on transfusion but have not been identified in hemolytic disease of newborns.

Indian blood group

This is the most recently discovered blood group. It is composed of two antithetical antigens, Ina, which is of somewhat low incidence, and Inb, which is of high incidence (96% of whites, and 96% of Indians).

Anti-Inb has been linked with hemolytic transfusion reactions. Anti-Ina has not been so linked, however. Neither has been linked to hemolytic disease of the newborn.

Sutter blood group

It occurs in about 20% of American blacks but is rare in other ethnic groups. Sutter antibodies have been implicated in transfusion reactions and in hemolytic disease of the newborn

An example of a mixture of smart and stupid when it comes to blood and race. Donors’ Races to Be Sought To Identify Rare Blood Types, 1990:

To ease a chronic shortage of rare blood types, the New York Blood Center will for the first time begin asking donors to volunteer information about their racial and ethnic backgrounds.

The program is to begin on Monday, and scientists at the center say they hope it will enable them to better provide rare blood types, or blood found in one in 10,000 people. The center is especially concerned about groups under-represented by donors, like black and Hispanic groups.

The center does not have the time or the resources to test each of the 2,200 pints it collects daily for every possible type of rare blood, said Dr. Joan Pehta, an associate in immunohematology at the center. If the center knew the races and ethnic backgrounds of donors, she said, then when a call came in for a specific rare type, the center could conduct the manual tests most likely to yield that type.

”For example, the U negative blood type occurs only in black people,” said Dr. W. Laurence Marsh, senior vice president of the center. ”No white person has ever been found to be U negative. It is a blood type just like any other, but it doesn’t occur very much, and if you need U negative for any person, then you have got to have black donors. And so the problem for us is to identify black donors. It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”

Conversely, only whites have the blood types Vel negative and Lan negative, Dr. Marsh said.

Memories of Segregation

Knowing the ethnic background of a blood donor can also help the blood center.

Center officials concede that because of historical racist segregation of blood, there may be objections to the new program, especially if people do not fully understand it.

But they emphasize that donors do not have to disclose such information for their blood to be accepted. Center officials say that blood banks try to make determinations of race, but usually not through straightforward requests. Some blood centers decide the race of a donor based on appearance, which is at best imprecise.

those who have the greatest difficulty getting the blood they need in an emergency are members of racial or ethnic minorities that do not give blood often.

Andrea Smith, manager of public relations for the blood center, said the blood bank has no data on how much blood is given by people in different ethnic and racial groups because it has never sought that information. The American Red Cross, however, studied donors in the United States in 1986 and found that 95 percent of them were white and 4 percent were black.

In written and oral explanations, the center’s staff will emphasize that while there is no such thing as ”black blood,” ”white blood” or ”American Indian blood,” knowing ethnic and racial backgrounds will help the center quickly provide the right types of blood to those who need them.

At Harlem Hospital, Dr. Helen Richards, director of the blood bank there, and Dr. Leslie Holness, who handles emergency cases, agreed that the center’s approach might be helpful to black and Hispanic patients who have trouble getting the blood they need.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types, BloodBook.com:

There are racial and ethnic differences in Blood type and composition.

As the chart below reveals, the frequency and purity of the four main ABO Blood groups varies in populations throughout the world. Great variation occurs in different groups within a given country; even a small country, as one ethnic group mixes, or not, with another. Blood type purity depends on migration, disease, interrelational-reproductive opportunity, traditions and customs, geography and the initial Blood type assigned.

Publishing the ethnic differences in Blood type and the racial differences in Blood type is not, in the present-day world, considered to be politically correct. We compile and maintain this database through and thanks to, often times, reliable, confidential sources. Every Blood gathering entity in the world must gather this information to stay in business, but almost every one of them is afraid to publish the racial and ethnic differences in Blood type, given the emotionally charged political climate.

For example, early European races are characterized by a very low type B frequency, and a relatively high type A frequency while the Asiatic races are characterized by a high frequency of types A and B.

Everyone carries substances on their red Blood cells, called antigens. In addition to the well known ABO classified groupings, and Rh factor, there are over 260 “minor” antigens that have been identified. These antigens may appear in varying combinations. The presence or absence of these specific “minor” antigens single out that particular Blood type as being “rare.” All Blood types are inherited and therefore certain rare Blood combinations are more common in specific ethnic and racial groups.

There is precise and up-to-date data available. These racial and ethnic Blood typing and population migration statistics are important in modern medicine for many reasons. The overriding problem in obtaining and publishing this information in the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent in Western Europe, is political correctness. It is not nice to talk about the ways that I may be different from you!

Chart shows ABO frequencies for a large variety of racial strains.

Rare Blood Types, BloodBook.com:

All Blood belongs to a major group: A, B, AB, or O. However, there are more than two hundred minor Blood groups that can complicate Blood transfusions.

It is also very important to know the race or ethnic background of a Blood donor or candidate for a Blood transfusion. The Blood center physician, or Blood bank technician must always be alert for special Blood types. Your Blood type is inherited just like the color of your eyes and hair. Many Blood types, therefore, are found only in specific racial and ethnic groups. For example listed here is a very few of the most common Blood types in the most often seen rare ethnic categories:

  • African American Blacks – U- and Duffy-
  • American Indians and Alaskan Native peoples – RzRz
  • Pacific Island peoples and Asians – Jk ( a- b- )
  • Hispanics – Di ( b- )
  • Russian Jews – Dr ( a- )
  • Whites – Kp ( b- ) and Vel

Blood and Diversity, American Red Cross, provides the same table as above. Also:

Importance of Type O

Different ethnic and racial groups also have different frequency of the main blood types in their populations. For example, approximately 45 percent of Caucasians are Type O, but 51 percent of African Americans and 57 percent of Hispanics are Type O. Type O is routinely in short supply and in high demand by hospitals – both because it is the most common blood type and because Type O-negative blood, in particular, is the universal type needed for emergency transfusions. Minority and diverse populations, therefore, play a critical role in meeting the constant need for blood.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. They don’t donate. They play a critical role in the constant need for blood, not in meeting that need.

Duffy antigen system, Wikipedia:

Duffy antigen/chemokine receptor (DARC) also known as Fy glycoprotein (FY) or CD234 (Cluster of Differentiation 234) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the DARC gene.

Polymorphisms in this gene are the basis of the Duffy blood group system.

Population genetics

Differences in the racial distribution of the Duffy antigens were discovered in 1954, when it was found that the overwhelming majority of blacks had the erythrocyte phenotype Fy(a-b-): 68% in African Americans and 88-100% in African blacks (including more than 90% of West African blacks).[39] This phenotype is exceedingly rare in whites. Because the Duffy antigen is uncommon in those of Black African descent, the presence of this antigen has been used to detect genetic admixture.

“Population genetics” is a euphemism for race.

In the Yemenite Jews the frequency of the Fy allele is 0.5879[46] The frequency of this allelle varies from 0.1083 to 0.2191 among Jews from the Middle East, North Africa and Southern Europe. The incidence of Fya among Ashkenazi Jews is 0.44 and among the non-Ashkenazi Jews it is 0.33. The incidence of Fyb is higher in both groups with frequencies of 0.53 and 0.64 respectively.[47]

These Duffy-related genetic differences express themselves in other significant ways.

Clinical significance


Asthma is more common and tends to be more severe in those of African descent.

Benign ethnic neutropenia

A significant proportion (25–50%) of otherwise healthy African Americans are known to have a persistently lower white blood cell count than the normal range defined for individuals of European ancestry—a condition known as benign ethnic neutropenia. This condition is also found in Arab Jordanians, Black Bedouin, Falashah Jews, Yemenite Jews and West Indians.

HIV infection

A connection has been found between HIV susceptibility and the expression of the Duffy antigen.

Prostate cancer

Experimental work has suggested that DARC expression inhibits prostate tumor growth. Men of black African descent are at greater risk of prostate cancer than are men of either Causcasian or Asian descendant (60% greater incidence and double the mortality compared to Caucasians).

Transfusion medicine

A Duffy negative blood recipient may have a transfusion reaction if the donor is Duffy positive.[40] Since most Duffy-negative people are of African descent, blood donations from people of black African origin are important to transfusion banks.

The Diego blood group, NCBI Bookshelf:

The Diego blood group was discovered in 1955

In 1967, a second Diego antigen, Dib, was discovered. It wasn’t until 1995 that other Diego antigens began to be discovered.

The longer scientists look at blood, the more differences are discovered.

Number of antigens – 21: Dia, Dib, and Wra are among the most significant

Molecular basis

The SLC4A1 gene encodes the Diego antigens.

Located on chromosome 17 (17q21-22), the SLC4A1 gene contains 20 exons that span more than 18 kbp of DNA. The alleles Dib and Dia result from a SNP (2561C→T), and the corresponding Dib and Dia antigens differ by a single amino acid (P854L).

Frequency of Diego antigens

Dia is found mainly in populations of Mongolian descent. It is found in 36% of South American Indians, 12% of Japanese, and 12% of Chinese, whereas it is rare in Caucasians and Blacks (0.01%). Dib is found universally in most populations (1).

Common phenotypes

The most common Diego phenotype is Di(a-b+), which is found in over 99.9% Caucasians and Blacks, and over 90% of Asians. The Di(a+b+) is found in 10% of Asians. Whereas the Dia antigen is universally expressed in most populations, the prevalence of the Dia antigen differs among races, making the Diego blood group of great interest to anthropologists (3).

In the USA, the Dia antigen has not been found in Caucasian or Black blood donors (4). The Dia antigen is more commonly found in Oriental people of Mongolian descent, being more common in the Japanese (12%) and the Chinese (5%). In South American Indians, up to 54% of the population carries the Dia antigen (1).

Interestingly, the Dia antigen is less rare in the Polish population (0.47%) (5) compared to most Caucasian populations (0.01%). This may reflect the gene admixture that resulted from the invasion of Poland by Tatars (Mongolian heritage) many centuries ago (6).

Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia – The history of the Diego blood group outlines a progression in the understanding of its distribution and significance:

  • as a “Private Factor”, first identified in a woman named Diego
  • as an “Indian Factor”, found in high concentration among various Amerindian tribes
  • as a “Mongolian Factor”, lower concentrations in broader Mongoloid populations

In 1956, in a paper published in the Nature Journal (5), Layrisse and Arends stated: “Since the Indians of the American continent are considered to be anthropological related to the Mongolian people of the old world, we decided to investigate the incidence of the Diego Factor in other available representative Asians living in Venezuela”.

By 1959:

Many papers showing the distribution of the Dia antigen considered that it was essentially a Mongolian characteristic, absent in Whites , Blacks, Australian aborigines and other populations (10-39).

Here is another example, not discussed in the podcast, of the nonsense generated by anti-“racist” ideology. The American Journal of Color Arousal: “Race” and Blood Types, Superstition and Science, by Francis L. Holland, a pro-black political activist/blogger. From the sidebar:

Human Genome Project Disproves Concept of “Race”

In other words, the Human Genome Project has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call “race” does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to “race” are references to a fallacy.

This is the same technique used in “The Races of Mankind” – making bald assertions while fraudulently invoking science for support. Holland, however, goes beyond “race isn’t significant” and claims “race does not exist”.

Blood differences are expressions of underlying genetic differences – racial differences, fine and coarse. The racial nature of these differences, and others, are generally euphemized, minimized, or denied. This is a direct consequence of anti-“racist” ideology and politcal pressure, not lack of evidence. When racial differences are acknowledged, as for example by the Red Cross or New York Times, the discussion is specifically justified by the perceived benefit for non-Whites. Anti-“racism” is properly understood as anti-Whitism.

Would you rather have a blood transfusion from someone who shares your skin color or from someone who shares your blood type? It is my belief that transfusing blood from one person to another based on skin color would be an extraordinarily dangerous practice.

Blood science is one of the better examples that race runs deeper than skin color. Based on a scientific understanding of blood compatibility the optimal source for donors follows a racial progression of increasingly-looser genetic proximity: yourself, your family, your tribe, your ethny, your (continental) race. Every source beyond yourself, even a sibling, requires additional screening for antigen compatibility.

The anti-“racist” notion that blood type is only ABO is analogous to their notion that race is only skin color. In these cases, and others, they are obviously trying to minimize differences.

Holland cites the Red Cross table cited in Part 1:

The blood table below, broken out by “race,” shows that blood types do not obey superstitious sociological and cultural notions of “race”.

As blurry as the Red Cross tries to make it, the coarsest racial differences are still visible. Anti-“racism” is worse than any superstition that springs from the mere absence of evidence. Anti-“racism” is a fantasy maintained by rejecting all evidence to the contrary.

If a white person with type O+ blood needs a battle-field transfusion and medics don’t know the blood types of another white person available and an Hispanic person available, the best bet (53% O+) would be to give the white person a transfusion from a Hispanic person–NOT another white person.

This is the kind of nonsense anti-“racist” obfuscation creates.

If the goal is to improve the chances of finding O+ then you’d want to be more racially specific than “Hispanic”. The “best bet” (100% O+) would be unmixed Amerindians. To maximize the quality and likelyhood of finding a match, even in the general case, it makes more sense to take into account race – biological differences and their varied distributions – than it does to pretend those differences don’t matter.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
10 Comments  comments 

Race and Blood – Part 1

This is an addendum to the “Race and Fraud: The Races of Mankind” series, prompted especially by the deceptive narrative in the United Productions of America (UPA) cartoon, The Brotherhood of Man – Post-WWII Animated Cartoon Against Prejudice and Racism (1946):

If you take their [three average Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid men] skins off, there’s no way to tell them apart. The heart, liver, lungs, blood – everything’s the same.

He’s dead. But he wouldn’t be if we had been more scientific.

The right donor could belong to any race – the four blood types appear in all races.

The “racist” green devil knew better. The intuition that blood and organ compatibility are correlated with genetic proximity was and still is essentially correct.

The jewish, communist, Boasian anthropologist “facts” about blood, as stated in The Races of Mankind and The Brotherhood of Man, were incomplete. It was a fraud really, based on wishful thinking about equality and a vague promise of illusory mutual benefits, e.g. a larger, broader pool of blood donors. Their methods – specifically the attempt to scapegoat “racists”, and specifically for causing death by stupidity about blood – are telling, and indicate that their motives were neither noble nor benign.

The research and discussion of blood has ever since been distorted and retarded not by “racism”, but by anti-“racism”, the ideological aversion to any understanding based on race. Blood science – hematology – is in fact a subset of race science, continuing under the guise that it has nothing to do with race, or even that it somehow proves race is a social construct.

Blood differences are less visible than differences in skin, hair, or face, but are more important in that they can be a matter of life or death.

There are two main health issues: transfusion reaction, and hemolytic disease of the newborn. The negative consequences of mixing blood types range from merely inconvenient allergic reactions, to kidney damage or failure, to death.

Transfusion is a relatively recent technological development. For an overview see History of Blood Transfusion, American Red Cross. Some highlights:

1665 – The first recorded successful blood transfusion occurs in England: Physician Richard Lower keeps dog alive by transfusing blood from other dogs.

1818 – British obstetrician James Blundell performs the first successful transfusion of human blood to a patient for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage.

1901 – Karl Landsteiner, an Austrian [jew] physician, discovers the first three human blood groups.

1939-1940 – The Rh [Rhesus] blood group system is discovered by Karl Landsteiner, Alexander Wiener, Philip Levine and R.E. Stetson.

Possible risks of blood transfusions, American Cancer Society:

Infections were once the main risk, but they have become extremely rare with careful testing and donor screening. Transfusion reactions and other non-infectious problems are now more common.

More details on Transfusion Reactions, The University of Utah Eccles Health Sciences Library:

Hemolytic Reactions

Hemolytic reactions occur when the recipient’s serum contains antibodies directed against the corresponding antigen found on donor red blood cells. This can be an ABO incompatibility or an incompatibility related to a different blood group antigen.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), renal failure, and death are not uncommon following this type of reaction.

The most common cause for a major hemolytic transfusion reaction is a clerical error, such as a mislabelled specimen sent to the blood bank, or not properly identifying the patient to whom you are giving the blood. DO NOT ASSUME IT IS SOMEONE ELSE’S RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK!

Allergic Reactions

Allergic reactions to plasma proteins can range from complaints of hives and itching to anaphylaxis. Such reactions may occur in up to 1 in 200 transfusions of RBCs and 1 in 30 transfusions of platelets.

Febrile Reactions

White blood cell reactions (febrile reactions) are caused by patient antibodies directed against antigens present on transfused lymphocytes or granulocytes. The risk for febrile reaction is 1 in 1,000 to 10,000.

The “facts” about blood, as promoted by Boasian anthropologists, continue to reverberate. For example, see Correlation between blood type and race and/or ethnicity?, Yahoo! Answers. The question, innocent enough, is:

is there a correlation between blood types race and/or ethnicity??

The answers reflect the dishonest double-think that results wherever the ideological aversion to race meets the biological reality:

There is some correlation betwen blood type and some populations, but not enough to use it to define races. As with other characteristics such as skin color, there is more variation within a population than between 2 populations of humans. Therefore scientists do not recognize races within the human species.

Actually they do, they just dance around it, using other terms.

There is no real correlation between blood types and ethnicity. But there are a few distinct differences in the distribution of blood types among different ethnic groups.

There is no real correlation. But there is some correlation.

This is the kind of nonsense anti-“racist” ideology produces.

Some basic blood facts. Genes and Blood Type, The University of Utah:

Blood is a complex, living tissue that contains many cell types and proteins.

Distinct molecules called agglutinogens (a type of antigen) are attached to the surface of red blood cells.


More Blood Facts, BloodBook:

There are four main Blood types: A, B, AB and O.

Each Blood type is either Rh positive or negative.

The three main types of cells making up our Blood are the White Blood cells, Red Blood cells and Platelets:

White Blood Cells (WBCs) are the largest of the three types of cells and are responsible for fighting infections or germs. White Blood cells have a rather short life cycle, living from a few days to a few weeks. One drop of Blood can contain from 7,000 to 25,000 white Blood cells. If an invading infection fights back and persists, that number will significantly increase.

Red Blood Cells (RBCs) make up approximately 40% of Blood volume, carry oxygen to the cells of your body and return to the lungs to excrete carbon dioxide.

Platelets, the smallest of the Blood cells; make up 5% to 7% of total Blood volume. Platelets form a ‘mesh’ net to form clots in the Blood to help stop bleeding.

There are five types of White Blood Cells (WBCs)

One to two percent of Blood donors are African-American Black.

The Rhesus Blood Group

Rhesus negative (Rh-) is found almost exclusively among Europeans, with the highest incidence among the Basque. The genetic mutation behind it seems to have appeared about 35,000 years ago. There is some mystery and confusion about the nature of Rh- and its origins. It appears to be an ancient European trait, pre-dating the Aryan invasions. The indigenes in several locations known to have been lately occupied by Cro-Magnons also exhibit relatively high incidence of Rh-. See, for example, The RH Negative Blood Type: Basque & The Cro-Magnon.

In the most prominent anti-“racist” sources not much is made of the fact that Rh- is distinctive of Whites. Into the vacuum created by this reticence floods all manner of speculation having to do with Rh- being the dominant blood type among European leaders, presidents and royalty, and somehow related to the Merovingians. Some of it veers into weirdness concerning extraterrestrials and/or reptilians.

Special-care pregnancies – Blood Group (Rh) Incompatibility concerns Rhesus disease, which afflicts Rh- women with Rh+ babies, usually during their second and subsequent pregnancies. A racial difference which is an apparent liability for Whites.

Blood Types, American Red Cross:

Blood Types and the Population

O positive is the most common blood type. Not all ethnic groups have the same mix of these blood types. Hispanic people, for example, have a relatively high number of O’s, while Asian people have a relatively high number of B’s. The mix of the different blood types in the U.S. population is:

African American
O +
O –
A +
A –
B +
B –
AB +
AB –

The even more distinctive Rh- differences are buried in that table of numbers. For example, comparing the Caucasian and Asian rates, we see O- differs by 8X, A- by 14X, and AB- by 10X.

The column labels illustrate how race denial creates stupidity, making a hash out of Europeans, Amerindians, and Mongoloids, blurring the genetic nature of blood type differences. That is perhaps even intentional. (In contrast, BloodBook’s Racial and Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types provides a much finer breakdown by racial strain, making the differences much clearer.)

The Red Cross page also notes:

Some patients require a closer blood match than that provided by the ABO positive/negative blood typing. For example, sometimes if the donor and recipient are from the same ethnic background the chance of a reaction can be reduced. That’s why an African-American blood donation may be the best hope for the needs of patients with sickle cell disease, 98 percent of whom are of African-American descent.

This is a direct contradiction of the jewish/communist blood “facts”. Is the American Red Cross run by crypto-nazi “racists”?

Of course not. Anti-“racism” is really just anti-Whitism. In this case, and others, we can see it’s perfectly OK to talk about race and blood, at least as long as it’s about benefiting non-Whites. More on this in the next installment.

I didn’t discuss this example in the podcast, but another good example of anti-“racist” ideology clashing with biological reality is Modern Human Variation: Distribution of Blood Types, Dr. Dennis O’Neil, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College:

Blood provides an ideal opportunity for the study of human variation without cultural prejudice.

The majority of the people in the world have the Rh+ blood type. However, it is more common in some regions. Native Americans and Australian Aborigines were very likely 99-100% Rh+ before they began interbreeding with people from other parts of the world. This does not imply that Native Americans and Australian Aborigines are historically closely related to each other. Most Subsaharan African populations are around 97-99% Rh+. East Asians are 93-99+% Rh+. Europeans have the lowest frequency of this blood type for any continent. They are 83-85% Rh+. The lowest known frequency is found among the Basques of the Pyrenees Mountains between France and Spain. They are only 65% Rh+.

The distribution patterns for the Diego blood system are even more striking. Evidently, all Africans, Europeans, East Indians, Australian Aborigines, and Polynesians are Diego negative. The only populations with Diego positive people may be Native Americans (2-46%) and East Asians (3-12%). This nonrandom distribution pattern fits well with the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for Native Americans.


These patterns of ABO, Rh, and Diego blood type distributions are not similar to those for skin color or other so-called “racial” traits. The implication is that the specific causes responsible for the distribution of human blood types have been different than those for other traits that have been commonly employed to categorize people into “races.” Since it would be possible to divide up humanity into radically different groupings using blood typing instead of other genetically inherited traits such as skin color, we have more conclusive evidence that the commonly used typological model for understanding human variation is scientifically unsound.

The more we study the precise details of human variation, the more we understand how complex are the patterns. They cannot be easily summarized or understood. Yet, this hard-earned scientific knowledge is generally ignored in most countries because of more demanding social and political concerns. As a result, discrimination based on presumed “racial” groups still continues. It is important to keep in mind that this “racial” classification often has more to do with cultural and historical distinctions than it does with biology. In a very real sense, “race” is a distinction that is created by culture not biology.

O’Neil’s Glossary of Terms:

Caucasoid – a presumed human “race” consisting of Europeans and other closely related people. The classification is based on the discredited typological model. The term “Caucasoid” was derived from the Caucasus Mountains on the southeast fringe of Europe between the Black and Caspian Seas. This region was once thought to be the homeland of Indo-Europeans.

Mongoloid – a presumed human “race” consisting of Asians and other closely related people. This classification is based on the discredited typological model. The term “Mongoloid” was derived from the Mongolians of North Asia.

Negroid – a presumed human “race” consisting mostly of Sub-Saharan Africans. This classification is based on the discredited typological model. The term “Negroid” was derived from the Latin word for the color black.

So-called “race”, discredited by anti-White/anti-“racist” lies and fraud. Meanwhile, science marches on.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 

The Lost Recordings George Lincoln Rockwell Texas 1965

Published on March 1, 2013 by in Blog

This month’s special program comes from The Lost Recordings George Lincoln Rockwell Texas 1965. It will be broadcast each Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday starting at 9PM ET and streaming until the next scheduled program.

Ladies and gentlemen, the following is a talk by the late commander of the American Nazi Party, Mr. George Lincoln Rockwell. The occasion was in Dallas, Texas, in 1965, where approximately 75 prominent Dallas citizens accepted a personal invitation to gather at a private home to see and hear Mr. Rockwell.

Rockwell delivers a sober, plain-spoken overview of the racial and political situation in the United States circa 1965, and offers his grim analysis of why Whites had been losing to the jews for so long.

The only way, folks, that we can win, the only way we can stop the extermination of the White race, the White Christian people that built this country, on behalf of the jews and the niggers, there’s only one way you can do it. You have got to win your people back.

The audio quality is garbled in the first minute or so, but clears up after that. Length: 107 minutes.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

Race and Fraud: The Races of Mankind – Part 4

Concluding commentary on Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish’s The Races of Mankind:

Race prejudice isn’t an old universal “instinct.” It is hardly a hundred years old. Before that, people persecuted Jews because of their religion-not their ”blood”

Jews have been treated differently because they are different, they demand to be treated differently. Their ancient cover story, which is a lie, is that the difference is just religion. Jewishness is a racial identity in the sense it is inherited, that there are distinct jewish blood lines. Jews as a group are are biologically distinct from other groups.

They will think we were crazy. “Why should race prejudice have swept the western worid,” they will say, “where no nation was anything but a mixture of all kinds of racial groups? Why did nations just at that moment begin talking about ‘the racial purity’ of their blood? Why did they talk of their wars as racial wars? Why did they make people suffer, not because they were criminals or double-crossers, but because they were Jews or Negroes or non-Nordic?”

The same reason any group of people does anything. They think it’s the RIGHT thing to do, they have different ideas WHY it is RIGHT. Some think in universal terms, others more particularist. The example here is that a variety of deceitful arguments – based on “science”, religion, etc – have been used to convince people that the RIGHT way was the way that was best for those who were afraid of being excluded.

The Russian nation has for a generation shown what can be done to outlaw race prejudice in a country with many kinds of people. They did not wait for people’s minds to change. They made racial discrimination and persecution illegal.

Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States:

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

J. Stalin

January 12, 1931

No part of the Russian program has had greater success than their racial program.

Yet when the USSR collapsed in 1991 it divided along racial/ethnic lines.

What Is Being Done?

In the United States a considerable number of organizations are working for democratic race equality.

Benedict and Weltfish dedicate 4-5 pages to describing the organized efforts to impose their anti-“racist” ideology on others.

The Rosenwald Foundation has sponsored southern Negro schools, elementary, high school, and college, in order to make up for the deficiencies of southern Negro education.


. . . race superiority or inferiority are un-Christian


Some information about the CIC. Commission on Interracial Cooperation, Wikipedia:

Will W. Alexander, pastor of a local white Methodist church, was head of the organization

was formed in the aftermath of violent race riots that occurred [in 1917]

In spite of its official “interracial” title, the commission was formed primarily by liberal white Southerners.

African Americans and whites had meetings to confer the African American’s problems

Commission on Interracial Cooperation, NCpedia:

with support from the Julius Rosenwald Fund

Julius Rosenwald, Wikipedia, born in 1862 to a jewish immigrant couple:

He established his Rosenwald Fund in 1917 for “the well-being of mankind.”

his fund donated over 70 million dollars to public schools, colleges and universities, museums, Jewish charities and black institutions

Back to The Races of Mankind:


when Negroes were first placed on machines previously manned by white operators, a work stoppage shut down a whole section of the Packard plant. R. J. Thomas the president of the [United Auto Workers] union, ordered the white strikers to return to work or suffer loss of union membership and employment. Within a few hours the strikers were back, with the recently promoted Negroes still at their machines.

Where “science” and argument failed the anti-Whites used threats and sanctions.


The justification here was to loosen racial restrictions to maximize the workforce for the war effort, in effect not letting a good crisis go to waste.


Beaumont, Texas, similar effective action was not undertaken and a serious riot occurred.


In the most disastrous of recent riots in Detroit, a number of obscure bystanders performed heroic actions.

From a History Channel program, Stories from the Road to Freedom, 2013:

In 1943, there were 68 racial confrontations at U.S. military bases.

Naturally. The consequences of compulsory integration were and still are disastrous and destructive for Whites. The anti-“racist” thrust in 1943 was to champion integration. The thrust today has shifted to demonizing any Whites who ever opposed or now advocate ending it.

The conclusion of The Races of Mankind sums up its purpose:

The Challenge

With America’s great tradition of democracy, the United States should clean its own house and get ready for a better twenty-first century. Then it could stand unashamed before the Nazis and condemn, without confusion, their doctrines of a Master Race. Then it could put its hand to the building of the United Nations Organization, sure of support from all the yellow and black races where the war was fought, sure that victory in this war is to be in the name, not of one race or another, but of the universal Human Race.

This was a lecture about what “we” should do, based on lies and wishful thinking. This characteristically jewish shaming and guilt-tripping has only gotten worse as Whites have ceded power in the name of equality. The equalization of non-Whites, non-Europeans, has produced ever more explicit efforts to boost non-Whites. It has all come at the expense of Whites.

As mentioned in Race and Fraud: Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, United Productions of America (UPA) produced an animated cartoon based on the pamplet 1945/1946. Two versions are available on YouTube. The Brotherhood of Man – Post-WWII Animated Cartoon Against Prejudice and Racism (1946) is in color. The Brotherhood of Man (1946) is in black and white. A credit screen announces:


There are 4 characters:

  • narrator – calm, confident, all-knowing “scientist” (jewish/communist anthropologist)
  • White guy – naive optimistic rube, target of the propaganda
  • green devil – paranoid, nervous, the scapegoat
  • non-Whites – non-entity stereotypes, inert except to cheer on White naivete

Narrator: Everyone has his own special dream about what the world’s going to be like in the future, but we all know it’s steadily shrinking. One of these days we’re going to wake up and find the people and places we used to just read about are practically in our own back yard.

White rube: It’s happened!

Green devil: Uh unh, I don’t like the looks of this.

White rube: Why not? It’s going to be wonderful!

Green devil: Ahh, it’ll never work. We can’t get along with those people. They’re too different.

White rube: We’ll get along. We’ve got to. The future of civilization depends on brotherhood!

Non-Whites: YAYYYYYYY!

The cartoon boils the jewish anti-“racist” fraud down to its essence: Disingenuous propaganda, aimed directly at Whites, intended to convince us, even with outright lies, that we must share our societies with everyone else, and to oppose this is stupid, crazy, or evil.

Like the pamphlet, the cartoon concludes with an appeal to utopian fantasy – if “we” give “everyone” an “equal chance”, “then we can all go forward together”. The burden is placed on “we” Whites to subordinate our own best interests for benefit of everyone else.

Seventy years on, we know how this vision turns out. There is little pretense any more that “everyone” is or even should be trying to move forward together. There is no equality. The negative consequences which inevitably arise when this false ideological belief meet biological reality are constantly and consistently blamed on Whites.

Margaret Mead’s obituary for Ruth Benedict in American Ethnography Quasimonthly, 1948:

The small pamphlet, Races of Mankind, which she wrote with Gene Weltfish, went into millions of copies, was translated into film, and film script and cartoon forms, and has proved perhaps the most important single translation into genuine popular education of the many years of careful research on race differences to which anthropologists have made a major contribution.

I couldn’t fit this into the podcast, but I think it’s worth considering this epitome of jewish/communist fraud concerning race that we’ve examined in detail for these past four installments, and contrasting it with White anthropolgy, before it was derailed, as typified by this article, also titled The Races of Mankind, written by Edward Tylor and published in the July 1881 issue of Popular Science Monthly.

These excerpts illustrate a clear and objective understanding of race, sixty years before the WWII-era propaganda calculated to sow doubt and confusion about it:

ANTHROPOLOGY finds race-differences most clearly in stature and proportions of limbs, conformation of the skull and the brain within, characters of features, skin, eyes, and hair, peculiarities of constitution, and mental and moral temperament.

In comparing races as to their stature, we concern ourselves not with the tallest or shortest men of each tribe, but with the ordinary or average-sized men who may be taken as fair representatives of their whole tribe.

It thus appears that a race is a body of people comprising a regular set of variations, which center round one representative type. In the same way a race or nation is estimated as to other characters.

The people whom it is easiest to represent by single portraits are uncivilized tribes, in whose food and way of life there is little to cause difference between one man and another, and who have lived together and intermarried for many generations.

It is not enough to look at a race of men as a mere body of people happening to have a common type or likeness. For the reason of their likeness is plain, and indeed our calling them a race means that we consider them a breed whose common nature is inherited from common ancestors. Now, experience of the animal world shows that a race or breed, while capable of carrying on its likeness from generation to generation, is also capable of varying.

As the influence and power of jews increased, jewish views on race came to prevail. False uncertainty transformed gradually into outright condemnation. Social Evolutionism, Anthropological Theories – Department of Anthropology – The University of Alabama:

[Marvin] Harris called Morgan and Tylor racists (1968:137,140), but they were some of the great thinkers of their time. Today, students continue to learn Tylor’s definition of culture and all cultural anthropology classes discuss Morgan’s stages of development. These men got the ball rolling in terms of anthropological theory.

Marvin Harris is on the Jews in Anthropology short list.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
6 Comments  comments 

Race and Fraud: The Races of Mankind – Part 3

More on Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish’s The Races of Mankind:

After World War I the Germans and the Czechs along the border between the two countries intermarried so often that the Germans of this section got to look like Czechs and the Czechs began to speak German. But this did not make the two countries love each other.

People of every European nation have racial brothers in other countries, often ones with which they are at war. If at any one moment you could sort into one camp all the people in the world who were most Mediterranean, no mystic sense of brotherhood would unite them. Neither camp would have language or nationality or mode of life to unite them.

The same applies to mankind as a whole – yet anti-“racists” argue in favor of a mystic sense of brotherhood uniting all of mankind.

Pretending race doesn’t exist doesn’t make race go away.

The movements of peoples over the face of the earth inevitably produce race mixture and have produced it since before history began. No one has been able to show that this is necessarily bad.

They know race mixing is not inevitable, which is why they take the trouble to argue and propagandize in favor of it. They wish to thwart the natural human tendency to discriminate and separate.

But, as far as we know, there are no immutable laws of nature that make racial intermixture harmful.

Harmful for who?

No immutable laws of nature make extinction harmful. Group identity, self-awareness, morality – group judgment of good and bad – is what gives words like “harmful” meaning.

The thesis of Arthur Gobineau’s The Inequality of Human Races is that each society throughout history has been an expression of a racial/national core, and that their success leads to conquest, then mixing, then collapse.

Racial Superiorities and Inferiorities

to prove superiority … you have to test abilities

Science therefore treats human racial differences as facts to be studied and mapped. It treats racial superiorities as a separate field of investigation; it looks for evidence. When a Nazi says “I am a blue-eyed Aryan and you are non-Aryan,” he means “I am superior and you are infenor.” The scientist says: “Of course. You are a fair-haired, long-headed, tall North European (the Anthropological term is Nordics, not Aryans), and I am a dark-haired, round-headed, less tall South European. But on what evidence do you base your claim to be superior? That is quite different.”

Race prejudice turns on this point of inferiority and superiority. The man with race prejudice says of a man of another race, “No matter who he is, I don’t have to compare myself with him. I’m superior anyway. I was born that way.”

Anti-“racism” turns on this point of inferiority and superiority, playing on insecurity, fear of exclusion. A “racist” who says “born different” is saying superior/inferior is beside the point, though having a sense of pride in one’s own group is perfectly normal and natural.

Pages 16 and 17 of the pamplet are missing. This portion of the pamphlet discusses IQ. The tail end of it is on page 18 (italics in original):

The white race did badly where economic conditions were bad and schooling was not provided, and Negroes living under better conditions surpassed them. The differences did not arise because people were from the North or the South, or because they were white or black, but because of differences in income, education, cultural -advantages, and other opportunities.

From the page on Gene Weltfish at Wikipedia:

The most controversial statement was the mention of a set of IQ tests administered to the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) in World War I, in which “Southern Whites” scored below “Northern Negroes”. Weltfish and Benedict argued that “The difference….[arose] because of differences of income, education, cultural advantages, and other opportunities,” since southern schools spent only a fraction of the amount spent on education in the North. This was the statement that led to a general outcry in the military. The bulk of the pamphlet was dedicated to explaining that perceived differences in group mental abilities vary in accordance with social and cultural factors, not biological ones.

The heritability of IQ and racial differences in IQ are well established. The controversy over this comes entirely from anti-“racists” who simply want to deny and suppress these facts. See, for example, The Bell Curve and the “debate” it spawned.

A large portion of the anti-“racist” fraud, from 1943 through to this day, having to do with IQ and other racial differences, is conflating overlap with equality. It is a kind of hand-waving – a deliberate attempt to induce confusion and minimize differences in norms and averages by pointing to overall variance. A specific example has come to be known as the Lewontin fallacy, which I’ll discuss in more detail in a future installment.

Character Not Inborn

The second superiority which a man claims when he says, “I was born a member of a superior race/’ is that his race has better character. The Nazis boasted of their racial soul. But when they wanted to make a whole new generation into Nazis they didn’t trust to “racial soul”; they made certain kinds of teaching compulsory in the schools, they broke up homes where the parents were anti-Nazi, they required boys to join certain Nazi youth organizations. By these means they got the kind of national character they wanted. But it was a planned and deliberately trained character, not an inborn “racial soul.”

Race prejudice is, after all, a determination to keep a people down, and it misuses the label ‘”inferior” to justify unfairness and injustice. Race prejudice makes people ruthless; it invites violence. It is the opposite of “good character” as it is defined in the Christian religion— or in the Confucian religion, or in the Buddhist religion, or the Hindu religion, for that matter.

Civilization Not Caused by Race

History proves that progress in civilization is not the monopoly of one race or subrace. When our white forebears in Europe were rude stone-age primitives, the civilizations of the Babylonians and the Egyptians had already flourished and been eclipsed. There were great Negro states in Africa when Europe was a sparsely settled forest. Negroes made iron tools and wove fine cloth for their clothing when fair-skinned Europeans wore skins and knew nothing of iron.

When Europe was just emerging from the Middle Ages, Marco Polo visited China and found there a great civilization, the like of which he had never imagined. Europe was a frontier country in those days compared with China.

The United States is the greatest crossroads of the world in all history. People have come here from every race and nation, and almost every race in the world is represented among our citizens. They have brought with them their own ways of cooking food, so ihat our “American” diet is iudebted to a dozen peoples. Our turkey, com, and cranberries come from the Indians. Our salads we borrowed from the French and Italians. Increasingly in recent years we have enriched our tables with soups from Russia, vegetables from Italy, appetizers from the Scandinavian countries, seafoods from the Mediterranean lands, chile and tortillas from Mexico, and so on almost endlessly.


NEVERTHELESS there is race prejudice in America and in the world. Race prejudice isn’t an old universal “instinct.” It is hardly a hundred years old. Before that, people persecuted Jews because of their religion-not their ”blood”; they enslaved Negroes because they were pagans-not for being black.

Looking back now, modems are horrified at all the blood that was shed for centuries in religious conflicts. It is not our custom any more to torture and kill a man because he has a different religion. The twenty-first century may well look back on our generation and be just as horrified. If that century builds its way of life on the Atlantic Charter-for the whole worid-our era will seem a nightmare from which they have awakened. They will think we were crazy. “Why should race prejudice have swept the western worid,” they will say, “where no nation was anything but a mixture of all kinds of racial groups? Why did nations just at that moment begin talking about ‘the racial purity’ of their blood? Why did they talk of their wars as racial wars? Why did they make people suffer, not because they were criminals or double-crossers, but because they were Jews or Negroes or non-Nordic?”

We who are living in these troubled times can tell them why. Today weak nations are afraid of the strong nations; the poor are afraid of the rich; the rich are afraid they will lose their riches. People are afraid of one another’s poHtical or economic power, they are afraid of revenge for past injuries, they are afraid of social rejection. Conflict grows fat on fear. And the slogans against “inferior races” lead us to pick on them as scapegoats. We pin on them the reason for all our fears.

Race Prejudice Not Inevitable

Freedom from fear is the way to cure race prejudice.

Hello from the 21st century. There are still weak and strong, rich and poor. Today the anti-“racists” are in charge and they scapegoat “racists”.

Atlantic Charter, Wikipedia:

The Atlantic Charter was a pivotal policy statement first issued in August 1941 that early in World War II defined the Allied goals for the post-war world. It was drafted by Britain and the United States, and later agreed to by all the Allies. The Charter stated the ideal goals of the war: no territorial aggrandizement; no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people; restoration of self-government to those deprived of it; free access to raw materials; reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Race and Fraud: The Races of Mankind – Part 2

More on Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish’s The Races of Mankind:


For ages men have spoken of ‘blood relations” as if different peoples had different blood. Some people have shouted that if we got into our veins the blood of someone with a different head shape, eye color, hair texture, or skin color, we should get some of that person’s physical and mental characteristics.

Modern science has revealed this to be pure superstition. All human blood is the same, whether it is the blood of an Eskimo or a Frenchman, of the “purest” German “Aryan” or an African pygmy— except for one medically important difference. This medical difference was discovered when doctors first began to use blood transfusion in order to save life. In early attempts at transfusion it was discovered that “agglutination” or clumping together of the red cells sometimes occurred and caused death. Gradually investigators learned that there are four types of blood, called O, A, B, and AB, and that although blood typed O can be mixed successfully with the other three, none of these can be mixed with one another without clumping.

These four types of blood are inherited by each child from its forebears. But whites, Negroes, Mongols, and all races of man have all these blood types. The color of their skin does not tell at all which blood type they have. You and an Australian bush-man may have the same blood type.

For ages the use of blood as a metaphor for inheritance was a reasonable, intuitive understanding of the mechanics.

Rather than mocking this as “pure superstition”, and falsely insisting that “all human blood is the same”, someone interested in making an honest argument concerning blood and heritability based on science could have cited August Weismann’s germ plasm theory (“inheritance only takes place by means of the egg and sperm cells”) and the Weismann barrier (“other cells of the body—somatic cells—do not function as agents of heredity”), which had been known since c1900.

Ongoing scientific inquiry, known as genetics, had by 1943 further refined the understanding of the mechanism of heritability. Among the more prominent geneticists were the “purest” German “Aryans”, scientists like Alfred Ploetz and Fritz Lenz.

The blood intuition was valid in the sense that head shape and other heritable traits are encoded within our bodies. If the “blood” (which we now understand is DNA) could be changed then the expression of those traits would change. A more realistic example is what happens when one person “mixes their blood” with another to produce children.

Benedict and Weltfish minimize blood differences, ignoring what was understood about the relation to race even in 1943: that the distribution of blood types among races is distinctive.

As the American Red Cross puts it, even in today’s extreme anti-“racist” zeitgeist:

Different ethnic and racial groups … have different frequency of the main blood types in their populations.

There are other significant facts about blood type and race, some understood in 1943 and others which have come to light since. RH- is entirely a White trait, highest in the Basque at 20-35%, 15% among Europeans in general, near 0% in everyone else. Amerindians and Australoids are nearly 100% O+. In addition to A, B, AB, and O, there are many less common, lesser known blood subtypes which are unique to certain ethnic groups.

If you’re European there’s a good chance you have some combination of A, B, or RH- blood, and in this case the blood of an Australian bushman is almost certainly incompatible.

The best donor for blood or organs are those most biochemically compatibile with the recipient. This is more likely to be a close relative. The more different genetically, the less likely they are compatible.

Having more people like yourself around you increases the likelyhood of blood/organ compatibility. Diversity and race mixing reduces that likelyhood. When it comes to blood, diversity is plainly not a strength.

Returning to The Races of Mankind:


Finally, let us take skin color, the most noticeable of the differences between peoples. Few traits have been used as widely to classify people. We all talk about black, white, and yellow races of man.

Recently scientists found that skin color is determined by two special chemicals. One of these, carotene, gives a yellow tinge; the other, melanin, contributes the brown.

People of browner complexions simply have more melanin in their skin, people of yellowish color more carotene. It is not an all-or-nothing difference; it is a difference in proportion. Your skin color is due to the amount of these chemicals present in the skin.

So the visible difference in skin color is caused by an underlying chemical difference, which ultimately reflects a biological, genetic heritable difference. The key, here again, is that races exhibit different distributions, different proportions.

In other words it is evidence in favor of the reality and significance of race, not against it.


THE three primary races of the world have their strongest developments in areas A, B, and C on the map on page 9. In these parts of the world most of the inhabitants not only have the same skin color but the same hair texture and noses. A is the area of the Caucasian Race, B of the Mongoloid Race, C of the Negroid Race.

The Caucasian Race inhabits Europe and a great part of the Near East and India. It is subdivided in broad bands that run east and west: Nordics (fair-skinned, blue-eyed, tall, and long- headed) are most common in the north; Alpines (in-between skin color, often stocky, broad-headed) in the middle; Mediterraneans (slenderer, often darker than Alpines, long-headed) in the south. The distribution of racial subtypes is just about the same in Germany and in France; both are mostly Alpine and both have Nordics in their northern districts. Racially, France and Germany are made up of the same stocks in just about equal proportions.

American Indians are Mongoloid, though they differ physically both among themselves and from the Mongols of China.

The natives of Australia are sometimes called a fourth primary race.

In the map A is centered on Sweden, B on China, and C on Congo. Benedict and Weltfish continue to minimize the differences, both by literally minimizing their geographic extent, and by glossing over the many different shades, eg. the very black skin in India and Australia.

It is a willful blindness, interesting in contrast to illustrator Ad Reinhardt’s later Black paintings, the “art” of which was in the appreciation of the significance of subtle, near imperceptible shades of black.

This portion of the pamphlet presents a general understanding of race that could just as well have been written by any contemporary proponent of race, eugenics or racial hygiene. Benedict and Weltfish acknowledge the existence of “racial subtypes” (Nordic, Alpine, Med) amongst Europeans, and the difference of opinion over the number of major races – without using these points as arguments against race. Instead they cite it to steal for themselves a measure of sciency credibility in support their ulterior anti-“racist” agenda, specifically to prepare the ground for the next issue, which is at the very heart of that agenda:


Aryans, Jews, Italians are not races. Aryans are people who speak Indo-European, “Aryan” languages. Hitler used the term in many ways— sometimes for blond Europeans, including the Scandinavian; sometimes for Germans, whether blond or brunet; sometimes for all who agreed with him politically, including the Japanese. As Hitler used it, the term “Aryan” had no meaning, racial, linguistic, or otherwise.

Jews are people who acknowledge the Jewish religion. They are of all races, even Negro and Mongolian, European Jews are of many different biological types; physically they resemble the populations among whom they live. The so-called “Jewish type” is a Mediterranean type, and no more “Jewish” than the South Italian. Wherever Jews are persecuted or discriminated against they cling to their old ways and keep apart from the rest of the population and develop so-called “Jewish” traits. But these are not racial or “Jewish”; they disappear under conditions where assimilation is easy.

I don’t know about Hitler’s use of the term Aryan. Perhaps someone who does can leave a comment about it. The arguments this pamphlet makes where Hitler is concerned are a kind of fallacy, increasingly common since WWII, known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Beyond Hitler, they’re deliberately obfuscating reality which is not difficult to explain. Aryan is not simply linguistic, no more than jew is simply a religion. Aryans were a people who left traces of their language, artifacts, and genetics among those they conquered. Jewish traits are racial in the sense that they are heritable, genetically based.

Benedict and Weltfish misrepresent the cause and effect of jewish distinctiveness and “persecution”, which is more objectively (scientifically) understood in terms of mutual alienation, not the one-sided narrative favorable to jews that they present.

Jewish genetic differences arose and were maintained by jews discriminating and separating themselves from their host populations, on the whole refusing to intermarry. Jews don’t assimilate, otherwise they would long ago have ceased to exist. The core of jewry is utterly hostile to assimilation of jews to their hosts. Instead they organize and demand and generally get special rights and privileges for themselves, causing the host to assimilate to their desires and way of seeing things. Even supposedly assimilated jews lend their hands to this effort.

Religion is one component, but the key component of jewish identity is biological, not ideological. It is an identity passed from parents to children, whether their children want it or not.

Harlan Schulke and Carolyn Yeager had an insightful discussion of jewish identity in the first half of How the translator affects meanings in the Protocols of Zion.

Benedict and Weltfish continue:

Italians are a nationality, Italians are of many different racial strains; the “typical” South Italian is a Mediterranean, more like the Spaniard or the Greek or the Levantine Jew than the blond North Italian. The Germans, the Russians, and all other nations of Europe are nations, not races.

This is argument by conflation and confusion. The classic meaning of “nation” is roughly equivalent to “racial strain”. The use of “nation” as a synonym for country or state causes misunderstanding. The existence of several “racial strains” within the borders of a single country doesn’t mean that “racial strain” isn’t racial in nature.

This disingenous argument leads directly into the next:

Racial Mixture

As far back in time as the scientist can go he finds proof that animals and men moved about in the world. There were different kinds of animals, and many of them went great distances. But wherever they went, the different kinds could not breed together. A tiger cannot mate with an elephant. Even a fox and a woif cannot mate with each other. But whenever groups of people have traveled from one place to another and met other people, some of them have married and had children.

Lions and tigers are capable of breeding. Likewise wolves and dogs. Left to themselves, in nature, they generally don’t. Primates and even humans, left to ourselves, demonstrate a similar, general aversion to mixing. The Aryan conquerers in India codified the aversion as caste. In the US there were laws against miscegenation. An objective scientist, who could set his “race”/anti-“racist” agenda aside, would recognize both the capability of mixing and tendency to discriminate and compete as a perfectly natural step toward speciation.

Racial strains which set their “race” agenda aside will be outcompeted by those who don’t. The key understanding here is that among man, argument and communication are part of the fitness equation of the competition. Lying and fraud and propaganda and psychological warfare are all part of the fitness equation.

We are used to thinking of Americans as mixed. All of us have ancestors who came from regions far apart. But we think that the English are English and the French are French. This is true for their nationality, just as we are all Americans. But it is not true for their race. The Germans have claimed to be a pure German race, but no European is a pure anything. A country has a population. It does not have a race. If you go far enough back In the populations of Europe you are apt to find all kinds of ancestors: Cro-Magnons, Slavs, Mongols, Africans, Celts, Saxons, and Teutons.

Yes, Whites are diverse in the true sense of the word.

The crime commited by the Germans, from a jewish point of view, was to recognize jews as aliens, not Germans.

There is nothing inherently wrong with purity as an ideal, nor with the notion that a dilution of purity is something to be avoided. These are normal, traditional values. Anti-“racists” succeeded in flipping these values and today promote degenerate, destructive mixing as the ideal, while pathologizing purity.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
9 Comments  comments 
© the White network