To scare people into the arms of their cause, White Nationalists will frequently claim that "white" people and their "precious" DNA is in danger of "dying out" or "going extinct". To make the situation appear more urgent, they will claim the extinction date is just over the horizon, and will be "irreversible" in 50 or 100 years. Most people don't take their claims seriously (thankfully), but the alarming reality is that an increasing number of people are falling for these lies and few people bother to refute them.
Are light-colored hair genes disappearing?
One of the oldest lies comes from news reports claiming blond and red hair were in imminent danger of "dying out". Although these stories were quickly shown to be a combination of hoax and shoddy reporting, many continue to tout this yellow-haired journalism as truth.
Over the past century, Nordicists and Hollywood have forged a tight bond linking light hair with "whiteness" in Western perception. As a result, these news articles (which began to appear soon after 9/11 and the rise in distrust towards darkly-pigmented people from the so-called "third world") have struck a nerve with many angry "white" people who see the apparent rise of "non-whites" as the source of society's ills. (Interestingly, both blond and red hair can be found in "non-white" ethnic groups (more on this later), meaning these hair colors will not disappear even if "white people" do!)
WNs don't care if these stories are false, because the mere possibility that such a scenario could conceivably take place is enough to scare them. Therefore simply pointing out the inaccuracies in their beliefs is not enough--anti-racists must provide counterarguments of our own against WN propaganda.
***
In 2002, the story broke that people with blond hair would "die out" within 200 years. Most media outlets cited a supposed World Health Organization report, while others referenced an even more vague "study by experts in Germany". Numerous British and US sources ran this story before the World Health Organization decided to inform them that no such study ever existed.[2] In the meantime, it didn't stop people from throwing around the claim with extreme conviction.
On "Good Morning America," Charles Gibson began a conversation with his co-anchor, Diane Sawyer, by saying: "There's a study from the World Health Organization, this is for real, that blonds are an endangered species. Women and men with blond hair, eyebrows and blue eyes, natural blonds, they say will vanish from the face of the earth within 200 years, because it is not as strong a gene as brunets.[3]
(It wouldn't have been complete if they didn't include blue eyes, would it?)
Scary news stories about blonds going "extinct" have been around since at least the 1800s[12] (not to mention more serious propaganda by early-20th-century White Supremacists such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard). It shouldn't come as a surprise that these century-old predictions of imminent "white extinction" turned out to be false. Ironically, most of the 21st century stories included quotes from geneticists and scientists who doubted the claim, yet WNs still try to pass them off as facts...
In early 2006, blonds once again burst into the news. Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost came up with a theory about how blonds became so prevalent in northern and eastern Europe.[6] He theorized that harsh climatic conditions and high death rates among male hunters caused sexual selection to be more intense, leading to proliferation of unique, visually-interesting traits such as light hair. This less sensationalistic story was well-received in HBD circles, while Nordicists were pleased to hear that cold climates apparently killed off the weak and ugly and made their genes "stronger". Some news websites took the opportunity to reprint the earlier extinction story, and bloggers with low reading comprehension were quick to repost the older stories as well.
***
Similar stories about disappearing redheads appeared not long after the original story about blonds. Red hair is even more rare than blond hair, and these reports gave a correspondingly scarier timeframe for its extinction: 100 or even 50 years[17] (coincidentally, the same timeframe that "whites" are supposed to be "outbred" by "non-whites" according to other fearmongering reports...[45][46][47]).
Articles cited a study by the "Oxford Hair Foundation"--which is funded by Procter & Gamble,[22][23] producer of numerous hair dyes. Not surprisingly, many articles were sure to work in a reference to hair dye.[15][34] Perhaps the earlier blond hair hoax was also a ploy to promote hair dye sales?[11] Afterall, the "bottle blond" glorifying films Legally Blonde and Legally Blonde 2 were released in 2001 and 2003, respectively. This BBC article[1], one of the first news outlets to carry the story about blond extinction, makes a point to mention dyed hair.
Like the blond story, redhead extinction was quickly shown to be a hoax.
Puzzlingly, redhead extinction once again became breaking news a few years ago, thanks to claims made by Alistair Moffat (a British man who runs a genetic testing company).[38][39] Moffat suggested redhead extinction would be linked to climate change and sunnier weather conditions along the Atlantic coast of Europe! (In my opinion, this seems even more absurd than the idea redheads will go extinct simply because they are rare). Some have suggested he managed to get free publicity for his company in the past through interviews with a personal friend who worked for BBC Radio.[40] He has also been called out for other misleading claims and lack of rigor in his research.[41][43]
***
Even if these hair color hoaxes were created mainly to sell someone's product, they have nevertheless had the insidious side of affect of making many White Nationalists take a keen interest in biologically heritable traits (especially "white genes", whatever that is supposed to mean). At the same time, many False Leftists sadly downplay the importance of heritable traits... Recognizing that racism itself is a biologically heritable trait[61][62][63][64] (which WNs constantly boast about) would be a formidable weapon in the leftist's arsenal, and it is one any serious anti-racist cannot neglect in this age of genetic discovery. Leftists should not be angry with this conclusion, because it backs up what we have always intuitively known: nature is never inherently fair or just. Natural selection is not a moral force, and the sooner leftists realize this, the sooner they can construct arguments against people who laughably appeal to naturalism and empiricism as a source for morality.
By understanding the very basics of heritable traits and demography, it is easy to completely destroy WN claims that "white genes are disappearing". The reality is just the opposite: today there are more "white people," and almost certainly more blond and red hair genes in the gene pool, than at any point in history!!!
At the start of the 20th century, the world population was around 1.65 billion. It broke 6 billion by the start of the 21st century, and today it is nearly 7.5 billion. For the past half-century, the world's population has been rapidly increasing at a rate of 1 billion every 13 years!
If we imagine the early 20th century Earth as a "cell" of an organism, it would have replicated itself 3 times by now, and be roughly halfway through another round of replication. While population increase has not been uniform across the globe, the population of the UK (where a large proportion of red-haired people live) has more than doubled, and the population of Scandinavia and the Baltic states (where a large proportion blond-haired people live) has more than doubled as well. These hair types have existed just fine for thousands of years (surviving through plagues and an ice age), and considering the genes responsible for these hair colors continue to proliferate, they will not be going anywhere soon.
However, WNs will claim that decreasing birthrates in so-called "white" countries pose a threat to blond and red hair genes; this claim is absurd. Even if birthrates are below replacement level, it will still take a long time for the world's population to decrease back to the level it was in 1900. If the pre-1900 population level of "whites" was enough to organize and orchestrate the colonization and pillaging of over half the globe, we should not take seriously WN claims that below replacement level birthrates will cause a deficiency of "white people" or a catastrophic extinction of hair colors in the near future. (Even if the population does drop this low, history has shown us the shocking power that exponential growth can have on a population. The population has exploded by 6 billion in nearly a single lifetime, and can sadly do so again). In addition, more and more WNs are encouraging "whites" to take up Jewish tribal strategies; if Jews have been able to maintain the relative "purity" of Jewish genes for millennia while being outnumbered by non-Jews, why would numbers alone pose a threat to the existence of "white genes"?
A more pressing issue to anti-racists should be how to keep the proliferation of racist genes below replacement level, until they finally reach extinction.
***
As previously mentioned, blond and red hair are not even exclusive to "white people"! One of the highest concentrations of red hair is actually in the Udmurt people of Russia (who WNs would probably consider "Eurasian" at most). The Udmurtia province in Russia even holds an annual cultural celebration called "Red Festival," named after the prevalence of their red hair.[51][52]
I'm not sure how accurate this map is, but note they would be represented by the cluster on the far right of the map.
Not shown by the map, red hair can be found on the southern Mediterranean coast (notably in the Riffian and Kabyle peoples) all the way to the Fertile Crescent. The Uyghur people of China's Xinjiang region also have notable levels of red hair and light eyes.
Jews (which many WNs do not consider "white") can also have light hair colors. Some would argue that Jews only have light hair due to mixture with "whites," but if this was the case, why have Jews been stereotypically associated with red hair in Western art and literature for centuries? Going further back, Jews such as David and Esau are described by the Hebrew Bible as having red hair.
Intriguingly, the ancient people inhabiting the region north of the Black Sea, such as the Scythians and Sarmatians were reported as having high frequencies of red and fair hair by ancient writers such as Herodotus, Polemon, Galen, and Callimachus. Irish and Scottish folklore and writings from the 11th to 14th centuries (including the Declaration of Arbroath) claim the Scythians as ancestors. Although these claims may be pure myth, it is very interesting that the Scottish and Irish today have the highest concentrations of red hair outside of the Udmurts!
According to Udmurt legends, the Udmurts are descended from the Budini, a nomadic group described by Herodotus as having "deep blue eyes, and bright red hair." They inhabited the same area as the Scythians. Khazarian Jews who lived in this area centuries later would no doubt have been related to their fellow steppe-dwelling groups, and also shared red hair. Perhaps this is why red hair has been strongly associated with Jews in many European cultures? 19th century promoter of British Israelism, John Wilson, even believed both Anglo-Saxons and the 'ten Lost Tribes of Israel' were descendants of the Scythians!
White Supremacists who don't believe in Scythian origins or British Israelism nevertheless think of themselves as the "chosen people" superior to everyone else. (And if that was not enough, the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who many believe to be the main ancestor of "white people", inhabited this exact same area north of the Black Sea before their dispersion! Maybe Jews and WNs share a common ancestor after all, albeit a much older one?)
Some WNs push the claim that Genghis Khan had red hair and green eyes (thereby demonstrating his supposed "white" heritage). This is attributed to a statement allegedly made by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani (a Jew from Persia) in the Compendium of Chronicles, written over 75 years after Genghis Khan's death. If anything, this actually provides more evidence that red hair was common in nomadic people throughout the Turanian steppe!
Red hair even existed among Neanderthals, although this was caused by a different mutation than the one responsible for red hair in humans. Some WNs openly boast about having Neanderthal heritage however, so perhaps they consider Neanderthals to be "white"?
***
In addition to being found in most of the red-haired groups mentioned above, blond hair reaches high levels in Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. Around 10% of Solomon Islanders are blond, with 26% of the population carrying the blond hair gene.[59][60] In some populations of Australian Aborigines, blond hair is found in over 90% of children,[56] but occasionally darkens with age (which also happens in blonds of European heritage). Laughably, blond hair in Aborigines was often attributed to "white sailors" before the advent of genetic studies.
There are also numerous photos of people, who appear to be non-albino, from southeast Asia with light hair and eyes (among the Hmong ethnic group in particular). There are many historic and modern anecdotes supporting the existence of light hair among the Hmong, but scientific studies seem to be lacking. It is likely that genetic studies will continue to illuminate the genetic origins of light hair worldwide in the coming decades.
***
While light hair in some of these ethnic groups is caused by different mutations than those responsible for light hair in people of northwestern European heritage, it is light hair just the same. WNs, who claim they aren't racist because they are merely concerned with genes that cause rare hair colors, demonstrably care less about "non-whites" (regardless of their hair color), and should be called out on their lie.
Most importantly, however, is the idea that genes which cause light hair don't "belong" to "whites" or any ethnic group--they aren't even unique to humans as a species. Like all of our genetic code, hair color alleles were caused by random mutations. They appeared in various populations around the globe due to chance, and it is possible that an identical mutation could arise in any ethnic group in the future (not to mention countless non-identical mutations which would result in a similar phenotype). And there is certainly no reason why the light hair alleles which currently exist today can't be transmitted across ethnic groups (in fact, this process has already been occurring for centuries, if not millennia).
Hair color has no bearing on an individual's morality, and is only a minor contributor to an individual's overall look (face shape and body type are immeasurably more important). WNs don't care about the survival of a hair color in itself; they only care about the survival of their tribe--and that is immoral.
Missing White Woman Syndrome
One of the more annoying fearmongering claims by WNs is that "non-white" men are "stealing 'white' women"! This argument certainly strikes a chord with testosterone-filled and sexually-frustrated young men. Indeed, what is more threatening to the survival of the "white race" than the loss of reproductive prowess among the men and lack of interest among the women to be broodmares? If "blond genes" are too boring and impersonal to rouse a response, insulting a football hooligan's virility will be sure to get his attention! (Afterall, there's a reason "manhood" has become synonymous with male genitalia.)
When we examine this claim we find that, like the hair color hoax, it has been around for a while. It dates back to post-WWII concerns that immigrants from formerly colonized nations would immigrate to the colonizer nation and reproduce with non-immigrants (sound familiar?).
Strangely, WNs don't seem to care as much about the reverse scenario--males from colonizer nations reproducing with women from colonized nations and ethnic groups--which pre-WWII anthropologists and White Supremacists alike agreed was more prevalent at the time!
"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 verying 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 effect 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." -Madison Grant[69]
Cartoons mocking the colonizers' apparent lust for their colonial subjects was even a common theme pre-WWII.
***
The proper way to shut a WN up is to ask them what is wrong with letting individuals choose who to fall in love with. Surely there are plenty of "white" people even the most hardcore WN would not be able to fall in love with. Whether it is because the other individual is ugly; good-looking, but of an aesthetic archetype they don't personally find attractive (e.g. if the individual is ectomorphic instead of mesomorphic, or Oval-faced instead of Square, etc.); or most importantly, if their personality is incompatible. And surely all of us know of someone (whether we were attracted to them or not) who caused us to recoil in disgust as soon as they opened their mouth and let their vile personality be known.
WNs must love the phrase "beauty is only skin deep," because it reinforces their worldview. Unfortunately, many False Leftists have used the sentiment behind this phrase in an attempt to demonstrate the supposed "equality" of humans (while dishonorably ignoring how unequal people's non-fleshy features are, such as the ability to express compassion and empathy--which racists lack), as well as trying to raise the spirits of people who have low self-esteem due to how they perceive their body (while ignoring the much more inspirational message that our personality is a much stronger source of beauty, individuality, and confidence).
In short: beauty is not skin deep, and physical beauty consists of so much more than our skin.
Of a person's visual appearance, skin color is only one of many different factors. Face shape, body shape, height, and weight, for example, all undoubtedly affect a person's "look" more than their pigmentation. To test this we can ask ourselves: do people become unrecognizable after they get a tan, or sunburned? (Or appear in a black-and-white photo?) Do people become unrecognizable after they dye their hair or get gray hair as they age? (Or go bald or shave their head?) Hardly. However, if someone changes their body shape or face shape, in many cases they truly do look like a completely different person!
***
While anti-racists should always present our own counterarguments (such as the above) rather than simply countering the statements WNs make, WNs will attempt to deflect the counterarguments and circle back to their original point. So to put the issue to rest, do so-called "non-white" men really have a preference for so-called "white" women?
As stated previously, the idea that the reproductive choices of "non-white" men are a threat to the "purity of the 'white' race" was pre-dated by the reverse concern. For centuries, it was "white" men's reproductive choices which were seen as the "problem" (e.g. fur traders in North America taking Native American wives, Conquistadors in South America plundering native women, male slave owners raping their slaves, and even in post-WWII times many US soldiers had wives of Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese heritage due to being stationed overseas).
Some modern studies show that this trend might actually continue to hold true today! Analyses done by dating websites have shown that "white" women tend to have low interest in "non-white" men, while "white" men tend to have higher interest in "non-white" women.
For example, analysis of a Facebook dating app called "Are You Interested" found "[a]ll men except Asians preferred Asian women, while all except black women preferred white men. And both black men and black women got the lowest response rates for their respective genders. Perhaps most surprising is that among men, all racial groups preferred another race over their own."[65]
OkCupid found that "white" men get more frequent responses from women of all ethnic groups and "White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else—and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively." According to the responses to a survey question, over 50% of "white" women "strongly preferred" to date someone of their own skin color; this was the only gender/ethnic group combination that answered over 50% to this question. Paradoxically, over 90% of all users who answered a survey question about "interracial marriage" thought it was acceptable.66 (These survey questions are voluntary and likely to suffer from sampling problems, but the response rate study is more reliable).
The OkCupid study also looked at the site DateHookup, which has a separate userbase. They found a similar trend: "white" men preferred "Asian" and "Latina" women more than "white" women, and "white" women most strongly preferred "white" men.[67]
While these aren't exhaustive scientific studies, it nevertheless shows that the WN's argument has little substance to begin with.
Marriage data from the US census also proves them wrong, and since the US is much more diverse than other so-called "white majority" countries, the numbers of inter-ethnic marriages are likely far higher.
The takeaway point of this section is that love transcends ethnic boundaries--and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Can we finally put the issue to rest?
Will "whites" be "mixed" out of existence?
WNs will often say "white" countries will become ethnically mixed "beyond repair" like New World countries such as Brazil (while comically ignoring that Western colonialists who believed in the superiority of "whites" were responsible for bringing "blacks" to the New World as slaves in the first place. Moreover, if "whites" did not willingly mix, well, there would be no "mixed" people in the first place). Since WNs can seldom see past skin color, it is fun to point out to them that even if Brazil was completely inhabited by light-skinned people, they would gradually evolve darker skin over time. This is because South America and the bulk of the inhabited area of North America have higher levels of UV exposure than northern Europe!
Although we have previously established that "extinction" claims are unfounded, it does seem likely that inter-ethnic relationships are more common today than they were a few centuries ago. Could inter-ethnic mixing really pose a threat to "white genes" and "white people"? Going off of the WN's false claim that "non-whites" and people of mixed heritage prefer reproducing with "whites" (in other words, if "white genes" have a positive advantage to reproductive fitness), natural selection will actually favor "white genes" and the proportion of "non-white genes" in the gene pool will gradually decrease.
Let us attempt to visualize this. Our genetic material is passed on in the form of chromosomes. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs (with one set inherited from the mother and one set from the father), but to simplify things I have reduced the image to 3 pairs. (This simple model also ignores mutations, crossing over, and other intricate things). Assuming that "pure white" and "pure non-white" genes exist (they don't, by the way), the first generation of offspring will have 50% "white" and 50% "non-white" genes. The proportion of total "white" and "non-white" genes in the gene pool will not change!
Assuming this mixed heritage individual will then have a preference to reproduce with a "pure white" person as WNs claim, there is a minute chance the offspring will actually end up with 100% "white" genes! There is also a minute, and equally-likely, chance that the offspring will have 50% "white" and 50% "non-white" genes. In the latter case the proportion of "white" and "non-white" genes in the gene pool will not change; in all other cases, the proportion of "white" genes will increase!!!
***
Madison Grant even gives us a historic example of ethnic mixing which results in the "non-white" group being absorbed into the "white" population with no negative results--unwittingly rendering the concern in his earlier quote moot!
"The mania of the Turks for white women, which is said to have been one of the motives that led to the conquest of the Byzantine Empire, has unconsciously resulted in the obliteration of the Mongoloid type of the original Asiatic invaders. Persistent crossing with Circassian and Georgian women, as well as with slaves of every race in Asia Minor and in Europe with whom they came in contact, has made the European Turk of to-day indistinguishable in physical characters from his Christian neighbors." -Madison Grant[69]
(It seems that the White Supremacist fixation on "white women" being taken en masse by "non-whites" dates back to at least the Ottoman invasions, and I think it is no coincidence that this same idea is especially prevalent among Islamophobic WNs of Europe today!)
During the 1700s-1800s, the Circassian ethnic group (especially the women) and Georgians were considered to be the pinnacle of the "white race". The name "Caucasian race" is actually an explicit reference to the fact that these groups inhabited the Caucasus region. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, who coined the term "Caucasian race," believed Adam and Eve were "whites" from Georgia and that all other racial groups were but mere unhealthy and degenerated versions of it.
"I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones of mankind." -Johann Friedrich Blumenbach[70][71]
No doubt White Supremacists of the time would have been outraged that the "purest" form of the "white race" was being "mongrelized" by "non-white Ottoman invaders". In modern times, (thanks to a century of Nordicist propaganda via Grant and others) many WNs believe blond and light-pigmented Scandinavians are the "purest" form of the "white race"--and it is no coincidence that Scandinavians have been targeted heavily by WN propaganda due to their selfless support of immigrants and refugees.
While Grant rejected the term "Caucasian" and believed "Nordics" were the purest "whites," he nevertheless would have been keenly aware that many of his contemporaries would have placed the same value on "Circassian racial purity" as he placed on "Nordic racial purity." His admission that no major decline in "purity" occurred among them should be a supreme example of the bias and falsehood present in WN worries that "whites" will be "mongrelized". (By the way, Europeans are already "mongrels"--being mixtures of at least three very distinct lineages*).
(As an aside, perhaps "Caucasian" racial theories and Circassian fetishism are the result of Proto-Indo-European blood memory (see the light hair hoax section)? Also, many Judeo-Christians believe Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat in Turkey, which is directly south of the Caucasus Mountain Range.)
* These lineages do not correspond to Grant's classification of three major "white" groups in Europe, but even his classification scheme acknowledges "whites" have been heavily mixed since prehistory! The three lineages in the link do, however, correspond to the hunter, herder, and farmer archetypes theorized by 21st century Aryanists.
***
Earlier in his book, Grant voiced the following concern (again, note the similarities with modern WN propaganda):
"The result of unlimited immigration is showing plainly in the rapid decline in the birth rate of native [i.e. "white Anglo-Saxon"] Americans because the poorer classes of Colonial stock, where they still exist, will not bring children into the world to compete in the labor 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 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 home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race." -Madison Grant[69]
I think most Americans today would agree that having a Slovak, Italian, or Syrian ancestor does not detract from one's ability to be an upstanding American. Half a century before Grant, nativist groups did not even consider the Irish to be "white"... (Grant considers them to be inferior to the "Anglo-Saxon Nordic," but does not go so far as to deny them the privilege of being "white"). Even most WNs would think such a thing is ridiculous!
Over the past two centuries, countless "non-white" individuals of Irish heritage have reproduced with Americans of so-called "white" ethnic background. Today, the Irish are one of the largest ancestral groups in the US and no one cares about the supposed "impurity" of their descendants. Perhaps it is because inter-ethnic mixture doesn't affect the quality of an individual?
***
While traits like darker pigmentation may appear to be expressed in a dominant (rather than recessive) manner (which is not even accurate), the non-expressed recessive genes do not "disappear"; they remain in the gene pool and can be passed down, and possibly expressed, in the next generation. This is the reason why it is possible for people of mixed ethnic backgrounds to have light hair and eye colors.
Assuming the hypothetical 50-50 mixed individual chooses to reproduce with a 100% "non-white" person (which would be contrary to WN reasoning that "whites" are the preferred 'breeding stock'), there will still be more total "white" genes in the gene pool than if the first generation "pure non-white" person had reproduced with another "pure non-white" person (as WNs would recommend they do instead of reproducing with "whites").
Since WNs have difficulty understanding how recessive genes work and most believe that a single drop of "non-white" ancestry disqualifies someone from being "white," the argument above probably won't faze them. Anti-racists should then demand WNs explain how the "white race" could possibly be threatened with extinction or being "mongrelized out of existence" when there are more "white" people alive today than at any point in history. It's certainly difficult to provide evidence of a "white genocide" when the numbers of "white" people continue to increase.
And as I have mentioned before, many WNs advocate imitating Jewish tribal strategies. Being outnumbered did not pose a threat to the Jews--it actually strengthened their tribal identity and selected for genes which were beneficial to the survival of "Jewishness" (because individuals of Jewish heritage with a weak tribal identity who were willing to be assimilated into their host cultures would cease to contribute to the Jewish genepool). And not only have Jews been able to survive--they have been able to thrive. Jews have been able to become disproportionately represented in the fields of science, finance, art, politics, etc. in nearly all the nations they inhabit. They have even been able to strongarm an ethnostate for themselves (Israel), which has been influential enough to make the West turn a blind eye to the fact that it is an apartheid state practicing ethnic cleansing. (It even got the US to overturn the UN declaration that Zionism is racism--which was originally passed by a vote of 72-35 in 1975).
If they can do all that as a tiny minority, organized WNs can too. This should be a wakeup call to anti-racists about how serious the threat from biologically heritable forms of racism is. If racism is both immoral and purely a result of education/cultural upbringing (as False Leftists believe), then why did racist culture not only develop, but proliferate, in the first place? Indeed, racist belief systems have developed (and found acceptance!) in essentially every nation and ethnicity on Earth, and have existed for as long as mankind itself. Racism appears to be a more innate or instinctual trait than counting (not all cultures developed base 10 counting systems)!
But even in cultures thoroughly dominated by racism, some brave resplendent individuals have been, and remain, willing to stand up against it. Why did racist indoctrination fail to affect them, and how could their compassion be so pure, unless their noble spirit was some innate, biological, trait?
Conclusion
While the points above may help counter existing WN arguments, they are sure to come up with countless more in the future. One of the best ways for anti-racists to help ensure the extinction of White Supremacists' arguments is to STOP USING EUROCENTRIC TERMINOLOGY. By using terms such as "People of Color," conflating the (obsolete Cold War term) "Third World" with ethnic groups, and using the term "ethnic minority" as a synonym of "non-white", the White Nationalist worldview becomes REINFORCED AND NORMALIZED.
White Nationalists see the world as a struggle between "whites" and the "non-whites". False Leftists claim to be disgusted by tribalism and racism, but by embracing identity politics, they only divide people and provide an atmosphere in which divisive attitudes can continue to flourish.
This is not anti-colonialism. By continuing to use Eurocentric terms, you remain on their chessboard; refuse to play their game. If you wish to sincerely "decolonize your mind," you must stop thinking in Eurocentric terms and using colonialist language. Only use conventional "racial" terms like "white" and "black" when referring to them in a skeptical manner, always include quotations around them to make clear your distaste for them, and never identify yourself or others by these words in casual conversation.
Hatred of tribalism and love of justice transcends ethnic, gender, religious, class, and national boundaries. Nations may no longer be partitioned by colonial powers, but mainstream thinking still is. It is time to put a stop to it--UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY will defeat divide and conquer tactics. By encouraging non-racist, pale-skinned people of European heritage to think of themselves as something else besides "white," WNs will have an infinitely more difficult time arousing sympathy for their cause. No longer will average pale-skinned people feel put on the defensive by aggressively divisive False Leftists, and no longer will they see an implicit ally in WNs who claim to represent their interests. By encouraging citizens of all ethnic groups to unite and think of themselves as a single folk joined by a higher purpose (i.e. the result of integration, as opposed to mere assimilation), WNs will be unable to continue their fearmongering. This is because appeals to "fellow Americans" and "fellow Germans" will no longer be appeals to the "white majority"--they will be appeals to a united citizenry of all ethnic backgrounds, who will find the WN's divisive spirit totally alien.
Contrary to what racists say, the Aryan race transcends skin color and ethnic boundaries. Anyone with a noble heart who refuses to tolerate the exploitation of others is an Aryan (regardless of what you look like!). Perhaps you are one of us?
Annotated Bibliography
This section is mostly dedicated to research on the blond and red hair hoaxes. References are generally listed in chronological order.
Sub-section 1. Articles primarily referring to the blond hair extinction hoax.
[1] BBC (September 27, 2002). "Blondes 'to die out in 200 years'".
"The last natural blondes will die out within 200 years, scientists believe.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2284783.stm
A study by experts in Germany suggests people with blonde hair are an endangered species and will become extinct by 2202."
[2] World Health Organization (October 1, 2002). "Clarification of erroneous news reports indicating WHO genetic research on hair colour".
https://web.archive.org/web/20090611055551/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/statement05/en/
[3] Lawrence K. Altman (October 2, 2002). "Stop Those Presses! Blonds, It Seems, Will Survive After All". New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/02/world/stop-those-presses-blonds-it-seems-will-survive-after-all.html
[4] Chidanand Rajghatta (October 3, 2002). "Blondes extinction report is pigment of imagination". Times of India.
"There were suggestions that the story originated from a two-year-old article in the German women's magazine Allegra, which cited a "WHO anthropologist," who it turns out might not have existed at all."https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/Blondes-extinction-report-is-pigment-of-imagination/articleshow/24050023.cms
[5] Patrick Boyle (2005). "Science and Medicine". The Hoax Project. Phillip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland.
(References blond extinction articles from 2002 by BBC (cited above), NBC-10, Reuters, and The Washington Post.)
https://jclass.umd.edu/archive/newshoax/casestudies/scimed/scisum.html
[6] Peter Frost. "European hair and eye color; A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?". Evolution and Human Behavior (March 2006), Volume 27, Issue 2, pages 85-103.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513805000590
[7] Roger Dobson and Abul Taher (February 26, 2006). "Corrected-Cavegirls were first blondes to have fun". The Sunday Times.
(The correction to this article removed a reference to the non-existent WHO report.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20070206034450/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article735078.ece
[8] Tahira Yaqoob (February 27, 2006). "Proof that cavemen preferred blondes too". Daily Mail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100726080907/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-378390/Proof-cavemen-preferred-blondes-too.html
[9] Translated by James Platt (March 1, 2006). "Blonde women will die out in 200 years". Pravda Report, via Utro.
(Recycled version of the 2002 story.)
https://english.pravda.ru/society/76715-blonde/
[10] The Museum of Hoaxes (February 27, 2006). "The Disappearing Blonde Gene".
https://web.archive.org/web/20170620103642/https://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/the_disappearing_blonde_gene
[11] Bo Emerson (April 12, 2006). "Light-colored hair can be golden for women". Chicago Tribune, via Cox News Service.
"Created by brassy, bottle-blond Shirley Polykoff, the ads made sales explode. In 1956 only 7 percent of American women colored their hair; within a few years the figure jumped to more than 50 percent, where it remains today.(The article also references Frost's research and the 2002 BBC blond article.)
...
While the sun isn't setting, it's twilight -- or at least late afternoon -- for the golden goddess.
One bit of evidence: Sales are dropping. Clairol's most popular shade in 2001 was Nice 'n Easy No. 98, Natural Extra Light Blonde, and blond shades made up 40 percent of Clairol's sales. Last year brown shades predominated, accounting for 43 percent of sales; 33 percent of sales were blond shades."
https://web.archive.org/web/20171206011352/http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-04-12/features/0604120014_1_clairol-natalia-ilyin-blonde-myth
[12] David Mikkelson (last updated August 1, 2013). "Gone Blonde. Are natural blondes likely to be extinct within 200 years?". Snopes.
(The article finds similar blond hoax stories from 1865, 1890, 1906, and 1961.)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gone-blonde/
Sub-section 2. Articles primarily referring to the red hair extinction hoax.
[13] Pravin Shar (April 8, 2003). "Red alert for redheads!". Daily Mail.
"Ginger-haired people could face extinction within 100 years as the world's races mingle because of migration, say scientists.https://web.archive.org/web/20110208170619/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-202204/Red-alert-redheads.html
Blondes are also likely to be consigned to the genetic dustbin of history but at a slower rate, because there are more of them.
...
As communities become multiracial, the chances of both parents having the genes becomes tiny."
[14] Robin L. Flanigan (May 9, 2005). "Will rare redheads be extinct by 2100?". The Seattle Times.
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/will-rare-redheads-be-extinct-by-2100/
[15] Daily Mirror. "Why Red Is The New Blonde". Reposted on The Fahsion Spot forum (January 12, 2005).
"WHILE more people than ever are "dyeing" to become redheads, the natural breed is dying out fast.https://forums.thefashionspot.com/threads/why-red-is-the-new-blonde.67025/#post-13740091
...
Dr John Gray of the Oxford Hair Foundation says: "The way things are going, red hair will either be extremely rare or extinct."
...
Meanwhile, the red hair-dye industry is booming, especially in Asia and Latin America. Sales in Mexico went up 21 per cent last year, and 1lb of red hair dye is sold annually in Japan for every woman aged over 15. Among Korean 20-somethings, nearly eight out of 10 have dyed their hair red, says the Korea Times."
[16] Nicholas Kittel (reporter, online story) and David Kilby (presenter) (January 15, 2007). "Redheads not disappearing: Assoc. Prof.". ABC Canberra.
"Prof. Sturm said that the Oxford Hair Foundation study does not seem to have the facts to support the claim that the gene responsible for red hair is disappearing.https://web.archive.org/web/20070402103223/http://www.abc.net.au/canberra/stories/s1827248.htm
"I've answered these sorts of questions before, they've said that the blondes are dying out as well and I don't see any evidence of that.""
[17] Daily Mail (August 20, 2007). "Redheads 'could be extinct in 100 years'".
"The current National Geographic magazine reports that less than 2 per cent of the world's population has natural red hair...https://web.archive.org/web/20110120013503/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-476430/Redheads-extinct-100-years.html
...
Some experts warn they could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning."
[18] The Courier-Mail (August 22, 2007). "Redheads set for extinction".
(Article is 404'd.)
www.couriermail.com.au/news/redheads-set-for-extinction/story-e6frer4f-1111114244210
[19] Razib Khan (August 25, 2007). "Red hair going extinct???". Discover Magazine.
"Every few years it seems that a new meme declares that “blondes will go extinct!” or that “red hair will go extinct!” I’ve only been blogging for 5 years, and this story has already cycled multiple times.https://web.archive.org/web/20111124162956/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/08/red-hair-going-extinct/
...
I am very skeptical that the National Geographic Magazine article, if it exists, presented a detailed demographic model so that one could posit that red hair became “extinct” at a particular date. In fact, I strongly suspect that anyone who says that red hair (or blonde hair) is going extinct is in need of a few envelopes or napkins to do some basic algebra, or at least stipulate what low proportion is “close enough” for them to consider a trait “extinct.” Finally, as I noted last year, part of the appeal of the stories is probably the disquiet of white people at the “passing of the great race.” The reality is that I don’t think that the white race is going away anytime soon, but surely a non-trivial proportion of whites are concerned at some level that the colored folk are swallowing them up, and the blonde and red hair stories are simply subtle manifestations of that. These traits are after all amongst the most distinctive of the northern European peoples, and so they can be emblematic of the threat posed by declining birth rates and miscegenation."
[20] Razib Khan (August 25, 2007). "Update on redhead "hoax"". Discovery Magazine.
"The current source is National Geographic Magazine, which doesn’t have the “article” online. I went to the bookstore and checked out the September 2007 issue, and a write up does exist about the redheads going extinct. Unlike the secondary sources it isn’t as sensationalist, and makes more than a passing nod to the Hardy-Weinberg logic from which the inference is derived.https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/update-on-redhead-hoax
That being said, the write up in National Geographic Magazine simply recycles older versions of this story which emerged a few years ago, and doesn’t add any new “data” or analysis."
[21] Jacob Silverman (September 9, 2007). "Are redheads going extinct?". HowStuffWorks.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/redhead-extinction.htm
[22] Dr. Karl S. Kruszelnicki (November 25, 2008). "Redheads' 'extinction' explanation splitting hairs". ABC Science.
"It's strange how the mere whiff of a little authority can turn something that is quite silly into something that people believe.(The article also reports that the Oxford Hair Foundation website redirected to the "Procter and Gamble Beauty Science homepage".)
...
In truth, the whole story was a complete furphy, and many people in the news media were conned. But these people were conned only because they didn't do their basic phone-calling and fact checking.
...
Recessive genes don't automatically vanish. For example, about one in 70 white Caucasians carries the recessive gene for cystic fibrosis, which used to lead to a very short life expectancy — and yet this recessive gene still survives.
...
We now know a little about the transmission of eye colour, and are just beginning to understand the transmission of hair colour. For example, it was only in the late 1990s that we found the first gene involved in red hair."
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/25/2428904.htm
[23] Proctor & Gamble (2008). The P&G Network. (Page archived with the Internet Archive Wayback Machine February 16, 2008).
"This is a links page to some of the most popular Procter & Gamble Web sites."(It lists Oxford Hair Foundation, but the Foundation's website appears to have been since been bought by someone else and is now used as a non-English-language blog-type thing.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20080216065724/http://www.pg.com/links/rosetta.html
[24] Patricia McNamee Rosenberg (February 2009). "Requiem for the Redhead; The next great extinction—Carrot Tops". Smithsonian Magazine.
(Relatively informal article; mentions P&G funds the Oxford Hair Foundation.)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/requiem-for-the-redhead-44791525/?no-ist
[25] Katy Hall (April 14, 2009). "Redhead race against the evolutionary clock". Columbia News Service. JSCMS.
(Also references P&G and the dubious nature of extinction.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20100122204929/http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2009-04-14/hall-redheads.html
[26] Auslan Cramb (August 24, 2013). "Edinburgh is surprise capital of redheaded Britain and Ireland". The Telegraph.
"AT a time when “ginger pride” is a growing phenomenon, redheads everywhere may be delighted to learn that almost a third of the population of Britain and Ireland carry red haired genes.(The article quotes Alistair Moffat extensively and links to his company, BritainsDNA.)
...
The research was published on August 24 to coincide with the launch of the Irish Redhead Convention in Crosshaven, County Cork, which comes a week after a “ginger pride” march in Edinburgh and will be followed by a redhead convention in Breda, Holland, next weekend."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/10264427/Edinburgh-is-surprise-capital-of-redheaded-Britain-and-Ireland.html
[27] BritainsDNA (August 27, 2013). "BritainsDNA Announces the Results of the Red-Head Project".
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701140239/https://www.britainsdna.com/files/press-release/Press%20Release:%20BritainsDNA%20announces%20the%20results%20of%20the%20Red-Head%20Project%20[BritainsDNA%2027-08-2013].pdf
[28] BritainsDNA. "Press Releases". (Page archived with the Internet Archive Wayback Machine September 29, 2013).
https://web.archive.org/web/20130929030451/https://www.britainsdna.com/about/press-releases
[29] BritainsDNA. "Our BritainsDNA Team".
(The page states the company was founded in April 2012. Not long after, the media decided to push the tired trope of hair extinction into the headlines once again...)
https://web.archive.org/web/20150511055909/https://www.britainsdna.com/about/our-team
[30] International Society of Genetic Genealogy Wiki (page last modified November 25, 2018). "BritainsDNA".
https://isogg.org/wiki/BritainsDNA
[31] TheJournal.ie (October 28, 2013). "Debunked: Are redheads, gingers, and strawberry blondes going extinct?".
"Dr Anne Parle-McDermott...explained to TheJournal.ie that people tend to assume that because a gene is recessive, it’s likely to die out.https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-red-head-hair-ginger-extinct-dying-out-1147309-Oct2013/
However, this is not how genes work.
...
Either every redhead would have to not reproduce for them to die out, or, as Dr Parle-McDermott explained...:
"Unless there is some disadvantage in the environment we’re living in, they won’t be selection against the MC1R gene.""
[32] Scotland Now (July 5, 2014, updated July 7, 2014). "Gingers could become extinct due to increasingly sunny skies in Scotland, say experts".
(References Alistair Moffat, who links the decline of redheads with climate change.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140828030647/http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/gingers-could-become-extinct-due-3809752
[33] Daily Record (July 5, 2014, updated August 21, 2014). "In pictures: Climate change could make red hair a thing of the past if Scotland gets sunnier".
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/climate-change-could-make-red-3814089
[34] Mariel Reed (July 7, 2014). "Could Redheads Become Extinct?". Marie Claire.
"Everyone seems to be going red these days. Thanks to the likes of Jessica Chastain, Julianne Moore and Christina Hendricks, those fiery shades have become so coveted, non-redheads like Rachel McAdams, Blake Lively and Sienna Miller have followed suit by dyeing their strands varying hues of red.https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/beauty-news/red-hair-is-effected-by-climate-change-62696#index=1
But what if natural redheads no longer existed and we all had to stick to bottled shades?"
[35] Tom Chivers (July 8, 2014). "No, climate change isn't going to make gingers extinct". The Telegraph.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329084400/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100279151/no-climate-change-isnt-going-to-make-gingers-extinct/
[36] The Museum of Hoaxes (July 9, 2014). "The Disappearing Redhead Gene".
https://web.archive.org/web/20150311035108/http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/disappearing_redheads
[37] The Guardian (July 9, 2014, amended July 16, 2014). "Redheads are here to stay, despite what you may have heard".
"This article was amended on 16 July 2014 to remove a line which said Dr Alistair Moffat, managing director of ScotlandsDNA, reckoned red hair was on its way out. His BritainsDNA team, which has been studying the frequency of red hair gene variants, has no historic data and therefore no evidence to suggest that red hair is dying out because of climate change. We were rather premature in awarding him a doctorate."https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/shortcuts/2014/jul/09/redheads-climate-change-extinction-hair-gene-auburn
[38] Adam Rutherford (July 10, 2014). "Relax, redheads. You're not about to die out". The Guardian.
"Redheads, rest easy: your chances of climate change-induced extinction are identical to those of people with less exhilarating hair colour. This seemingly obvious fact will no doubt drown in the current deluge of coverage declaring that gingers are genetically doomed. The source? A company that sells genetic ancestry testing.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/10/redheads-die-out-extinction-ginger-gene-bad-science-red-hair
...
Now, if this were a hair commercial, I would move on by saying "that was the science bit". In fact, this whole tedious saga is just an advertisement – and science by press release. Finding out your redhead genetic status is merely a £25 add-on to one of the genetic ancestry packages from ScotlandsDNA. The company's chief executive, Alistair Moffat, is the source of this latest septic wave of genetic astrology. Moffat is the rector of St Andrews University. I can find no evidence that he has any qualifications in genetics, though this has not deterred him from frequent assertions about the subject."
[39] Martin Robbins (July 10, 2014). "Gingers Are Not Being Wiped Out by Climate Change". Vice.
"Instead, the story appears to be based entirely on the conjecture of Dr. Alistair Moffat, MD, of a Scottish consumer DNA-testing company called “ScottishDNA.” It isn’t even published as a press release on their website, let alone in an actual study."https://www.vice.com/en/article/av4n94/gingers-are-not-being-wiped-out-by-climate-change-682
[40] Molecular and Culture Evolution Lab, University College London (UCL). "BritainsDNA saga".
"On 9th July 2012 Jim Naughtie invited his friend Alistair Moffat, the managing director of BritainsDNA, onto BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Like Naughtie's previous interviews of Moffat (March-2011 and June-2011), the interview had little content of any scientific merit, included many errors and gave a misleading impression that Moffat's genetic ancestry business was a disinterested research study."(Moffat has received criticism for more than just his work on redheads.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20150227110210/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/
[41] Molecular and Culture Evolution Lab, University College London (UCL). "Why have we created this website?".
"3) The for-profit status of BritainsDNA was never revealed by the press and the BBC, who only described it as "research" or a "project", thus disguising its commercial nature. Crucially none of the "research" appears to have gone through the scientific process of peer review. We hope to make editors more aware of the dangers of covert advertising masquerading as science of public interest.https://web.archive.org/web/20150227110218/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/why
(4) We believe it is important that scientists are transparent about apparent conflicts between commercial and academic interests..."
[42] Molecular and Culture Evolution Lab, University College London (UCL). "Debunking Genetic Astrology".
https://web.archive.org/web/20150211211151/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking
[43] Jonathan Bucks (March 7, 2013). "Rector assessed: Moffat blasted over “laughable” scientific claims". The Saint.
"Members of the scientific community have rounded on Alistair Moffat, St Andrews’ Rector, after he claimed that his company, BritainsDNA, had discovered the grandson of Eve and nine descendants of the Queen of Sheba.https://web.archive.org/web/20140710015822/http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/03/rector-assessed-moffat-blasted-over-laughable-scientific-claims/
Speaking to The Saint, Professor David Balding and Dr Vincent Plagnol, both statistical geneticists at University College London, said they were stunned by Mr Moffat’s claims. “It’s laughable how wrong it is. The guy has such an utter confidence in what he says. He seems to be able to state things as if they have to be true,” Dr Plagnol said.
...
Professor Balding suggested that Mr Moffat had prioritised his own commercial interests. “This is just a strategy to get a lot of stories in the press and direct people towards their website and their business,” he said."
[44] Debbie Kennett (March 6, 2014). "Alistair Moffat, BritainsDNA and the BBC - a "uniquely British farce"". Cruwys news.
https://cruwys.blogspot.com/2014/03/alistair-moffat-britainsdna-and-bbc.html
Sub-section 3. Articles primarily referring to the "'white genes' going extinct" hoax.
[45] Anthony Browne (September 3, 2000). "The last days of a white world". The Guardian.
"the US Census Bureau predicts they will become a minority between 2055 and 2060."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
[46] Anthony Browne (September 3, 2000). "UK whites will be minority by 2100". The Guardian.
"Analysis of official figures indicate that, at current fertility rates and levels of immigration, there will be more non-whites than whites by 2100.https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world1
It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease. Whites will be a minority in London by 2010."
[47] Bootie Cosgrove-Mather (March 17, 2004) "America's Face Is Changing". CBS News, via AP
"For as long as the United States has been in existence, whites have been a clear majority. But according to Census Bureau projections, that's a story that is changing: by the year 2050, minority groups are expected to account for 49.9 percent of the population."https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-face-is-changing/
[48] Adriana Garcia (February 12, 2008). "Whites to become minority in U.S. by 2050". Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-population-immigration-idUSN1110177520080212
[49] Tim Shipman (November 18, 2010). "By 2066, white Britons 'will be outnumbered' if immigration continues at current rates". Daily Mail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101201170151/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330734/White-Britons-outnumbered-2066-immigration-continues.html
[50] NPR (June 27, 2011). "US Will Have Minority Whites Sooner, Says Demographer".
"...demographer and research professor William Frey of the University of Michigan about what the trend means, and whether predictions that the U.S. will become a "minority majority" by 2050 are too conservative."https://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137448906/us-will-have-minority-whites-sooner-says-demographer
Sub-section 4. Articles primarily referring to red hair in the Eurasian steppe.
[51] Maria Domnitskaya (July 14, 2010). "Izhevsk to host Redheads' Festival". The Voice of Russia.
"Preparations continue in Izhevsk, the capital of the Russian republic of Udmurtia in the Urals, for the September Redheads’ Festival, already the seventh of its kind. The venue is by no means a random choice. Ethnographic studies confirm that Udmurtia has a surprisingly high percentage of red-haired people.(Article is 404'd.)
...
Professor Yury Perevoshchikov holds that Udmurts trace their origin from the Budins, a semi-mythical tribe of blue-eyed and red-haired people mentioned by Herodotus.
The professor argues that the majority of all red-haired people, including Celts who inhabited Ireland and other parts of Europe, came from what is now modern-day Udmurtia."
http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2010/07/14/12320253.html
[52] Nadezhda Volokitina (November 19, 2010). "Red Festival In Udmurtia". Finugor.
"The Udmurts are the most red-haired Finno-Ugric people, the most red-haired nation in Russia, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they are inferior only to the Irish in this respect."(Article unavailable.)
http://finugor.ru/en/red-festival-udmurtia
[53] Department for information and analytics of the Izhevsk City Administration (September 18, 2014). "Red Festival in Izhevsk".
https://web.archive.org/web/20141016225136/http://www.izh.ru/en/promo/2705.html
[54] Mark Stratton (November 11, 2014). "The people with the reddest hair in the world". BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29950844
Sub-section 5. Articles primarily referring to blond hair in Melanesia and Australian Aborigines.
[55] Dennis O'Neil (c 1998-2013) "Overview". MODERN HUMAN VARIATION: An Introduction to An Introduction to Contemporary Human Biological Diversity. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College.
(Source of Australian hair map. Razib Khan believes the map looks like the one from Joseph Birdsell's "Microevolutionary Patterns in Aboriginal Australia", page 196.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131002120310/http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_1.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20131211193830im_/http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/images/map_of_Australian_Abo_hair_color.gif
https://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/blonde-antipodals.php
[56] Razib Khan (August 19, 2005). "Blond Australian Aboriginals". Gene Expression.
https://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php
[57] Razib Khan (October 12, 2007). "Blondism in Melanesia". Gene Expression.
https://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/blondism-in-melanesia.php
[58] Razib Khan (August 18, 2010). "Blondes of the 'black islands'. Discover Magazine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110425033210/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/blondes-of-the-black-islands/
[59] Erin Loury (May 3, 2012). "The Origin of Blond Afros in Melanesia". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
https://www.science.org/content/article/origin-blond-afros-melanesia
[60] Lisa Raffensperger (May 3, 2012). "Blonde hair evolved independently in Pacific islands". New Scientist.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21779-blonde-hair-evolved-independently-in-pacific-islands/
Sub-section 6. Articles primarily referring to tribalism as a natural instinct.
[61] Arizona State University (May 25, 2005). "Prejudice is Hard-wired Into The Human Brain, Says ASU Study". ScienceDaily.
"Contrary to what most people believe, the tendency to be prejudiced is a form of common sense, hard-wired into the human brain through evolution as an adaptive response to protect our prehistoric ancestors from danger.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm
...
Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place and that responses can't be dampened."
[62] Susan T. Fiske (June 1, 2008). "Look Twice". The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/look_twice
[63] Christine Hsu (June 26, 2012). "Racism is Innate: The Human Brain Makes Unconscious Decisions Based on Ethnicity". Medical Daily.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-innate-human-brain-makes-unconscious-decisions-based-ethnicity-240970
[64] Rob Waugh (June 26, 2012). "Racism is 'hardwired' into the human brain - and people can be prejudiced without knowing it". Daily Mail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120827105430/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2164844/Racism-hardwired-human-brain--people-racists-knowing-it.html
Sub-section 7. Articles primarily referring to "race" and ethnic preferences in dating/marriage.
[65] Ritchie King (November 20, 2013; updated June 12, 2019). "The uncomfortable racial preferences revealed by online dating". Quartz.
https://qz.com/149342/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/
[66] Christian Rudder (October 5, 2009). "How Your Race Affects The Messages You Get". OkCupid.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120105122111/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/
[67] Christian Rudder (September 10, 2014). "Race and Attraction, 2009 – 2014". OkCupid.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141020212631/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/
[68] Wendy Wang (June 12, 2015). "Interracial marriage: Who is ‘marrying out’?". Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/
Sub-section 8. Other references.
[69] Madison Grant (1916, 4th edition 1936). The Passing of the Great Race. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/passingofgreatra00granuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
[70] Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1775; 3rd edition 1795). De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa (On the Natural Variety of Mankind). Page 303.
https://archive.org/details/b2851886x/page/302/mode/2up
[71] Stephen Jay Gould (November 1, 1994). "The Geometer of Race". Discover Magazine.
"Why should the most common racial group of the Western world be named for a mountain range that straddles Russia and Georgia? Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), the German anatomist and naturalist who established the most influential of all racial classifications, invented this name in 1795, in the third edition of his seminal work, De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa (On the Natural Variety of Mankind)."(Blumenbach's work is in Latin, and Gould does not cite who made the translation of the text he quotes.)
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-geometer-of-race
[72] Illustration said to be first published by H. Strickland Constable.
This illustration was republished in Famous, Infamous & Forgotten: Political Cartoons from the Collection of Anthony J. Mourek. (2013). The Grolier Club.
This source says the illustration dates from 1881, labels it as "Profiles of Aboriginal Irish Celt, Sir Isaac Newton, and Negro", and says it was first published in What Science is Saying about Ireland (1881).
https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781605830513/page/40/mode/2up
It appears on page 14 of the 2nd edition (1882) of What Science is Saying about Ireland. This publication is anonymous and does not appear to directly cite the artist or source of this illustration.
https://archive.org/details/whatscienceissay00king/page/14/mode/2up
Constable is listed as the author of What Science is Saying about Ireland in a later book he published, but I can't find anything to suggest he was the illustrator. The racist caricature may have been published by a prior source or perhaps Constable commissioned it for his book.
https://archive.org/details/letterstocountry00cons
Other sources say the image was also published by Constable in Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View, which is stated as being first published in 1888 and later republished in 1899.
https://thosewhowillnotbedrowned.blogspot.com/2011/02/ireland-from-one-or-two-neglected.html
https://timeline.com/there-were-no-irish-slaves-here-s-how-bad-history-became-a-racist-meme-33ab5ffd76e4
On the internet, it is commonly repeated that the illustration was also republished in an unspecified 1899 issue of Harper's Weekly magazine. I can not find any article or book which gives a specific date/issue of when it was allegedly published in Harper's Weekly. Searching simple phrases in "text contents" of the Archive.org collection of Harper's Weekly issues, this illustration does not seem to appear:
https://archive.org/details/pub_harpers-weekly
A Wikipedia user suggests the Harper's Weekly attribution is mistaken and is being confused with a different image cited in Material Modernism: The Politics of the Page (2001), by George Bornstein, on page 146.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harper%27s_Weekly
