As a sort of brief follow-up to my previous piece on the British Library, which took a subjective glance at the philosophical, political, and racial undertones of the government establishment, I decided to conduct a short survey so as to gauge more objectively my observations.
As I was hesitant to make a full sweep of a reading room, notebook in hand, glaring into each reader’s face, attempting to racially profile them one-by-one, I decided on the more subtle tack of sitting alone in a corner of the foyer, otherwise invisible and unnoticed, and conducted a statistical survey. For just five minutes I made note of each person that strolled past and categorised them based upon their facial features and dress into racial groups.
The results were as follows:
The first thing that one notices is that whilst these numbers are not equal by any means, they do correlate significantly with the average IQ of said groups, which is roughly held to be as listed below. (Cochran et al.)(Murray; Entine).
In business theory, there is the oft-cited term Diversity Management, the tenet of which is to “attract and hire a diverse workforce reflecting the communities in which the company operates”.(http://www.yourdiversityatwork.com/diversity/) It is largely accepted in Marxist theory that in order for a group or enterprise to be “fair”, “unbiased”, or “in-discriminatory” that the make-up of said group reflects by-and-large the population make-up of the surrounding social environment. The case would be, and often, is made that a restaurant chain, for example, operating in an environment that is populated 50% by Arabs should employ and train 50% of its staff from the Arab community.
Following this train of thought, when one considers the BL diversity statistics in relation to the population statistics of the UK as a whole (the so-called community or market served by the British Library), the inequality or misrepresentation of these groups becomes even more stark.
Below is a citation from Google, which in turn is sourced from Government data circa 2016:
Before I draw any conclusions from this data, I should state that as a Londoner who has travelled throughout the UK and seen for myself the overwhelming surge in the non-white population over the past few decades, I severely doubt that these statistics presented by the government, google, or wikipedia are an actual fair reflection of the extent of the process of ethnic replacement of the home peoples on the ground. However, in dealing with left-wing ideologues I find it only fair to use their own statistics against them in this instance.
To conclude, therefore, going by these official accounts, it would appear that an ethnic minority of 0.6% of the population accounts for 41% of library use in the British library. The white majority of 87% appears to account for only 30% of library use. According to Marxist theory, one would assume that Jews in the UK have amassed as a group a large amount of privilege, whereas the native whites are suffering severe discrimination. The differences, whilst not correlating with “community” demographic statistics of the UK do, however, show correlation with average IQ levels. Thus, one has to begin to entertain the possibility that perhaps IQ does affect group performance within wider-society, and that this “privilege” if inherited genetically by groups that show tendencies for in-group preference, could be considered as argument against the egalitarian hypothesis.
As for the Chinese, Black, Indian, and Arab populations, they hold up statistically as expected or slightly above as would be expected, and I am in no doubt that the influx of foreign students from China and other Asian nations is largely responsible for this gap. Hearing them converse with one another in their foreign tongues and watching them almost exclusively congregate with one another on racial grounds, it seems sensible to assume that these are not British citizens and are therefore excluded from the population statistics cited above.
For some time I have been wanting to share some more extracts from Madison Grant’s seminal work “The Passing of the Great Race.” Today I have gathered together several sections which serve to shine light on the common misapprehensions held be people today involving race, multi-racial societies, and more specifically the disappearance of the White man.
The Myth of the Half-Breed
“What the melting pot actually does in practice can be seen in Mexico, where the absorption of the blood of the original Spanish conquistadors by the native Indian population has produced the racial mixture which we call Mexican and which is now engaged in demonstrating its incapacity for self-government. The world has seen many such mixtures and the character of a mongrel race is only just beginning to be understood at its true value.
It must be borne in mind that the specialisations which characterise the higher races are of relatively recent development, are highly unstable and when mixed with generalised or primitive characters tend to disappear. Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalised and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races (Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean) and a Jew is a Jew.
In the crossing of the blond and brunet elements of a population, the more deeply rooted and ancient dark traits are prepotent or dominant. This is matter of every-day observation and the working of this law of nature is not influenced or affected by democratic institutions or by religious beliefs. Nature cares not for the individual nor how he may be modified by environment. She is concerned only with the perpetuation of the species or type and heredity alone is the medium through which she acts.”
2. There is no integration or mixing; there is only replacement of the White man
“For reasons already set forth there are few communities outside of Europe of pure European blood. The racial destiny of Mexico and of the islands and coasts of the Spanish Main is clear. The white man is being rapidly bred out by Negroes on the islands and by Indians on the mainland. It is quite evident that the West Indies, the coast region of our Gulf states, perhaps, also the black belt of the lower Mississippi Valley must be abandoned to Negroes. This transformation is already complete in Haiti and is going rapidly forward in Cuba and Jamaica. Mexico and the northern part of South America must also be given over to native Indians with an ever thinning veneer of white culture of the “Latin” type.
In Venezuela the pure whites number about one percent of the whole population, the balance being Indians and various crosses between Indians, Negroes and whites. In Jamaica the whites number not more than two per cent, while the remainder are Negroes or mulattoes. In Mexico the proportion is larger, but the unmixed whites number no more than twenty percent of the whole, the others being Indians pure or mixed. These latter are the “greasers” of the American frontiersman.
Whenever the incentive to imitate the dominant race is removed the Negro or, for that matter, the Indian, reverts shortly to his ancestral grade of culture. In other words, it is the individual and not the race that is affected by religion, education and example. Negroes have demonstrated throughout recorded time that they are a stationary species and that they do not possess the potentiality of progress or initiative from within. Progress from self-impulse must not be confounded with mimicry or with progress imposed from without by social pressure or by the slaver’s lash.
When the impulse of an inferior race to imitate or mimic the dress, manners or morals of the dominant race is destroyed by the acquisition of political or social independence, the servant race tends to revert to its original status as in Haiti.
Where two distinct species are located side by side history and biology teach that but one of two things can happen; either one race drives the other out, as the Americans exterminated the Indians and as the Negroes are now replacing the whites in various parts of the South; or else they amalgamate and form a population of race bastards in which the lower type ultimately preponderates. This is a disagreeable alternative with which to confront sentimentalists but nature is only concerned with results and and neither makes nor takes excuses. The chief failing of the day with some of our well meaning philanthropists is their absolute refusal to face inevitable facts, if such facts appear cruel.
In the Argentine white blood of the various European races is pouring in so rapidly that a community preponderantly white, but of the Mediterranean race, may develop, but the type is suspiciously swarthy.
In Brazil, Negro blood together with that of the native inhabitants is rapidly overwhelming the white Europeans, although in the southern provinces German immigration has played an important role and the influx of Italians has also been considerable.
In Asia, with the sole exception of the Russian settlements in Siberia, there can be and will be no ethnic conquest and all the white men in India, the East Indies, the Philippines and China will leave not the slightest trace behind them in the blood of the native population. After several centuries of contact and settlement the pure Spanish in the Philippines are about half of one percent (this group is now extinct). The Dutch in their East Indian islands are even less, while the resident whites in Hindustan amount to about one-tenth of one percent. Such numbers are infinitesimal and of no force in a democracy, but in a monarchy, if kept free from contamination, they suffice for a ruling caste or a military aristocracy.
Throughout history it is only the race of the leaders that has counted and the most vigorous have been in control and will remain in mastery in one form or another until such time as democracy and its illegitimate offspring, socialism, definitely establish cacocracy and the rule of the worst and put an end to progress. The salvation of humanity will then lie in the chance survival of some sane barbarians who may retain the basic truth that inequality and not equality is the law of nature.”
3. The Truth behind the Country of Immigrants and the “Black” US Population
“The Negroes of the United States while stationary, were not a serious drag on civilisation until in the last century they were given the rights of citizenship and were incorporated in the body politic. These Negroes brought with them no language or religion or customs of their own which persisted but adopted all these elements of environment from the dominant race, taking the names of their masters just as to-day the German and Polish Jews are assuming American names. They came for the most part from the coasts of the Bight of Benin, but some of the later ones came from the southeast coast of Africa by way of Zanzibar. They were of various black tribes but have been from the beginning saturated with white blood.
Looking at any group of Negroes in America, especially in the North, it is easy to see that while they are all essentially Negroes, whether coal-black, brown or yellow, a great many of them have varying amounts of Nordic blood in them, which has in some respects modified their physical structure without transforming them in any way into white men. This miscegenation was, of course, a frightful disgrace to the dominant race but its effects on the Nordics has been negligible, for the simple reason that it was confined to white men crossing with Negro women and did not involve the reverse process, which would, of course, have resulted in the infusion of Negro blood into the American stock.
The United States of America must be regarded racially as a European colony and owing to the current ignorance of the physical bases of race, one often hears the statement made that native Americans of Colonial ancestry are of mixed ethnic origin. (Here when Grant uses the term native Americans, he is referring to the European colonists)
This is not true.
At the time of the Revolutionary War the settlers in the thirteen colonies were overwhelmingly Nordic, a very large majority being Anglo-Saxon in the most limited meaning of that term. The New England settlers in particular came from those counties of England where the blood was almost purely Saxon, Anglian, Norse and Dane. The date of their migration was earlier than the resurgence of the Mediterranean type that has so greatly expanded in England during the last century with the growth of the manufacturing towns.
New England during Colonial times and long afterward was far more Nordic than old England; that is it contained a smaller percentage of small, Pre-Nordic brunets. Anyone familiar with the native New Englander knows the clean cut face, the high stature and the prevalence of grey and blue eyes and light brown hair and recognises that the brunet element is less noticeable there than in the South.”
4. The Decline of the West and the White Man’s Search for Place in the New World
“The native Americans (white colonists) are splendid raw material, but have as yet only an imperfectly developed national consciousness. They lack the instinct of self-preservation in a racial sense. Unless such an instinct develops their race will perish, as do all organisms which disregard this primary law of nature. Nature had granted to the Americans of a century ago the greatest opportunity in recorded history to produce in the isolation of a continent a powerful and racially homogenous people and had provided for the experiment a pure race of one of the most gifted and vigorous stocks on earth, a stock free from diseases, physical and moral, which have again and again sapped the vigour of the older lands. Our grandfathers threw away this opportunity in the blissful ignorance of national childhood and inexperience.
The result of unlimited immigration is showing plainly in the rapid decline in the birth rate of native Americans because the poorer classes of Colonial stock, where they still exist, will not bring children into the world to compete in the labour market with the Slovak, the Italian, the Syrian and the Jew. The native American is too proud to mix socially with them and is gradually withdrawing from the scene, abandoning to these aliens the land which he conquered and developed. The man of the old stock is being crowded out of many country districts by these foreigners just as he is to-day being literally driven off the streets of New York City by the swarms of Polish Jews. These immigrants adopt the language of the native American, they wear his clothes, they steal his name and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals and while he is being elbowed out of his own home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race.
When the test of actual battle comes, it will, of course, be the native American who will do the fighting and suffer the losses. With him will stand the immigrants of Nordic blood, but there will be numbers of these foreigners in the large cities who will prove to be physically unfit for military duty.
As to what the future mixture will be it is evident that in large sections of the country the native American will entirely disappear. He will not intermarry with inferior races and he cannot compete in the sweat shop and in the street trench with the newcomers. Large cities from the days of Rome, Alexandria, and Byzantium have always been gathering points of diverse races, but New York is becoming a cloaca gentium which will produce many amazing racial hybrids and some ethnic horrors that will be beyond the powers of future anthropologists to unravel.
One thing is certain: in any such mixture, the surviving traits will be determined by competition between the lowest and most primitive elements and the specialised traits of Nordic man; his stature, his light coloured eyes, his fair skin and light coloured hair, his straight nose and his splendid fighting and moral qualities, will have little part in the resultant mix.
The “survival of the fittest” means the survival of the type best adapted to existing conditions of environment, which to-day are the tenement and factory, as in Colonial times they were the clearing of forests, fighting Indians, farming the fields and sailing the Seven Seas. From the point of view of race it were better described as the “survival of the unfit.”
It is important in these dark times, as Europe is besieged by immigrants from the East and Africa, and as much of our own folk have given up on our race or are asleep, as many of our women and leaders are indoctrinated and distracted by strange destructive lies that we make efforts once more to foster and spread a love of our own people and a love of our beautiful and hard-won heritage. Tradition must once again be resurrected in the West and our people must once again awaken within themselves a pride and draw from this a sense of profound self-respect and wonder. Only a powerful love for our own, and not merely a hatred of the other, will be capable of sustaining us into the future.
After discussing in concise and articulate terms, as Evola is want to do, the multitudinous nature of a man’s identity or ‘self’, the author addresses the inherent fragility of man’s self-identity, a trait of which all of us in the modern world are only too well aware:
“One can see now how problematic is the very point that has hitherto seemed fixed: fidelity to oneself, the absolute, autonomous law based on one’s own “being,” when it is formulated in general and abstract terms. Everything is subject to debate – a situation accurately exemplified by characters in Dostoyevsky, like Raskolnikov or Stavrogin. At the moment when they are thrown back on their own naked will, trying to prove it to themselves with an absolute action, they collapse; they collapse precisely because they are divided beings, because they are deluded concerning their true nature and their real strength. Their freedom is turned against them and destroys them; they fail at the very point at which they should have reaffirmed themselves – in their depths they find nothing to sustain them and carry them forward. We recall the words of Stavrogin’s testament: “I have tested my strength everywhere, as you advised me to do in order to know myself… What I have never seen, and still do not see, is what I should apply my strength to. My desires lack the energy; they cannot drive me. One can cross the river on a log, but not on a splinter.” The abyss wins out over Stavrogin, and his failure is sealed by suicide. The same problem evidently lurks at the centre of Nietzsche’s doctrine of the will to power. Power in itself is formless. It has no sense without the basis of a given “being,” an internal direction, an essential unity. When that is wanting, everything slides back into chaos. “Here is the greatest strength, but it does not know what it is for. The means exist, but they have no end.” … the phenomenon of remorse is closely linked to the situation of a divided and self-contradictory being. Remorse occurs, when despite everything, a central tendency survives in the being and reawakens after actions that have violated or denied it, arising from secondary impulses that are not strong enough to completely supplant it. Guyau speaks in this sense of a morality “that is none other than the unity of the being,” and an immorality that, “on the contrary, is a splitting, an opposition of tendencies that limit one another.”
This portion of Evola’s work, Ride the Tiger, struck me as extremely pertinent to the current age. All around us on a societal level we see contradiction, confusion, and ultimately multiple competing attempts of individuals to define their own identities through outward actions that challenge the identities of others, and perhaps other parallel identities of their own.
Simultaneously, on the individual level, the emphasis is on self-improvement or self-discovery and self-fulfilment. The ideal man is seen to be one who has achieved an internal consistency or harmony, which is said to ultimately lead to the ‘happy life’. The evil man is said to be fraught with inconsistency and therefore suffers in his own prison of continual misery, perpetually forced to ask himself the question “who am I?”. However as Evola points out, in the current age of such strife on the collective level, and in which individuals are effectively cast adrift, asked to find themselves as separate from any outside guidance, inconsistency has become the norm as opposed to the exception. In addition, it is apparent that consistency of action and morality are not necessarily one and the same. Often to do the virtuous thing, one must act against one’s base nature. On the other hand, it is possible for those who carry out virtuous acts to do them for non-virtuous reasons.
The irony does not escape me of including this piece: The blog is after all named Freedom in the UK, and this is in effect the beginnings of an argument formed in opposition to an unchallenged freedom for mankind. For this reason, I will perhaps consider renaming the blog.
The more that I find myself researching the Alt Right, and far right ideology, the more I lean towards the idea that nationalism should precede freedom, or more that one cannot exist without the other. For what good is freedom if it serves ultimately to destroy free individuals. Some temperance is required. As an objectivist, for the most part, especially metaphysically and epistemologically, I see that Evola holds much of the same criticisms of Nietzsche’s worldview as did Rand; namely that his ‘will’ is insubstantial, mystical, and as Evola points out inherently insufficient a force alone to drive the human engine. Where Rand would have the difficulty with Evola’s ideas is likely in his emphasis on Tradition; however, I am increasingly of the view that this falls under the category of Ayn Rand’s notion of ‘rational self-interest’. I am increasingly of the belief that it is in man’s rational self-interest to have a degree of collectivism within his own nation, and even more so, for there to be hierarchy in society outside of the mere economic.
The following is an interesting passage taken from Madison Grant’s work, “The Passing of the Great Race”. In the passage, Grant summarises the linguistic history of the peoples inhabiting the British Isles, and charts how linguistic evolution corresponded to racial changes that took place on the island.
“The first Aryan languages known in western Europe were the Celtic group which first appears west of the Rhine about 1000 B.C.
Only a few dim traces of Pre-Aryan speech have been found in the British Isles, and these largely in place names. The Pre-Aryan language of the Pre-Nordic population of Britain may have survived down to historic times as Pictish.
In Britain, Celtic speech was introduced in two successive waves, first by the Goidels or “Q” Celts, who apparently appeared about 800 B.C. and this form exists to this day as Erse in western Ireland, as Manx of the Isle of Man and as Gaelic in the Scottish Highlands.
The Goidels were still in a state of bronze culture. When they reached Britain they must have found there a population preponderantly of Mediterranean type with numerous remains of still earlier races of Palaeolithic times and also some round-skulled Alpines of the Round Burrows, who have since largely faded from the living population. When the next invasion, the Cymric or Brythonic, occurred the Goidels had been absorbed very largely by the underlying Mediterranean aborigines who had meanwhile accepted the Goidelic form of Celtic speech, just as on the continent the Gauls had mixed with Alpine and Mediterranean natives and had imposed upon the conquered their own tongue. In fact, in Britain, Gaul and Spain the Goidels and Gauls were chiefly a ruling, military class, while the great bulk of the population remained unchanged although Aryanised in speech.
These Brythonic or Cymric tribes or “P” Celts followed the “Q” Celts four or five hundred years later, and drove the Goidels westward though Germany, Gaul and Britain and this movement of population was still going on when Caesar crossed the Channel. The Brythonic group gave rise to the modern Cornish, extinct within a century, the Cymric of Wales and the Armorican of Brittany.
In central Europe we find traces of these same two forms of Celtic speech with the Goidelic everywhere the older and the Cymric the more recent arrival. The cleavage between the dialects of the “Q” Celts and the “P” Celts was probably less marked two thousand years ago than at present, since in their modern form they are both Neo-Celtic languages. What vestiges of Celtic languages remain in France belong to Brythonic. Celtic was not generally spoken in Aquitaine in Caesar’s time.
When the two Celtic-speaking races came into conflict in Britain their original relationship had been greatly obscured by the crossing of the Goidels with the underlying dark Mediterranean race of Neolithic culture and by the mixture of the Belgae with Teutonic tribes. The result was that the Brythons did not distinguish between the blond Goidels and the brunet but Celticised Mediterraneans as they all spoke Goidelic dialects.
In the same way when the Saxons and the Angles entered Britain they found there a population speaking Celtic of some form, either Goidelic or Cymric, and promptly called them all Welsh (foreigners). These Welsh were preponderantly of Mediterranean type with some mixture of a blond Goidel strain and a much stronger blond strain of Cymric origin and these same elements exist today in England. The Mediterranean race is easily distinguished, but the physical types derived from Goidel and Brython alike are merged and lost in the later floods of pure Nordic blood, Angle, Saxon, Dane, Norse, and Norman. In this primitive, dark population with successive layers of blond Nordics imposed upon it, each one more purely Nordic and in the relative absence of round heads lie the secret and the solution of the anthropology of the British Isles.This Iberian sub-stratum was able to absorb to a large extent the earlier Celtic-speaking invaders, both Goidels and Brythons, but it is only just beginning to seriously threaten the later Nordics and to reassert its ancient brunet characters after three thousand years of submergence.
In northwest Scotland there is a Gaelic-speaking area where the place names are all Scandinavian and the physical types purely Nordic. This is the only spot in the British Isles where Celtic speech has reconquered a district from the Teutonic languages and it was the site of one of the conquests of the Norse Vikings, probably in the early centuries of the Christian era. In Caithness in north Scotland, as well as in some isolated spots on the Irish coasts, the language of these same Norse pirates persisted within a century. In the fifth century of our era and after the break-up of Roman domination in Britain there was much racial unrest and a back wave of Goidels crossed from Ireland and either reintroduced or reinforced the Gaelic speech in the highlands. Later, Goidelic speech was gradually driven northward and westward by the intrusive English of the lowlands and was ultimately forced over this originally Norse-speaking area. We have elsewhere in Europe evidence of similar shiftings of speech without any corresponding change in the blood of the population.
Except in the British Isles and in Brittany Celtic languages have left no modern descendants, but have everywhere been replaced by languages of Neo-Latin or of Teutonic origin. Outside of Brittany one of the last, if not quite the last, reference to Celtic speech in Gaul is the historic statement that “Celtic” tribes, as well as “Armoricans”, took part at Chalons in the great victory in 451 A.D. over Attila the Hun and his confederacy of subject nations.
On the continent the only existing populations of Celtic speech are the primitive inhabitants of central Brittany, a population noted for their religious fanaticism and for other characteristics of a backward people. This Celtic speech is claimed to have been introduced about 450-500 A.D. by Britons fleeing from the Saxons. These refugees, if there were any substantial number of them, must have been dolichocephs of either Mediterranean or Nordic race or both. We are asked by this tradition to believe that their long skull was lost, but that their language was adopted by the round-skulled Alpine population of Armorica. It is much more probable that the Cymric-speaking Alpines of Brittany have merely retained in this isolated corner of France a form of Celtic speech which was prevalent throughout northern Gaul and Britain before these provinces were conquered by Rome and Latinised and which, perhaps, was reinforced later by British Cymry. Caesar remarked that there was little difference between the speech of the Belgae in northern Gaul and in Britain. In both cases the speech was Cymric.
Long after the conquest of Gaul by the Goths and Franks, Teutonic speech remained predominant among the ruling classes and, by the time it succumbed to the Latin tongue of the Romanised natives, the old Celtic languages had been entirely forgotten outside of Brittany.
An example of similar changes of language is to be found in Normandy where the country was inhabited by the Nordic Belgae speaking a Cymric language before that tongue was replaced by Latin. This Coast was ravaged about 300 or 400 A.D. by Saxons who formed settlements along both sides of the Channel and the coasts of Brittany which were later known as the Litus Saxonicum. Their progress can best be traced by place names as our historic records of these raids is scanty.
The Normans landed in Normandy in the year 911 A.D. They were heathen, Danish barbarians, speaking a Teutonic tongue. The religion, culture and language of the old Romanised populations worked a miracle in the transformation of everything except blood in one short century. So quick was the change that 155 years later the descendants of the same Normans landed in England as Christian Frenchmen armed with all the culture of their period. The change was startling, but the Norman blood remained unchanged and entered England as a substantially Nordic type.”
“The vigor and power of the Nordic race as a whole is such that it could not have been evolved in so restricted an area as southern Sweden although its Teutonic or Scandinavian section did develop there in comparative isolation. The Nordics must have had a larger field for their specialization and a longer period for their evolution than is afforded by the limited time which has elapsed since Sweden became habitable. For the development of so marked a type there is required a continental area isolated and protected for long ages from the intrusion of other races. The climactic conditions must have been such as to impose a rigid elimination of defectives through the agency of hard winters and the necessity of industry and foresight in providing the year’s food, clothing and shelter during the short summer. Such demands on energy if long continued would produce a strong, virile and self-contained race which would inevitably overwhelm in battle nations whose weaker elements had not been purged by the conditions of an equally severe environment.”
The work hard ethic and thoughtful nature of whites as a whole is obvious when compared to other races. The question is often posed; why has it been whites, most notably from the North-Western region of Europe, who have contributed the most when it comes to industry, entrepreneurship, and statecraft?
Over a century ago, Madison Grant proposed his evolutionary hypothesis, that the Nordic whites, a subspecies of man that evolved wholly in the European region, evolved through natural selection to think ahead and to live in an industrious manner so as to cope with the long and imposing winters of northern climes.
The closer to the equator a subspecies of man developed, the less industrious it seems to be is his culture, or arguably his personal temperament. Madison squarely and bravely argued, back in a time when race and human heredity was still deemed to be a noble academic pursuit, that the Nordic strain (most easily characterised by blonde hair, blue eyes, prominent bridge, long nose, and tall stature) evolved to demonstrate these cultural behaviours. In the same way that skin, eye-colour, and stature moulded to fit the climate, so did individual behaviour. Those who failed to plan ahead, work hard, and sacrifice their self-pleasure for the community, were killed off over a period of many millennia or were unsuccessful at passing forward their genetic blueprint.
Over the next few weeks I will continue to read through Madison’s “The Passing of the Great Race, and on occasion I will share those extracts that give me cause for reflection.