What is Race???

What is Race?

In a nutshell, race is a system created by White men to organize humanity based on criteria they deemed important. The system is, just like all human intellectual tools, a coping mechanism for wrapping human minds around a phenomenon far greater than humans have shown themselves capable of fully grasping, life itself. However, the concept of race was conceived from a place of subconscious perceived inadequacy, combined with both conscious and unconscious arrogance. The men who developed the race system, (which we’ll get into later), believed that they—people who, to this day, have yet to establish a healthy human social or economic model—possessed minds capable of capturing the wind; that is, to wrangle the endless complexities of human beings and phenotypes into a definitive, written, intellectual, and conclusive law. In doing so, they exposed a common flaw in human intellectual constructs: they can never fully encapsulate what they aim to represent. Nevertheless, the science of race does provide valuable insight into the creators themselves and why they felt confident enough to believe they had somehow deciphered Mother Nature’s code. Race is a forbidden topic of discussion. Academics in sociology write in-depth on it mainly for other academics to read. Subject to the same insecurities, many White scientists and academics skew their findings to allay White insecurities. In this piece, we will explore the origins or race along with the people who invented it and their motivations. We will go beyond the superficial and unproductive discussions media groups frequently host and avoid academia’s deliberate confusion. You will experience an unapologetic Black man’s perspective on race, which is something rarely made available to the American mainstream.

 

Yes, White Men Invented Race

When I fault White men for inventing the concept of race, many respond with the vague claim that “race has always existed.” This is a disingenuous and untruthful coping mechanism pretending an organized system assigning value to human groups based on phenotype has existed before. Race is an arbitrary system we have taken seriously for nearly 300 years now; a similar system based on height, toenail shape, or hairline would have served the same purpose in Western society had White men felt it mattered. Many cite Egyptian art depicting battles with Nubia as evidence that racism existed. These paintings show Egyptians subjugating darker-complexioned Nubians. Interpreting this art as evidence of a racial system, rather than merely one group of victors dominating defeated captives who look different, reflects projection rooted in a racist outlook. Applying a racist outlook to unrelated past events involving different looking rivals reveals a deep personal world view concluding that racism is merely the ability to see differences, and that that awareness automatically invokes enmity and competition. This outlook is racist in itself and shows how readily and instinctively one applies race to their thinking. Leo Africanus, ridiculed sub-Saharan African societies in 1526AD based on a circa 980AD description of “negros” by a priest who learned it second-hand. Africanus, an Arab man Christianized and adopted into the Pope’s court, disparaged Africans because, unlike Europeans, they were “content remaining in their country” and “didn’t wage war on their neighbors.” While this perceived weakness resembles racism and ultimately contributed to its development, it is not racism per se. It could also be argued that Pope Nicholas V’s orders to enslave non-Christians in Africa was racist because it produced the White-over-Black value system that helped lead to the invention of race. Although these events were highly racialized, and White people cite many like them to claim that racism has always existed, they should not be classified as racism because their intent was to influence immediate action rather than to rig future social hierarchies. Egypt captured enemies and identified them by appearance. If Nubians had looked like Egyptians but had four toes on each foot, that would have been the criteria for identification—but we would not have a worldwide four-toe value system today. Had Africans begun waging outward wars and become victorious, Leo Africanus would have described Africans as a fearsome group with war skills. This would not have led to a global racial value system. Pope Leo IV’s order to enslave non-Christian Black people in Africa (discussed later) served the purpose of war and conquest irrespective of race. Europeans enslaved each other based on different criteria before the concept of race, and if their next conquest had been Black Christians in lands of White non-Christians, the reversal of color would not have stopped the Catholic Church from continuing its practice. The invention of race is marked by the manipulation of human intellect to prioritize certain groups perpetually over others. 

Race is Largely Undefined

Racism is like a split atom; as long as it remains unsettled, it is infinitely exploitable. A nuclear power plant benefits the city in which it operates, but it also indirectly benefits surrounding cities because the population it supplies does not draw power from other nearby areas, thereby availing that power to their respective populations. Similarly, all White people benefit from race and racism, as it prioritizes them in the global scheme and concentrates Western barbarity onto non-White populations. In America, even the most liberal White Americans, whether consciously or not, benefit from law enforcement’s primary focus on non-White communities. Local police generate additional revenue from non-White people through citations, drug arrests, and manufactured criminality. This diverts the Western tendency to oppress away from them and their children. Liberal Whites may speak out when a police killing is clearly murder and gains significant attention; however, they remain silent and unmotivated regarding everyday unequal law enforcement because achieving enforcement equality would place them and their children in law enforcement’s crosshairs. Thus, Liberal White America silently accepts unethical policing directed primarily at non-White people, mainly Black people. Their opportunistic, virtue signal-heavy behavior toward racism suggests they subconsciously understand this reality and aim to compensate for their complicity.

 

A Convenient Definition

Race and racism remain vaguely defined, with the concept of race itself remaining nebulous and intangible. Most White people are content with the vague explanation, “Racism is when someone thinks their race is better than others,” or, “Racism is when a person hates other races.” There are no concrete, enforceable definitions of what racism actually is, yet White people—both Liberal and Conservative—tend to enforce their own convenient definitions, which require little change from the status quo that Black people consistently complain about. This White definition of racism absolves Whites of their responsibility to create and maintain a moral, ethical, and just society. It merely requires them to avoid overtly racist deeds, refrain from using the “N” word, and verbally condemn White people who get caught doing any of the aforementioned. Very few Liberal Whites address racists action that Black people are unaware of, and even fewer confront racism privately if there is no direct benefit to themselves. Supposedly “anti-racist” Whites primarily focus on policing language and visible, thoroughly verified racist actions for which they can be recognized as opposing. America conflates combating public awareness of racism as fighting racism itself. White America, both Liberal and Conservative, largely ignores systemic racism and the racism inherent to the American system.

 

How Human Groups Came to Look Different

Homo sapiens originated in Africa, specifically in the region of the Olduvai Gorge in present-day Tanzania. Humanity began its existence well-suited for life in the most hospitable place for human life; Africa. Original humans were Black, primarily with brown skin and brown eyes. White Americans often subconsciously project their own mutation narratives onto Black people, imagining some other ancestral state before transitioning to Black. This is incorrect. Black is the original human phenotype. Black people, both then and now, exhibit complete genetic variation spanning all human features. Although most had brown skin and brown eyes, they produced a wide range of variations across the full spectrum of human characteristics, including skin tone, eye color, hair texture, hair color, height, and build. Early humans thrived and eventually began migrating to different parts of the world. As these groups moved, they carried only a subset of genetic traits. Over generations, the absence of certain traits led to the emergence of distinct-looking populations. For example, Ethiopians often have thin noses, Pygmies are generally short in stature, and Zulu people tend to be tall and slender.

This is purely unscientific speculation, but it is possible that “sizeism” could have been the first racism-like human phenomenon. Pygmy people are short in stature, meaning they carried that set of human traits away from humanity’s place of origin. Perhaps, they experienced size discrimination and fled to their respective regions. They amongst the oldest distinct human groups and their regions lie just outside of humanity’s original location. Without proper research, this idea is pure speculation though.

When humans migrated into regions such as Europe, lighter pigmentation became advantageous for survival due to lower sunlight levels, which affected vitamin D synthesis. People with lighter skin and eyes were better able to absorb sunlight in low light conditions, giving them a survival advantage that led to a higher prevalence of lighter-complexioned people. Darker-skinned people were less healthy under low light conditions, suffering from conditions like rickets, frequent illness, and muscle weakness. This also made them less suitable mates, causing those with lighter features to produce more offspring with favorable traits for low light regions. Similar adaptations occurred in other regions, shaped by environmental factors.

It is important to emphasize that all Homo sapiens DNA originates from Black people. This reality has implications for scientific understanding, as many White scientists attempt to claim that other branches of humanity contain unique Homo sapiens DNA. At best, these branches combine two derivatives of Black DNA to form unique strains, but they remain products of African genetics derived through a process of deduction. Many regard race as a vague, magical process where groups simply “adapted to their environment.” The taboo nature of race prevents people from comfortably learning how the races came to be. The simple explanation is that some Black people were better suited to certain environments and mated with other Black people who were similarly adapted, producing Black offspring best suited to those conditions. Fairly recently White scientists designated these groups as distinct “races.” The simple explanation above provides more context for how humans came to look different and helps avoid the misconception that some people were divinely created to rule over others.

 

But What is Race?

Disclaimer: The following ideas are unapologetic and do not include the “White Comfort Filter” that non-White people are expected to adopt in American society to live in relative peace. Anyone who summarily dismisses this information as “wrong” must identify what is factually incorrect. Simply labeling the following as “racist” does not invalidate the underlying facts.

Black is humanity’s original form. It is exactly the way the humans in Africa’s Olduvai Gorge originally looked when and where humanity began. All of humanity’s Homo Sapiens genetic features are contained within Black genetics, and all other branches of humanity are genetic derivatives, possessing a narrower genetic spectrum and reduced genetic capability. This means Black people can produce all other branches of humanity, but no other branch can make a Black person. The emergence of other branches of humanity occurred through Black people expressing different genetic variations; all other Homo sapiens required the Black genetic palette to paint their phenotypes. All non-Black branches of humanity gained their distinct characteristics solely through the process of deducting features, with one exception that will be explained shortly. Generally, Black people maintain a youthful appearance longer, but stated unapologetically, White people generally age prematurely. Remember, Black is the human standard! Melanin protects the skin and eyes from the damaging effects of sunlight, which is why individuals with darker eyes generally retain better eyesight than those with lighter eyes. Similarly, a brown dog would fare better than a white dog in a sunny environment for the same reasons. Conversely, a white dog would be better suited to areas with low sunlight, while brown dogs might suffer from vitamin D deficiency. This explains why Grizzley Bears are prevalent in sunny regions, whereas Polar bears thrive exclusively in the North.

White is the most genetically stripped-down versions of the human. The definition of “White” is a social construct, and often ambiguous. For example, in the United States, people of Middle Eastern and many of Latin descent are classified as “White.” Traditionally, however, White refers to Europeans, a branch of humanity that has lost the greatest amount of genetic features. While White people can have melanin in their hair and eyes, the amount of acceptable melanin in their skin is largely limited. At around the time the concept of race was coming into fruition, Benjamin Franklin famously considered English people “White” and Germans, Swedes, and French people, “tawny,” or not fully White. White people possess the narrowest range of genetic traits and thus, are least capable of introducing new genetic elements into their descendants. One notable exception is Neanderthal DNA. Around 45,000 years ago, humans migrating into Eurasia encountered, coexisted with, and interbred with Neanderthals, a now-extinct, non-Homo sapiens, branch of humanity. Not all White people possess Neanderthal DNA but it exists in many and is inherited. Asians actually have more people with Neanderthal DNA—which can influence traits such as sensitivity to sunlight, the difficulty processing abstract ideas, depression, and hoarding tendencies. Neanderthal DNA is the sole unique genetic feature that White and Asian people can introduce into Homo sapiens DNA.  

 

None of this should matter, as the overall genetic differences between humans—including those with Neanderthal DNA—are minuscule. However, White men have become obsessed with what they obviously perceive as their genetic shortcomings since encountering Africans. They focused on the small areas where humans differ, exaggerated those differences to define the entire scale of human regard, then built Western culture around this false premise. This naïve outlook leaves White men, whether consciously or unconsciously, with an underlying mission to dominate or destroy all non-White humans. Europe’s historical failure to create a healthy social model suggests that even if they were to eliminate everyone else, they would eventually turn on each other, create new divisions, and go to war among themselves. In fact, the race classification system subdivided White people in Europe before eventually unifying them under the label “White.” European scientists categorized the White race into groups such as Nordics, Baltics, Celtics, Sub-Nordics, Aryans, Teutonics, Germanics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans. The list of racial names is extensive and ultimately pointless to discuss in full, as these categories are merely human constructs.

 

What is Racism?

The definition of racism is elusive, yet White people socially enforce their version based on how it affects them. For most White people, racism means embarrassment and shame for doing something bad, which, if thoroughly examined, may compel White America to strip the offender of their superficial White goodness. As mentioned above, this enforces words and deeds but does not require any genuine commitment to opposing racism. I have always been confused by how White people talk to me about racist deeds. For instance, I attended a screening of Will Smith’s movie “Emancipation” before its official release. The film contains numerous scenes depicting historic racist brutality, torture, and murder. I was the only Black person there, and when the movie ended, as we walked over to the reception to have drinks with some of the actors, several White attendees approached me to ask if “I was okay?” To make them comfortable, I simply said yes, but internally, I realized I should have been asking them if they were okay. Their limited experience with racism caused them to project their lack of understanding and shock at what they saw, onto me. America shields White people from past immorality to such an extent that these White attendees assumed that what they saw was new to me. They likely believed that exposing me to this history was some kind of revelation I had been shielded from as they likely were; dealing with White America’s past through concealment was certainly in their playbook. Being so out of touch with the Black experience, White people commonly try to protect Black people from expressed racism and are under the impression that hurt feelings are Black people’s primary concern. This focus on feelings and embarrassment reveals that White people genuinely believe that power and opportunity between the races are somewhat equal and that racial issues are primarily emotional.

 

Prejudice Plus Power

The Black definition of racism is quite different; it means “Prejudice Plus Power.” We have made this abundantly clear, but White America, Liberal and Conservative, continues to impose its own less effective definition on us. Black people could not care less about being called names or viewed negatively by White people. The brutality depicted in the movie “Emancipation” is child’s play compared to what I actually know. For instance, White men who packed Black women’s vaginas with hot clay. Or J. Marion Sims who is still honored by White America as the “Father of Gynecology.” Sims performed unanesthetized surgery on Black women’s genitals despite the existence of anesthesia. Black people could not be less concerned about the “N” word if it did not encapsulate a White-over-Black value system that its use still communicates to others. As I write this, there have been twelve Black people who appear to have been lynched in the last month and a half. Without a doubt, the “N” word was used during these lynchings, reassuring the perpetrators that the White-over-Black system enabled them to act without consequence. In the end, that word predicted what would happen next. Authorities used White power and Black people’s lesser regard to summarily deem most of these lynchings “suicides” and allowed the trails to go cold. Immediate and thorough investigations are reserved for White deaths, not Niggers.

Racism in Media Coverage

A google search for “Tasia Fortune” shows racism in news coverage. Tasia was found hanging at an abandoned house in Mississippi. Of the majors news stations, CNN, NBC and ABC found the story of her death worth covering when the possibly of White perpetrators existed. People magazine also covered it. They all made it a point to mention “suicide” in their articles. On September 11th, police arrested Jarques Ratcliff, a Black man for the crime. Immediately Fox News, PBS, BBC, the Associated Press, Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, Los Angles Times, USA today, and the Guardian covered it. It’s clear that a Black woman’s death by hanging isn’t news worthy if it’s possibly a White man did it. But a Black woman possibly hung by a Black man is worthy of news coverage to our media. Note taken…

 

The “N” Words Signifies a Power System

When a White person uses the “N” word, it signifies the potential exercise of White power over the Black person involved. This is similar to a gang member saying “Cuzz” or “Blood” during a tense confrontation. In both cases, these expressions indicate that the speaker is backed by others who share that ideology. For gangs, this means a union of dedicated fighters accustomed to violence and murder. For White people voicing the “N” word, it implies that White people potentially backed by the government, may join together and kill me. If I am in an argument and a White person calls me the “N” word, they are making me aware that others around, or who could potentially arrive, share their ideology and may kill me. Although I may be right, my lower social status means I had better concede defeat to preserve my life. When bank executives use the “N” word, it likely means that leadership will charge me higher interest rates or attempt to offer me predatory loans, resulting in me laboring, losing, or perhaps laboring for and losing a home that a White person in the same situation would receive a fair deal on. Real estate agents in areas where residents use the “N” word would likely discourage me from buying a home by charging higher fees and negotiating a higher sale price. If I manage to buy a home where local residents use the “N” word, I may face rocks thrown through my windows, harassment or assault of my children, or even my home being burned to the ground. If I call the police—a profession where officers are often caught using the “N” word—it is likely they will work against me. This has happened to me before: when I was robbed at knifepoint, instead of investigating my complaint, officers repeatedly asked me if I “was packing”; my complaint turned into them investigating me. White people are diligent about ensuring no one uses the “N” word, yet they are rarely proactive in penalizing people who practice the spirit of the “N” word. They do not penalize mortgage companies, real estate agents, or police officers who abuse their authority to make Black people’s lives more difficult. When a White person uses the “N” word, “good” White people work harder to keep Black people from finding out than to punish its usage as a matter of principle.

As long as Black people are safe, fairly compensated according to their abilities, and maintain a first-class relationship with the law, we could care less about a word. For Black people, the power that prejudice commands constitutes racism and thus, “racism” means “Prejudice Plus Power.” I would personally accept the use of the word n*gger if it were written into vigorously enforced laws such as, “Officers of the law are guilty of murder and potentially face the death penalty if they kill an unarmed n*gger.” Black people define racism in a way that emphasizes the power unjustly exercised against us; however, White people, both Liberal and Conservative, exercise power to vitiate that meaning and maintain its ineffective definition.

 

Both Liberal and Conservative Whites are Okay with Racism

White America enjoys racism’s status quo and shows little willingness to challenge it. I often push these boundaries with the most outspoken Liberal White people and can attest that their tolerance is extremely limited. They are quick to lean on White social power to shut down discussions by asking, “why does everything have to be about race?” Such questions serve as threats of social and often professional ostracization if I persist. Liberal Whites do not exercise this power when they lack it; for example, they do not criticize Black people for discussing race within Black social settings. The so-called “good” Liberal Whites often prefer a thinly veiled racist standard over honest and necessary conversations about the racism they pretend to oppose. America’s purported efforts to address its racism ailment, are, in reality, attempts to conceal it—primarily from themselves. White America, both Liberal and Conservative, is perfectly content to permit Black pain in exchange for the emotional comfort of not seeing it and relief from the responsibility to righteously fix their society. For White America, the problem of racism is primarily about their feelings of guilt about themselves and their history; the harm they have caused historically, and continue to cause today, doesn’t matter.

Now that you have witnessed an unapologetically Black perspective on race and racism, let’s explore a similar approach to understanding how the concept of race likely originated and evolved.

 

The Why Phase, Segmentalism, and Science

I have observed that when faced with seemingly insurmountable adversity, humans instinctively break down the challenges they face into intellectual segments. I believe this is an innate human instinct because it occurs in nearly all human beings from such an early age. The “why phase” exemplifies humanity’s most inexperienced and least socialized members intellectually challenging the monolith known as the word “no” by deconstructing it into smaller components. When children are very young, they learn that “no means no.” This word is so impactful that it often causes great grief and even tantrums. As the child’s intellect develops, they begin to deconstruct the biggest obstacle to their happiness—the word “no.” Around the age of three, the child starts to examine the structure of this steadfast concept called “no.” They begin asking “why?” Once the “why phase” begins, rather than simply accepting “no” to something as simple as staying outside to play after dark, the child wants to understand the reasoning behind that “no.” They want to know “why.” Parents who once enjoyed absolute authority must suddenly justify their decisions. A parent may explain that it is dangerous after dark because they can’t see them, that the child needs to clean their room, and that it is time to eat dinner. With “no” segmented into its individual elements, the child can then challenge each part by, perhaps, suggesting cleaning their room before playing the next day, playing under the porch light, or skipping dinner. Any reasonable parent might reconsider their answer. The point is that humans, even at an early age, naturally convert seemingly insurmountable obstacles into manageable parts that can be overcome.

Similarly, as White men explored the world for the first time, they confronted a monolith called humanity that caused them considerable grief. Humans were humans, and although White people were clearly members, they must have recognized themselves as outliers in their capacity for violence. Other groups certainly engaged in fighting and war, but not nearly as frequently or as savagely as Europeans. This is evident in the fact that Europeans consistently referred to other groups as “savages,” projecting their own insecurities onto others. White men were clearly uneasy with their place within the human monolith and instinctively felt compelled to break humanity down into elements, much like young children do with the answer, “no.” Consequently, European men segmented humanity, assigning values to each group that diminished those groups while ultimately prioritizing themselves as better. I suspect they realized that non-European societies and social systems were far more advanced at achieving Europe’s universal end goal: peace.

 

 

 

Christopher Columbus Encountered Socially Superior Non-White Societies

The superiority of the social systems encountered by European men, which likely prompted significant cultural and moral self-reflection, is evident in Christopher Columbus’s journals. When Native Americans first saw Columbus’s ships, they fled. However, once Columbus’s crew convinced them they were not dangerous (yet), the Native Americans welcomed them with open arms, providing food and shelter to the distressed crew. King Guacanagarix of the Taino people even supplied the Europeans with boats and manpower to recover lost cargo after one of their three ships sank off the coast of present-day Haiti. The king also provided guarded storage for their goods. Columbus was astonished that nothing was stolen, suggesting that theft was common and expected when entrusting someone in Europe to store your possessions. The king provided these services at no cost, suggesting that the propensity to exploit leverage was minimal. This speaks volumes about pre-colonial Native American society.

Columbus’s experience in the Americas contrasts sharply with his return to Europe. Upon docking in Portugal, his ship was immediately seized, and those who disembarked to pray at a church were arrested. Europe was so hostile, immoral, and contentious that Columbus had to threaten to fire cannons into the town to prevent the king from arresting and robbing him for his ships. Days after being allowed to leave, a storm forced Columbus to seek refuge at another Portuguese port. He was arrested again and nearly killed, as Portugal sought to claim the Americas for itself. To avoid war, Portugal ultimately released Columbus, allowing him to return to Spain.

Columbus made stops in what are now Cuba, Santo Domingo, and the Bahamas, encountering many hospitable groups willing and able to welcome them. However, one group, the Ciguayos, was not interested in Columbus’s crew and resisted. Instead of respecting their wishes and leaving, Columbus’s crew attacked them, injuring many, some severely. As a testament to how these groups dealt with their adversaries, rather than preparing a counterattack, the following day their king, King Mayobanex, apologized and brought gifts. Good relations then ensued, which the Spaniards eventually exploited to seize their land and enslave them. In a society where women walked around nearly naked without fear of rape, Columbus introduced Western sexual violence. Columbus’s admiral, Michael De Cueno wrote a letter describing Columbus giving him a woman to rape. 

“While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the Lord Admiral [Columbus] gave to me. Having taken her into my cabin, and she being naked according to their custom, I was seized with a desire to take my pleasure with her. I wished to put my desire into execution but she, being unwilling for me to do so, treated me with her nails in such wise that I would have preferred never to have begun.” 

He continued, “But seeing that, to tell you the end of the matter, I took a rope and thrashed her soundly, so that she raised unheard-of cries, such as you would not believe. Finally, we came to such an agreement that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots.”

 Today, Western society still pretends to strive away from this proclivity for sexual violence; however, much like racism, the true effort is to conceal it while preserving the ability of White men to engage in such acts. The Epstein Files reveal that when given the opportunity to truly hold rapists, especially—child rapists—accountable through the justice system, America, as a whole, is all talk and no action. These files contain extensive evidence indicating that many prominent White men committed the same acts as De Cueno in the 1400s. Many of these sick men raped children, some as young as nine. If White America were as opposed to child rape and the abuse of women as it was to Joe Biden winning the 2020 election, we would be witnessing the capitol—and possibly the White house—being overrun today, just as White people did on January 6^th. Instead, just as the West tolerated rape in the past, it continues to permit it today—at least for White men—demonstrating that the West truly has not evolved one iota from the European standards set by Columbus and De Cueno.

 

Columbus’s crew encountered thriving, friendly, and hospitable non-European societies capable not only of housing and feeding their own citizens but also rescuing and hosting strangers at no cost. The societies they discovered were so peaceful that their cities required no walls and their homes no doors. Despite encountering a relative utopia, Christopher Columbus and his crew were so consumed by the European obsession with amassing gold that they only noticed the gold ornaments these great people wore, failing to recognize that the society itself was far more valuable than any amount of gold they could find. When they saw a gold nose ring or piece of jewelry, they immediately inquired about where to find more gold and then promptly left, leaving the people who held the true key to happiness behind. Had they been wise, they would have burned the ships and never returned to Spain; they found heaven on Earth but came back and destroyed it. Columbus left men behind from the first voyage, and by the time he returned, those men had wreaked so much European havoc on the island that it was engulfed in war. Eventually, Spain’s superior barbarity prevailed, and Spain implemented the first proto-racial system, the “Sistema de Castas.” This also marked the beginning of a shift from religious to scientific rationale for Whites living at the expense of non-Whites.

 

Black People Planted the Seed of Science in Europe

During the Moors’ 600-year rule of Spain, Black people introduced modern science to Europe, educated many Europeans and even established what is arguably its first university, the University of Salamanca. The seed of science had been planted in Europe, initiating a shift from religious to scientific thinking that ultimately culminated in the French Revolution. For over a thousand years, Europe had been ruled by absolute monarchs who claimed to channel “God’s” will. Shifting from a religious culture to scientific meant the rationale for Whites living at the expense of non-Whites required a fundamental shift—from religious to scientific justification. Europeans, the last human group to create a civilization, experienced a process similar to a child entering the “why phase”; they began an era focused on breaking down and organizing information about life’s phenomena. This is known as “science.” Scientificism (my term) became fashionable in Europe as citizens collectively refused to accept, “because the Bible says so” and began demanding accountability from their leaders. Thus, the scientific revolution began to take shape.

 

Spain’s Proto-Racial System

The introduction of the compass to Europe by Black people revolutionized sea travel, enabling Columbus to find North America and eventually leading to European control over most of South America. Spain combined applied its developing scientific practices with religious methods, influenced by Pope Nicholas V’s racist Papal Bull in 1452 to enslave Black people in Africa, thereby establishing a proto-racial hierarchy. This hierarchical system, nominally considered “Christian-over-non-Christian,” was effectively a White-over-Black system called the “Sistema de Castas.” The Sistema de Castas ranked individuals based on their degree of authentic Spanish heritage. The social ranks were as follows:

1. Peninsulares: Spanish people born in Spain.

2. Criollos: Spanish people born in the Americas.

3. Castizos: People with three-quarters Spanish blood (Born to Mestizo (the next rank) and a Spaniard).

4. Mestizos: People of half-Spanish and half-Native American blood.

5. Mulato: People born to one Spanish parent and one African parent.

6. Indios: Native Americans

7. Negros: Africans, both free and enslaved.

Limpieza de sangrea (purity of blood) was highly valued, and having light skin conferred privilege. This system established the ideological foundation for the eventual color-based hierarchy later practiced in North America. Spain’s Sistema de Castas categorized people along a light-to-dark and regional framework, which future scientists would model their racial classification systems on. Meanwhile religion was gradually being phased out.

Carl Von Linneaus, the First to Develop a Color-Based Race System

The precursor to our current racial classification system began in Sweden with botanist, Carl Von Linneaus. Born in 1707, Von Linneaus is considered the father of binomial nomenclature, the two-word Latin scientific classification system, e.g., Homo sapiens (humans), Felis catus (cats), Panthera leo (lions), and so on.  Likely influenced by Spain’s “Sistema de Castas,” Linneas was the first to organize humans into color groups. These four groups were based on region and were called:

1. Homo Europaeus (Europeans)

2. Homo Americanus (Native Americans)

3. Homo Asiaticus (Asians)

4. Homo Afer (Africans)

Von Linneaus was sure to ascribe what he believed to be universal character traits to these groups, such as:

1. “Neglectful” and “careless” Africans,
2. “Easily angered” Native Americans,
3. “Hot-tempered” Asians,
4. And for Europeans, “creative,” “acute,” “inventive,” and “gentle.”

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, Linneas imbued Europeans with favorable behavioral traits that remedied the the perceived shortcomings of other races’; for example

1.“inventive” and “acute-minded” to address African “neglectfulness” and “carelessness,”

2. “gentle” to counter the “easily angered” Native Americans,

3. And, “light” and “wise” to deal with “haughty” and “greedy” Asians.

Although Linneas was projecting, in reality, he was posturing his science to make Europeans the solution to the perceived shortcomings of other racial groups. From its inception, the racial classification system  unwittingly aimed to rationalize European men’s imposition of themselves on others. Von Linneaus was, in effect, validating Europeans’ existence within the broader human scheme.

 

Science Compensated for European Inadequacy

If the traits listed by Von Linneaus were unfavorable to Europeans, it is highly likely that the concept of race would not exist today. In reality, whether consciously or unconsciously, Linneaus and other scientists pioneering the field of race were emphasizing Europeans and European leaders’ significance in the overall human scheme. Similar to the Spanish two centuries earlier, funding depended on reports submitted to the authorities sponsoring the expeditions. For Columbus and his immediate successors, reports to the King and Queen of Spain exaggerated observations with themes of barbarity and backwardness, to reassure the King and Queen that God had chosen them as instruments to bring civilization to a world of heathens. In fact, the King and Queen permitted Spaniards to enslave cannibalistic Native Americans based on the Spaniards lying about Native American cannibalism. Consequently, they began fabricating stories of cannibalism that persist to this day. There is absolutely no evidence that these Native Americans engaged in canibalism. They were exponentially more godly than the European Christians lying about them. Informing the authorities that people without Christianity were far more peaceful would likely have ended funding, as it would have threatened the entire European leadership structure. Imagine Spanish citizens, ruled by priests who claimed that belief in a ghost and the Bible maintained peace, learning that distant people achieved far greater peace without the church or the Bible.

For Linneaus, his role was to advance science while reassuring institutional funding sources that they were the god-like guardians of humanity, guiding the less fortunate and misguided rest of humanity towards humanity’s highest form: the European. Scientists reported findings that pleased these funding sources, as the science produced reassured these White men that humanity’s salvation depended on them, their funding, and the social and technological advancement they and their forefathers were responsible for. In other words, the same attitude of American leadership today—that they know the way, everyone else is misguided, and it is their responsibility to force those who do not follow them to save themselves by falling in line. Funding would have quickly dried up if reports indicated that other cultures were far far superior at being good people and creating peace.

Self-importance likely compromised scientists’ impartiality, as they viewed their own abilities as pivotal to the fate of humanity. European scientists developed scientific theories partly with their own significance to humanity in mind. Nearly all early race scientists neglected to question

whether Europeans were the original human form. This resulted in profoundly inaccurate science. A scientist name Petrus Camper developed the “Facial Angle Model,” believing face shape

between human branches were standardly different between human groups. He categorized the Greek skull as human ideal and all others to be gauged based on it as a guideline. A really popular name of the day, George-Louis Leclerc, Comete de Buffon (Buffon) believed that humans were born White, that environment changed their race, and that after a period, they remained Black. Reading his works reveals his limitation of only viewing details in relation to Whiteness. In evaluating an albino Black woman, Genevieve, he noted that she was short in stature with the anatomic features of a Black person. He generalized that Albinos were a “weak and imbecilic” class of humans, showing he was primarily focused on the people strength, a key component of survival in Europe. Another, Charles White, as a polygenist, arguing that the different races had separate origins and were therefore different species. Many others shared the same view, such as American physicians Samuel Morton and Josiah Nott. Many racists today ascribe to the polygenist view despite it being debunked long ago. Almost universally, White scientists and academics believed that Europeans represented humanity’s original form and that other groups were deviations from Whiteness. This type of science inherently positioned Europeans as the standard, obstructing academia from recognizing Black people as humanity’s original form.

The purpose of mentioning Von Linnaeus is to illustrate the transition from Spain’s religion-based race and caste system to Sweden’s scientific, color-based classification. Scientific theories on race enabled White people to shift their justification for designating Black people as society’s pariahs from a religious basis to a scientific one. Before the advent of science, the “Curse of Ham”—a Biblical passage condemning Noah’s son Canaan to perpetual servitude—was used to legitimize this inhumanity. Interestingly, White people ignored that the curse was actually directed at Canaan, Ham’s son, and instead simply changed it, referring to Ham, Noah’s son, who, according to the Bible, is considered the “father” of all Black people. If White people were following the Bible, they should have fell upon the Ottoman empire to source their slaves; Canaan is the father of people in the Levant (Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria). Race science allowed White people’s religious nonsense to transition into a new scientific framework that Western society used to justify its treatment of Black people. Both systems relied on existing power structures to legitimize the prioritization of Europeans over other groups. Both required the appeasement of funding sources by assuring them that their leadership was valid, moral, righteous, and necessary. They reassured economic and government leaders in Europe that Europeans were the foundation of humanity and evolved into its most advanced form. These motivations undermined genuine, good-faith, objective exploration of human differences and corrupted science to prioritize Europeans in the global hierarchy. The theme changed, but the underlying cause remained the same.

 

The Negro, a Beast

Nothing exemplifies the transition from religious to scientific justification for White barbarity toward Black people more than a book written in 1900 titled “The Negro a Beast.” In this work, the author, Chas Carroll, presents a hybrid religious and scientific argument claiming that Black people are animals. On one hand, he makes a (for the time) seemingly solid argument that Adam referred to Black people as “the beast of the field,” noting that this phrase is mentioned separately from cattle. On the scientific side, likely fascinated by the microscope’s capabilities, he cites differences in hair structure between White and Black people, observing that White hair is cylindrical while Black curly hair is flat. He uses this difference to argue that it distinguishes them as separate species. Believing he was making a profound point, he was merely highlighting meaningless differences. Nevertheless, his book was reviewed and published by a major company, likely

owned and operated by White men who shared similar views. The book was also distributed throughout the South, influencing White Americans to become more permissive toward treating Black people as animals. In truth, efforts like The Negro, a Beast and countless others with the same aim represent White America’s attempt to subconsciously reconcile with the fact that they built a society functioning in direct opposition to life’s moral code. It takes a profound degree of delusion to believe that people who are anatomically alike and fully capable of reproducing together somehow belong to different species. Many White slave owners fathered children with enslaved women yet believed so strongly in this religious and scientific rationale that they enslaved their own children.

The Race System Becomes Science

Following Linneaus, many scientists joined the academic bandwagon, classifying humans according to perceived sets of traits; however, no consensus was ever reached. Finally, in 1775, Friedrich Johann Blumenbach of Göttingen University in Germany published “De generis humani varietate nativa” (On the Natural Variety of Mankind). This system took and scientists at Göttingen rooted their theories in this system. Following a 1781 revision of Blumenbach’s dissertation, his colleague, Christoff Meiners published the first book to use the word “Caucasian” as a race category, “Grundriß der Geschichte der Menschheit” (The Outline of History of Mankind). Göttingen University’s cadre of race scientists solidified the basis for what became today’s race categories, which were: Caucasian (the White race of Europe and somehow North Africa and the Middle East), Mongoloid (the Yellow race of East and Central Asia), Ethiopian (the Black race south of the Sahara Desert), American (the Red race of the Americas), and Malay (the Brown race of Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands).

At the time of Blumenbach’s classification, European men were fascinated by ancient civilizations and were utterly enamored with Ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Viewing themselves as the center of humanity’s intellectual thought, scientists and historians wrote themselves into Egyptian and Middle Eastern history. Their logic deduced that since Europeans were mentally superior, they must have been the foundeders the world’s first civilization and the builders of the pyramids. Consequently, Blumenbach included both North Africa and the Middle East within the “Caucasian race.” This is very important because it reveals the fallibility of Western science and how cultural self-perception influenced Europe’s most esteemed and knowledgeable minds. It also provides insight into their perceived historical shortcomings. It shows that, whether consciously or subconsciously, European academia collectively did not regard actual European history as adequate enough to represent their human story. European scholars, including supposedly objective scientists and historians, felt compelled to attribute European involvement into events in which they had absolutely no involvement. Today, we are still untangling the mess they made.

Blumenbach’s color-coded race system—Black, White, Red, Yellow, and Brown—became the scientific standard, and Western academia, including in America, readily adopted, implemented and further developed it. By the end of the 19^thcentury, scientists had merged Blumenbach’s “Red” and “Brown” races into the “Yellow” category, creating the tripartite system we recognize today: Negro, Caucasian, and Mongolian (Asian). They added the Greek suffix “-oid,” meaning “like,” to make the classifications sound more scientific, resulting in the terms “Negroid,” “Caucasoid,” and “Mongoloid,” which prevail today. Latin Americans today seek to incorporate a “Brown” race; however, since many of them descend from “Yellow” people who migrated across the Bering Strait approximately 25,000 years ago and developed into a “Red” variant before experiencing extensive admixture with Whites and Blacks through colonization, it is difficult to categorize them distinctly. Depending on their specific ancestry, they may be classified as Caucasian, Mulatto, or Negro. It is important to remember that these are manmade categories and subject to the whims of White scientists.

 

Race Implemented

Blumenbach’s racial categories and the race science developing in Europe provided America

with a rationale to continue its systemic persecution of non-White people. Leaders in post-emancipation America used this science to consistently justify the exclusion of Black people from broader American society. Race science both allayed White guilt for past historic inhumanity, and inoculated White people from the empathy required to take action and stop the wrongdoing. White academia published countless theories that dehumanized Black people, with some outright declaring them to be animals. Many of these publications included illustrations to reinforce their points. Academics who were not ambitious enough to classify other human beings as outside the human race disingenuously disseminated information claiming that Black people were mentally inferior and had never built civilizations. These ideas originated from White academics at America’s most prestigious institutions, such as geologist Arnold Guyot of Princeton University, who wrote a book claiming that European geography made Europeans superior to others, and Samuel Morton, professor of anatomy at the University of Pennsylvania, who furthered Blumenbach’s ideas of craniology and maintained a collection of over 1,000 skulls, many of which belonged to slaves. For me, John W. Burgess immediately comes to mind. Known as the Father of Political Science and a 36-year professor at Columbia University, Burgess helped form a cadre of educators who spread these falsehoods about Black people throughout the United States’ educational institutions for decades. Burgess himself published a book in 1902 titled “Reconstruction and the Constitution 1866-1876” which contains a notorious quote so egregiously false that it should have invalidated his doctorate. The quote reads,

 

“Black skin means membership of a race who itself has never successfully subjected a passion to reason and has never therefore created a civilization of any kind.”

When Burgess wrote this statement, Thomas Bowdich’s “Mission from Cape Coast Castle to Ashantee” was already more than 80 years old. In this work, Bowdich reported,

“…the discovery that every house had its cloacae (toilet), besides the ones for lower orders without the town. They were generally situated under a small archway in the most retired angle of the building, but not unfrequently upstairs within a separate room like a small closet where a large hollow pillar also assists to support the upper story. The holes are of a small circumference, but dug into a surprising depth, and boiling water is daily poured down which effectually prevents the least offense.”

This was a time when Europeans used chamber pots and threw their feces out of their windows at night. He also reported,

“The Assembly of the Captains, are three estates of the Ashantee Government,” where, “The Constitution requires or admits an interference of the Aristocracy in all foreign politics…”

This is a European firsthand account of a civilization superior to many in Europe, available to Burgess when he abused his doctorial credentials and wrote his slanderous words about Black people in 1903.  European reports describe Ashantee citizens peacefully impeaching and removing their king at a time when an American citizen shot and killed the 20^thpresident, James Garfield. While Burgess disgraced his doctorate by writing falsehoods, an Italian citizen assassinated King Umberto of Italy. Burgess, who studied at Göttingen University when its racial science was all the buzz, lied, thereby betraying humanity’s only claim to fame: our intellect and communication style.

 

The One-Drop Rule

Following scientific developments, laws were enacted based on that science, which served to legally distinguish White people from others. By the early 20^th century, much of the United States had begun formally codifying the definition of “Black” in its laws. Although a federal definition of Blackness never emerged, the “One Drop Rule” and “racial fractions” became the standard measure of Black identity in the United States. Conversely, the measure of pure Whiteness meant having not “one drop” of Black blood, hence the name. With the exception of Native Americans in Virginia’s laws, legislators were not concerned enough with other races to enact exclusionary laws based on their blood. 38% of American states operated under some technical definition of “Black.” The former slave-holding states included Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland. The free states of North Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, and Indiana also amended their states’ “racial fraction” rules. The lowest among these varying legal percentages of “Black blood” was 1/32, meaning a person with one Black great-great-great-great-grandparent—equivalent to 1/32 Black ancestry—was not legally recognized as “White” nationwide. To put this in perspective, if a White slave owner raped one of my ancestors at the end of slavery in 1864, and her child, grandchild, great-grandchild, great-great-grandchild, and great-great-great-grandchild only had children with partners of pure White ancestry, the first child who would avoid being legally classified as Black would be born in 1990. Coincidentally, this would be just seven years after the Supreme Court declared legal Blackness unconstitutional. Coincidence or coordinated plan?

 

The White Part of Black People

The shift among White Americans from excluding Black people from American privilege to claiming a share in Black success is astonishing. Barack Obama’s successful presidential campaign in 2008 prompted a sudden reversal in White America’s attitude, instantly dismissing the long-held “one drop” standard and suddenly asserting ownership over the White heritage of successful Black people. Just months earlier, the same people threw away Whiteness in Black bodies; now they claimed it, referring to “mixed” Black people as “Black and White.” This shift in the “Whites only” standard occurred without consulting Black people, demonstrating a belief White people’s unilateral authority to make such changes to America’s social standard. When Barack Obama became president, seizing Western society’s highest post, White people effectively colonized a portion of that success—even as those same individuals would report him as a suspicious “Black” man in their neighborhoods and the resulting police report would list him as “Black.” Although the Supreme Court overturned the 1/32 “One Drop Rule” in 1983, America still has people legally classified as “Black,” and without new legal criteria, the old standard continues to apply informally. Without new criteria established in agreement with Black America, we remain bound by the only definition we have ever had; therefore, Barack Obama and all other so-called “mixed” people are Black, period.

 

There’s no such thing as “White” in Black Genetics

There is no such thing as “White” in Black genetics. In fact, no unique Homo sapiens genetic contribution exists in any other group that Black people do not already possess. Genetically, Black people encompass the full range of known Homo sapiens traits. Offspring resulting from unions between Black individuals and members of other groups result in the other group’s member gaining the potential of having a child with broader genetic capabilities. The only exception is Neanderthal DNA, which is unique to Europeans and Asians—Eurasians—who are the only branch of humanity known to have coexisted and interbred with this extinct, non-Homo sapiens group. White and Asian people can introduce Neanderthal DNA into Black genetics. Neanderthal genetic traits include light sensitivity, abnormal circadian rhythms (leading to tendencies toward nocturnality and early rising), unique stress responses, and lactose intolerance. To consider Neanderthal DNA a unique genetic feature would be to misclassify it in the Homo sapiens spectrum. Therefore, genetically speaking, the concept of being “half-White” is inaccurate because White people do not possess unique genetic traits that Black people lack. To use an analogy, Black people can enter all other groups’ genetic “houses,” knock down walls, build new rooms, remove and replace furniture, and install new carpet, whereas White people can only rearrange furniture in other groups’ genetic houses.  Again, this perspective reflects unapologetic Black thought without filtering to accommodate White insecurities. While it may seem provocative, labeling this view as “racist” without highlighting factual accuracies would merely be an attempt to exploit a biased social system to uphold superficial conditions of White supremacy.

 

Dishonesty and Barbarity

Compared to the rest of humanity, Europeans significantly underperformed in producing peaceful relations both within their societies and with their regional neighbors. Their cultural priorities on the Eurasian continent, war capabilities as well as methods of gaining and hoarding wealth, were considerably lower elsewhere, as the relative abundance of resources outside Eurasia meant that competition among humans was not nearly as fierce. There was insufficient sustained warfare to drive the universal hyper-warfare innovation that shaped Eurasian—and particularly European—culture. Europeans’ primary goal across the continent was to gain, hoard, and protect resources from other Europeans who shared the same objectives. Like today, the overall but seemingly impossible goal was peace. But unlike today where the perceived scarcity is manufactured through central banking, the European continent’s actual scarcity made peace very unrealistic and caused war to be the predominant activity and method for achieving these goals. Rapid development of weapons, assault tactics, political and strategic deception became commonplace in Europe. Today the development of such counter human devices is considered standard. Scarcity compelled European men to rapidly incorporate advanced weapons and deception tactics into European culture.

Scarcity meant that European civilization developed on a desperation laden foundation where prospects of honesty were slim to none. Europeans betrayed the intellectual and communication systems that distinguish humans as a unique species. The “Odyssey,” one of Europe’s earliest literary works, existed in oral form for centuries before written form. It features the

story of Odysseus lying about his identity to test the honesty of his lying servants. Indicating that Europeans accepted lying as a norm long before they developed writing. The Trojan Horse story is older than European civilization and features the well prepared lie using a gifted horse monument to move soldiers past an impenetrable wall of a fortified city. Europe developed under troubled circumstances caused by scarcity.

What truly makes humans unique is our ability to abstract life’s phenomena into mental concepts and share those ideas through the communication systems we establish. These abilities are only recognizable to us; for example, our dogs do not care whether our ideas are good—their only concern is the actions those ideas prompt us to take. Other species may also possess unique ideas and communication systems, but our own systems limit our ability to recognize them. That said, to misrepresent one’s perception to another human is the ultimate betrayal of our species, which is why every religion humans developed addresses lying early on. However, lying as an accepted cultural practice indicates that a sustained degree of past desperation caused that group to abandoned candor and forthrightness. I believe scarcity caused the desperation that led early Europeans to sacrifice the integrity of human communication, neglecting to punish members of society for intentionally misrepresenting their ideas to gain advantage. In European scarcity losses often meant the elimination of individuals and entire societies. Misrepresenting one’s ideas could deceive adversaries, creating advantages in wars that would otherwise be lost.

When Europeans began encountering societies outside of Europe, they openly and enthusiastically employed dishonesty to achieve their goals. Deceptive war techniques, such as Divide and Conquer—barely known in Africa and the Americas—were readily exploited to gain advantage over populations. Divide and Conquer involves manufacturing rifts within groups one wishes to subdue. The deliberate use of this technique is documented in European history as far back as Philip II of Macedon in the 4^th century BCE. However, Asians from Mesopotamia introduced Divide and Conquer into Africa with the founding of Carthage. Exploiting existing divisions—such as strategically trading with different groups to prevent alliances and maintain rivalry—occurred in Egypt as early as the 15^th century BCE. Although sometimes characterized as Divide and Conquer, this is not accurate because the groups were already divided. Deception as a technique to preempt direct competition is solely a product of the Eurasian continent. It is a dishonest and unethical strategy that rigs the outcome of a competition before it takes place, often before the opposing party even knows there is a competition. Divide and Conquer is like poisoning a rival boxer during training and then considering the outcome a product of fair competition. Early European-style warfare was based on undermining the enemy’s capabilities, akin to modern boxing being determined by which side can better disrupt the other’s training routine; it does not truly reveal the superior boxer but rather determines the best cheater.

 

Good Faith and Candor

Humanity is on the wrong trajectory and will never become a cooperative species under sole White leadership. We were not endowed with advanced (by our standards) brains and communication abilities without reason. While we can resolve issues through abstract reasoning, the essential elements for this—good faith and candor—are missing, making war the go-to method of resolving conflicts. Whether it be police officers intentionally escalating situations to use violence, or pretending to see guns to kill, or the President kidnapping a president that refuses to give him the oil deal he wants, western culture’s dysfunction thrives in the vacuum created by the absence of good faith and candor. Good faith functions solely on the outskirts of our intellectual ability; explicitly communicating it undermines its meaning. When parties to a purpose reduce good faith to mere words, they severely inhibit its function in human discourse. Good faith goes without saying, which implies that stating it likely means good faith has been lost. During the “Ebonics” debate of the 1990s, many White people ridiculed Black people’s communication style. Young Black men would repeatedly say, “nah meen,” a shortened version of “do you know what I mean?,” in their statements. This expression functions in Black communication to consistently ensure the idea being communicated remains accurate. This intellectual tool functions similar to the bitcoin Blockchain, where every block of the financial ledger is thoroughly calculated and its integrity verified before another can be added. Just like the Blockchain, a message’s content is constantly verified with a “nah meen” before moving on to the next one. This ensures that both parties are working from the same ledger of ideas. While White people ridiculed Black men, the reality was this communication style was far superior to standard Western communication, which adds more and more words to superfluously worded concepts, confusing that concept thereby creating the potential for further inaccuracy. A current example is the Lindsay Clancy case, where somehow the concept of murder, especially of children, has been confused as permissible. I guarantee the Judge did not repeatedly add “Nah-meen” to his jury instruction and all but, you guessed it, the Black jurror somehow found that a mother who strangled her own children, one by one, was not guilty of murder. These same people likely consider abortion “murder.” This is not some aberration in White values. White media has shown White America’s disapproval of this Black juror’s moral decision, putting its resources behind exposing his name and history, and weaponizing a criminal accusation against him, despite him having no criminal record. Black people’s communication style generally focuses on ideas themself, using minimal words and a high degree of candor to convey those ideas. Western society does not seek to fix its major flaw in relying on words and concepts more than candor and good-faith. Today, it is customary for Apple or Amazon to present users with 30-page contracts full of dense legal language as an obstacle to people reading emails or checking social media. These corporations surely do not want people to “nah meen.” Genuine candid agreements function properly when each side is invested in the others’ interests and demands that the other party be satisfied. In Western culture it is customary to get people to agree to things they do not understand, and the West does not even aspire to achieve good faith or candor; instead, it bases agreements on each side enforcing its terms against the other. Good faith is both a feeling and a dedication to the other side’s satisfaction where one means it, that is, one will not have it any other way than the other side getting what they intend. This is absent in Western, White culture, as evidenced by the need to explicitly include the words “in good faith” in their laws, indicating a compensation for their failure to achieve it in reality.

 

So, Why is Europe Peaceful Today While the Rest of the World Remains in Chaos?

Europe has remained largely peaceful by displacing its own dysfunction onto countries inhabited by dark people, then capitalizing on that dysfunction and pacifying itself with their resources. Without African resources, Europe would resemble its pre-colonial state and a new Napoleon would arise immediately. Early Europeans waged war at home and continued this behavior wherever they went. By Christopher Columbus’s third trip to the Americas, the concept of “safe passage”—a written agreement allowing an adversary to travel for trade or negotiations without harm from the dominant power—had emerged. When Columbus returned on his third voyage, a rival European settlement had already been founded. Francisco Roldan, the Chief Justice appointed by Columbus, led a rebellion, stole weapons, seized cattle, and formed a second colony nearby in Xaragua. Europeans were thus warring with one another outside of Europe. In Africa, the “slave-or-be-enslaved” environment thrusted upon the continent plunged it into chaos. Local laws were upended as Europe pressured neighboring groups to raid and enslave each other. Within societies, citizens accustomed to good-faith laws found legal authorities under pressure to create violations punishable by enslavement. Chattel slavery—a practice not present in Africa before European and Arab invasions—made it impossible to negotiate fair prices for resources. Europeans fought each other in Africa but began cooperating near the end of the 19^th century. The Berlin Conference of 1884 initiated the division of Africa by European powers, with no African leaders in attendance. The resulting resource extraction from Africa continues to pacify Europe today, enabling it to reduce internal conflict by displacing violence onto Africa. America has a similar relationship with South America. For decades, the United States has attempted to overthrow Venezuela’s president. Finally, in January 2026, we kidnapped Nicolas Maduro, and now we boast about stealing the oil he refused to surrender his country’s leverage and sell to us at discounted rates.

The Dover Strait near England is the most heavily travelled waterway in the world. Between 25% and 30% of the world’s traded goods pass through it, despite Europeans comprising only 9% of the global population. Why? Because of the immense resources required to maintain peace in Europe. I travel to Europe often and regularly visit grocery stores to check the origins of their produce. The farther a country is from the equator, the less likely its apples, oranges, and bananas are grown there. Meats and grains are imported from Africa. In other words, Europe is overpopulated and could not sustain itself without welfare from impoverished countries. This situation is unjustifiable and maintained through coercion. Europe and America profit heavily from smartphone production, yet Africa possesses nearly all of the world’s columbite-tantalite, an essential element for manufacturing them. We hear of Belgian, Swedish, and Swiss chocolate, despite the fact that none of these countries can grow a single cocoa bean. England is known for its “tea time,” yet the amount of tea it is capable of growing is negligible. Europe must import these resources to maintain its character, which should give the producing countries strong pricing leverage, especially if they are impoverished. We accept corporations passing price increases to consumers but reject the same principle when the customer is the European continent. European countries consistently create instability in these producing countries to prevent them from uniting behind the principle that wealthy countries should not derive their wealth by impoverishing nations they would perish without. These countries would quickly prioritize their own betterment over Europe’s comfort and prestige. Europe is a continent with very little to offer the world and even less without external resources. It subsists on African welfare and would collapse without it, a reality becoming evident as African countries throw off the colonial shackles. Europe is beginning to implode and a new Napoleon will arise—perhaps a “Nuclear Napoleon?”

 

Race and Intelligence

With this unique history in mind, European scientists and academics—who received information from explorers and military leaders about how easily they deceived and militarily conquered non-European societies—likely judged these societies as less intelligent. After all, only less intelligent people and societies would be honest with their enemies, right? Only less intelligent people would neglect to develop weapons beyond bows, arrows, and shields, right? This flawed logic was pervasive as academia continued to develop the concept of race. The most brilliant minds of Europe failed to consider that the honesty and candor barrier they never knew to exist had not been transcended. They also failed to consider that perhaps the warfare these groups engaged in did not require anything beyond arrows and shields. Western academia simply regarded these groups as less intelligent. “Intelligence” became the primary criterion, as physical comparisons failed to demonstrate any European superiority.

The word “Intelligence” originates from the Latin combination of two words: “Inter,” meaning “between,” and “legere,” meaning “to choose.” Essentially, it referred to the ability to make distinctions or choose between elements of what one is evaluating. This term would only emerge in an environment where breaking things down into elements was customary—namely, in places of significant adversity, such as Europe. Rather than simply recognizing a dog as a dog, “intelligere” meant understanding it by its individual characteristics, such as its canine teeth, movable ears, and sense of smell. Greater intelligence allows one to distinguish different breeds of dogs and differentiate between various canine species, such as wolves, foxes, and jackals. The ability to divide, organize, and evaluate phenomena determines each group’s intelligence. However, European scientists and academics if the era failed to consider intelligence as a possible response to adversity. In a friendly and hospitable environment, the human tendency to analyze and categorize is less pronounced, so the body of knowledge appears different. For example, it does not matter how fish reproduce as long as they are plentiful. It is only when the nets start coming up empty that humans increase their intelligence regarding fish—how they reproduce, where they reproduce, the conditions they prefer, and other places with similar conditions. Remember, Europe is scarce and the most adverse continent for human life, aside from the Antarctic. The nets came up short far more often in Europe than in the Americas or Africa. The crops failed more frequently in Europe. The neighbors attacked more often in Europe. And societies collapsed more regularly in Europe. Each of these adversities compelled Europeans to develop more and more intelligence in these areas, hence the European style of thought and emphasis on intelligence—how intricately one has learned a subject. Without such adversity, these specific intellectual developments are unnecessary and unlikely to develop so rapidly or extensively. To illustrate this point, consider this: Once European men barbarically conquered other branches of humanity, their intelligence regarding why they created such complex intellectual systems to survive—and others did not—remains underdeveloped. The reality surrounding it is not adverse enough to drive the development of in-depth intelligence by exploring it extensively. Conversely, here I am, in a society where I am afflicted by racism, spending time developing intelligence about how European intelligence developed. It’s natural!

 

The Jews

Another example illustrating the instinctive tendency to develop extensive intelligence in response to adversity is the experience of European Jews. Without getting too controversial, Ashkenazi Jews—the White ones—faced persecuted throughout Europe from at least the 9^th century AD. This persistent oppression compelled them to cultivate a profound understanding of the societies that oppressed them. Under such relentless pressure, they became keenly attuned to legal nuances and intricacies; having laws constantly change to your detriment naturally fostered this awareness. They also developed a deep understanding of monetary systems, as European powers sought to extract as much wealth from them as possible while paradoxically allowing them significant control over banking. Largely excluded from Western academia, Jews developed their own educational institutions, refining their cheder and yeshiva systems to foster a resilient Ashkenazi mindset capable of coping with oppression in Europe. Today, Ashkenazi Jews hold a disproportionate number of high-ranking positions in Western society, both in government and corporate sectors. They got the West to give them the conquered land of Palestine, and somehow in 2026, influenced the United States—the world’s greatest nation—to merge its military with their own state, Israel, despite it being against the interest of the American people. This super minute, highly detailed, strategic thinking is not genetic but rather the product of a culture shaped by continuous affliction within an already challenging environment—in essence, being afflicted by the already afflicted.

 

Themes of Mental Inferiority Still Prevail Today.

In 1994, White academia published “The Bell Curve,” a book that essentially promotes a theory of Black mental inferiority. Racists continue to cite this book today, along with IQ tests, as key pieces of evidence. Similar to White academics and scientists of the 19^th– and 20^th-centuries,

these assessments are based on a narrow, self-centered, European perspective that is disconnected from reality. IQ tests primarily measure an individual’s ability to recognize deception. Cultures that develop in deceptive social environments—especially those with little prospect for honest and good-faith human discourse—tend to value this skill. For example, IQ tests present participants with multiple similar images and ask them to identify the one with a slight alteration, or show patterns with slight variations and require the test taker to anticipate what the next pattern will look like based on the trend. This ability is honed by individuals accustomed to deceptive interactions within their society. Conversely, people raised in environments characterized by honesty and reliable predictability—especially in their relationships with other members of their society—may initially perform poorly on these types of tests. A high IQ is a valuable trait for lawyers, who must carefully read contracts to ensure that negotiated terms are accurately reflected and not deceptively altered. However, if both parties act honestly, forthrightly, and in good faith, this skill becomes unnecessary, as both sides pledge to uphold both the spirit and the literal meaning of the overall agreement.

Faulting Black people for generally lower IQ scores is akin to blaming Native Americans for not inventing guns when their methods of warfare did not require them. In 1916, Lewis Terman of Stanford University adapted a French IQ test for Americans, specifically to distinguish Whites from non-Whites. The goal was eugenics—a program in which White men played God—was to decide which lives were suitable for reproduction, which often resulted in forced sterilization. This alone should disqualify IQ tests as a legitimate measure of human worth. Yet, in 2026, White America continues to allow media and academics to rely on IQ scores to evaluate human value, despite Black people being largely excluded from the national experiences that develop IQ-related skills—arguably for the better. Black people are often labeled “rude” in White social settings because we often say what should not be mentioned. This reflects a cultural dichotomy; Black culture is generally more straightforward and honest about sensitive subjects. This candor serves as a moral guide. Right now there’s a prevalence of dysfunctional behavior primarily by White people, including pedophilia and beastiality, which I’m sure everyone would agree is not mentally superior behavior. 

A better measure of mental ability would be to observe how Black people have thrived in a social system designed by high-IQ people to keep Black people as perpetual slaves. Black people were written into America as slaves yet achieved the presidency. We have reached many milestones despite high-IQ people constantly devising new ways to hinder our progress. Under Donald Trump, America eliminated the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, the Justice Department’s civil rights division, and the Minority Business Development Agency. Yet Forbes just crowned another Black billionaire, David Grain. Mr. Grain is a pioneer in telecom infrastructure, and many more will follow in his footsteps despite high-IQ people’s obstructions. One of the most remarkable aspects of Black progress in the United States is that none of it was achieved through violence, coercion, or manipulation—only honest effort in the face of deliberate and conscious efforts to obstruct Black advancement. Mother Nature’s weather patterns, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and floods are not directed at humans; however, the devastation humans experience is a consequence of her natural behavior. Black people are the first branch of humanity ever to persevere over deliberate and conscious adversity vested in the perpetuation of its agony. This is unprecedented in human history. Europeans have no similar achievements, and I welcome challenges to this idea.

 

Rigid Laws, Economic Systems, and Rapid Military Advancement indicate Dysfunction.

The need for rigid laws with barbaric penalties is a hallmark of societies with weak social cohesion. Pre-colonial non-European societies largely consisted of citizens who were at peace with the laws and readily embraced them. Today, we often regard rigid voting systems as a sign of advancement, when in reality they stem from a deceptive social model in which citizens cannot trust society to simply select the best leaders through informal social decree and unrecorded agreements. Societies that the West criticizes successfully have achieved this form of governance. While America has a political system that consistently produces results with nearly equal numbers of satisfied and dissatisfied citizens, many African societies did not require such a system; their communities generally supported their leaders wholeheartedly. This approach is far superior.

The reliance on gold to regulate commerce reflects dishonest domestic and international economic relations that normalized value deception and unethical, dishonest trade practices. Societies dependent on gold and silver as currency struggled to conduct business in good faith and required something finite and tangible—something that could not be counterfeited—to control the inherent tendencies within their culture. This issue is not confined to ancient and classical times. For example, U.S. coinage once contained silver, but the same inherent tendency toward deception led to the gradual removal of actual silver from American coins. Similarly, U.S. banknotes were once redeemable for gold; however, the government itself could not control its deceitful tendencies and ended the gold standard in 1971. Just 25 years after the Bretton Woods agreement, where White men agreed to peg the dollar to a fixed amount of gold, President Nixon turned his back on that commitment, devaluing Americans’ existing savings and sending the dollar into a perpetual tailspin.

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European academics believed that the absence of fortresses and castles in Africa and the Americas indicated inferior cultures. They failed to consider that the development of such military structures reflects persistent barbarism and an inability to establish and maintain peace. Castles served as fortifications to protect Europeans from their European neighbors; they were designed so that the surrounding town could take refuge inside during attacks. This implies that attacks were frequent enough to necessitate building walls in the first place, then have those walls breached enough times to invent moats, arrow slits, and other defensive features. The enemy also innovating, inventing battering rams to break down castle doors, siege towers, trebuchets, and catapults to launch projectiles over the castle walls to kill the people taking refuge inside. The word “undermine” derives from European efforts to mine under castle walls causing them to collapse. This is not the healthy development of a species tasked with survival; rather, it indicates a branch that lost its way. The barbarity-driven intelligence and advancements Europe experienced were minimal outside the Eurasian continent. Consistently peaceful or amicable relations with neighbors do not drive the development of castles or techniques to breach them. Today, we have planes capable of killing hundreds of thousands from 31,000 feet in the sky and regard the development of nuclear bombs as a hallmark of human progress. No—It is an early Europe’s wet dream and humanity’s greatest sin. Europeans made mankind the very first species in the history of planet Earth to devise a means of its own extinction. This is not advancement; rather, it is the mark of a confused species and failed leadership.

 

An Academic Racist Book

A good book to read on this subject is “War before Civilization” by Lawrence H. Keeley.

This book was recommended to me years ago by a racist I debated, who used it as evidence that all human groups engaged in warfare as frequently and intensely as Europeans. However, the author actually proves the opposite point. While Keeley does find instances of war and barbarity on every continent, he repeatedly cites the same examples, most notably Gebel Sahaba, an archaeological site in Africa dating back around 14,000 years that provides evidence of a massacre. It is clear he had no other examples to reference because the mass grave at Gebel Sahaba, two skeletons found in Algeria, the Christol Cave rock art in South Africa, and speculation about ancient fortifications in South Africa are all the evidence he presents to support the claim that Africa warred as much as Europe. Europe, with 26 centuries less civilized history than Africa, has thousands of mass graves, 30-40 of which are filled with the battered corpses people who died from European barbarity. Keeley also makes an important point: other cultures did not develop extensive methods to sustain prolonged warfare. While they engaged in warfare occasionally, it was not sustained enough to create extensive war infrastructure, such as weapons caches and supply line systems to provide fighters with continuous food and arms over long periods. It appears that groups unable to resolve conflicts diplomatically generally fought wars and then accepted the outcomes. This was not possible in resource-scarce Europe, where defeat meant near-certain death; losing groups could not simply relocate and start anew. The issue was not about who gained more or and less, rather who survived and who perished.

 

Racism in Real Time

Racism, as a system of power, remains a persistent force in American society. Currently, the Supreme Court of the United States is relying on slavery-era White supremacy to uphold White control over land that appears to have been fraudulently obtained. Charles LaBuzan, a Black man in Mississippi, purchased a piece of land in the 1830s. Today, in 2026, Jennine LaBuzan, his Great, Great, Great, Granddaughter, holds the original land patent (ownership document) and is attempting to enforce it and reclaim the land. However, White people possess the land now, and she seeks to enforce the original document. The issue arises because the defendants—a collective of White entities in current possession of the land—claim that Charles LaBuzan sold the land to a bank in 1848. However, the document they rely on lacks his signature; instead it contains the signature of the County Recorder, who attempted to replicate LaBuzan’s signature—a forgery under most circumstances. Rather than requiring the defendants to produce a valid document with LaBuzan’s authentic signature transferring ownership, White supremacy intervenes through the Supreme Court’s reliance on a 19^th-century rule allowing recorders to duplicate signatures. Why is this racism? Because the Supreme Court assumes equal legal status in 1848 Mississippi—a state that, in 2026, is currently aiding and abetting the lynching of Nolan Wells. If Mississippi in 2026 aids White people in evading murder laws, would it have hesitated to join a bank in dispossessing a Black man of his land in 1848? A body of thinkers as contemplative as the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to consider slavery-era racism. In fact, another Supreme Court decision, McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), effectively permits law enforcement to engage in racism as long as they do not explicitly admit it. Without explicit statements or actions linking police to racism, no Black person in America can successfully prove that a racist act is actually racist. In the LaBuzan case, the defendants have no document indicating that Mr. LaBuzan ever sold his land to the bank. Nevertheless, America’s permanent racial power dynamics reduce this reality to a dismissible quandary. The outcome is typical: a Black legal claim is overridden by White ownership without compensation. 

Jeanine LaBuzan’s Gofundme can be found here. They have jailed her already and her legal fees are immense. Please donate any amount to her struggle.

 

Happening as I Write This (Carmelo Anthony)

The well-known Carmelo Anthony case, in which a 17-year-old Black teenager stabbed and killed a White teenager, Austin Metcalf, at a high school track meet, became an extremely divisive racial issue. White America largely refused to see the White male as the aggressor and the Black male as someone defending himself. Despite evidence suggesting that Metcalf attacked Anthony, a jury—curated by excluding any Black members—convicted Anthony and sentenced him to 35 years to life in prison. After the trial, it was revealed that both the prosecution and defense conspired, without Anthony or his family’s knowledge, to hide records of Metcalf’s racist and violent past. According to statements released by the defense, these records showed that Metcalf had been arrested for spray-painting phrases such as “KKK Kill all Blacks” and “Heil Hitler,” presumably on a wall or building. He was also disciplined multiple times for using racial slurs and for bullying, including knocking a young girl to the ground and punching her in the stomach. Why would this information not be relevant in a case where the defendant claimed he was attacked by this person? And why would the prosecutor and defense make a private, off-the-record agreement to keep this information from the public? The answer is racism. In a society truly committed to justice and not primarily focused on protecting White males, both the prosecutor and defense attorneys would be jailed. However, in a society with de facto racist tendencies, the court denied Anthony a new trial. I understand that the denial of a new trial may be intended to allow the Supreme Court to weigh in and issue precedent, but that act alone proves racism. Requiring a higher court to enforce Anthony’s right not to have his own defense conspire with the prosecution to hide the violent and racist history of a person he claimed attacked him is America’s way of saying, “Are you sure there’s absolutely no way we can interpret the law to convict this little nigger for Metcalf’s attack?” The mere thought that a young man who likely acted in self-defense is rotting in jail because of an extralegal decision—one his own defense was party to—that hid documented racism and violence from the proceedings shows that race is a powerful and pervasive guiding factor in America’s most fundamental institutions, especially the justice system.

I believe that Carmelo will eventually be freed, but this hope depends on the assumption that there is still some justice left in the American legal system. As America becomes more desperate, the rapidly diminishing sense of justice will become increasingly apparent, and unconstitutional atrocities like the Carmelo Anthony case will seem minor compared to those yet to come. White America will tacitly approve. We have seen that they will overrun the Capitol if they truly disapprove of something. Anything short of that can be considered White America’s collective will.

Google will not provide information for Karmelo Anthony’s new campaign. This is what I will call “Informational Racism.”  The direct link is Here .

 

Troubling White Behavior

The White obsession with Black people likely stems from conflicting mental constructs. On one hand, White people have manufactured a global social superiority and wield authority over world affairs, including those involving Black people and Black societies. Their self-perception is fundamentally shaped by their juxtaposition to Black people. They must see Black people in pain to contrast with their own societal status, thinking, “At least I’m not Black.” Subconsciously, White people recognize that their society suppresses Black expression and progress; thus, their social superiority is manufactured, contrived, and certainly not the result of any genuinely earned advantage. They are aware that Black people are ideologically dispersed—a scattering caused by them and their ancestors—yet Black people show no real desire to harm White people without immediate and direct provocation. Anyone with an inkling of morality, or even aspirations of becoming moral, cannot achieve mental stability under such circumstances because, at least on a subconscious level, they understand they are indirectly complicit in immorality, using oppressed people’s condition to uplift themselves.

 

It’s Driving White People Crazy and Causing Them to Do Evil Things

The subconscious processes only truths and facts, regardless of their fallibility. White America’s subconscious minds easily recognize America’s rigged social circumstances, which causes mental instability and a persistent subconscious questioning of self-worthiness. Such an incessant contemplative overdrive can cause or exponentially aggravate mental illness, including a chronic paranoia about retribution. such paranoia may cause efforts by the oppressed to uplift themselves to be perceived as aggression, prompting many White people to diligently sabotage these efforts, often through violence. This mental instability also leads many White people to continuously garner reassurance of their social dominance by permitting the ongoing abuse of Black people by law enforcement. Each publicized event and death reassure White America that, first, the government can effectively combat attempts at retribution, and second, that the government’s violent tendencies are designated for others, not themselves.

The media help put the White mind at ease by publicizing events that reassure White America that Western violence is primarily directed at Black people. To legitimize this violence, it overemphasizes deadly Black-on-Black incidents—”they’re killing themselves anyway,” right? They are quick to emphasize that the 93% of murdered Black people killed by other Black people, are just 9% higher than the 84% of White people murdered by other White people. Is a 9% difference that big of a deal, especially since the group with higher numbers has the least wealth? I will do a separate post on this subject, but believe it or not, Black gang deaths throughout the entire history of Black street gangs, have yet to reach 40,000. In fact, the number is likely in the 30,000-to-35,000 range. You read that right! Over the whole 56-year history of Black street gangs, the death toll likely amounts to less than 40,000—a liberal estimate at that! However, the media deliberately makes it seem like a far bigger problem. For example, when I asked my family over the weekend to estimate how many Black gang deaths they thought had occurred, their estimates ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000. This widespread misconception is due to the media exaggerating the scale of Black violence to justify increased state violence against Black people. It provides the government with grounds to constantly demonstrate to White America that it can combat retribution. The truly disingenuous part is that Black gang violence barely affects White people; it is primarily directed at other Black people. I short, the government uses Black-on-Black murder as an excuse to commit state-on-Black murder, which reassures White America that it can prevent a nearly non-existent Black-on-White murder. The common denominator in this colonization of the value of Black suffering is Black death and the government’s license to immorally terrorize a group of Americans into perpetual inferiority. The White subconscious wrestles with these truths, which is extremely taxing on the soul and mind. Regardless of how they characterize Black dysfunction under conditions they create, White people know they are responsible for the absolute vast majority of humanity’s moral crimes over the last 500 years, and this is undoubtedly mentally catastrophic to collective White American mental state.

 

Obsessed with Genetic Capability

The ability to broaden one’s progeny’s genetic capabilities likely contributed to the origin and perpetuation of White supremacy. It is instinctual for human males to seek to leave their mark on humanity by causing it to resemble him through sexual reproduction. Since White men are least capable of achieving this goal within a diverse human population, their drive to isolate White people, control White women’s sexual activity, and eliminate non-White people becomes more understandable. Their intense focus on Black men—the most capable of making their mark on future generations—also becomes logical. As previously noted, it takes approximately 125 years to “Whiten” a human bloodline, whereas a single night of passion will make it Black. With this in mind, the obsession of White men with Black men’s penises gains further explanation. The fact that many past lynchings of Black men involved the mutilation of their penises, suggests that White men harbor deep-seated jealously toward Black men’s role as the original men possessing the inherent capability to partner with White women and produce children with broader genetic potential than they can. The loving act of sex inherently shapes humanity’s future, while the hateful act of lynching shapes humanity by removing the love makers. One method of shaping the future involves murder, and the other involves love making. The morality of these starkly different methods likely erodes White men’s psyche and sense of self, contributing to the irrational behavior observed today.

 

Conclusion

In reality, race should not matter, as the actual genetic differences between humans are minuscule. However, since their first encounters with Africans, White men have fixated on these differences to such an extent that they formed a culture based on the differences alone, ignoring the fact that we are 99.9% genetically similar.  This naïve outlook has left White men with an underlying mission to destroy or subjugate all non-White humans. Europe’s historical failure to create a healthy social model suggests that if they succeeded, they would simply turn on each other as they did in Europe. The West is ultimately futile because it contradicts humanity’s core mission: to survive as a species. White men designating themselves for survival over all others conflicts with this mission, as eliminating those genetically most capable reduces the likelihood that humans will retain the genetic tools to endure Mother Nature’s future challenges. Educating citizens that “everyone fought wars,” without distinguishing between those who developed and thrived in war culture and those who did not, limits human imagination and makes genuine peace far less achievable. Europeans waged war on a scale that makes other human groups’ warfare—with the arguable exception of Asians—look like merely brutal sports competitions. My call for humanity to recognize this is not intended to demonize White people or hurt their feelings; rather, it is necessary for humanity to develop the imagination required to move beyond this mindset. Humanity must become aware that some branches of humanity achieved a state of peace unimaginable to today’s Western citizen. The peace achieved was so strong that many societies could act in good faith with their enemies. Being in a state of constant war—both quiet and overt, domestic and foreign—only increases humanity’s capacity for self-destruction. Mankind’s greatest sin, the invention of the nuclear bomb, occurred under European watch and remains a testament to the argument that Europeans are not fit to unilaterally lead humanity. I am not saying they have no place in human leadership—they certainly do; I would even argue that they are required. As Artificial Intelligence develops, under White leadership, the world may commit an even greater sin than the nuclear bomb. Technology can be programmed to eliminate humanity, thereby creating a new avenue for species suicide. Forced White guardianship of humanity is leading us away from constitutional principles and toward conditions resembling slavery and barbaric domestic warfare. The Founding Fathers would not even recognize America as their creation today. Police can invalidate citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court in 2026 has gone a step further, allowing officers to enter homes without probable cause, the old standard, and simple in an “emergency.” Surveillance cameras and cell phone towers now track Americans’ every move and even listen to their conversations. All homes have multiple cameras and microphones within with government aligned corporations listening. Banks do not build homes or perform the labor to pay for them, yet they are the largest beneficiaries of the fact that humans are hardwired to put roofs over their heads. Education rather than fostering enlightenment and mental empowerment, leaves the “educated” in a form of slavery, laboring for banks their entire lives. Without race, America would have the capacity to check these clearly unconstitutional developments, but racism makes many believe the Founding Fathers were willing to sacrifice the republic to maintain White supremacy. While they limited America to “free White persons,” I believe they respected the nation’s laws to the extent that they would not reject the authority of law altogether just to exclude Black people.  In fact, by virtue of being law, they would be compelled to uphold it or reject the authority of law altogether.  The Western outlook has resigned much of humanity to accept the human species’ catastrophic implosion as the only solution, whether through nuclear war or environmental destruction rendering Earth uninhabitable. This outlook contradicts our regard for our species as supposedly intelligent with minds of great capacity. Animals can kill each other off, so what makes us different if we kill ourselves off? The complexity of the destruction? If we were to drive ourselves into extinction, we will become the first species to mindfully do so, thereby making us lesser than monkeys or dogs. It is time for humanity to take life seriously. In 100 years, history books should tell the story of how this generation broke the cycle of war, used reason to solve our dilemma, and implemented solutions so successful that future generations would scarcely recognize our present society. This process begins with humanity fully recognizing and ultimately dismantling the concept of race.