Note: Our calling as stewards of God's Creation includes preserving it as He created it. This includes securing the purity of the original races as God created them. Toward this end, I believe Richard McCulloch has made some great advances in furthing this goal.

Racial Rights

Rights are a concept that requires belief, for in actual practice rights exist only because people believe in them. Rights are values that people hold and assert. A value emerges and becomes normative whenever a critical mass, or a powerful minority, of people share it and persistently act in accordance with it. The belief in rights can either be an ethical or factual belief. Rights are an ethical concept. A belief that rights should be practiced is an ethical belief, expressing what is believed to be ethically right or wrong. Beliefs that relate to the nature of rights are factual beliefs, expressing what is believed to be factually true or false. For example, the belief in a human right or freedom is an ethical belief, but the belief that the source of this right is endowed by the Creator is a factual belief. Ethical and factual beliefs are often confused which makes it important that a clear distinction be drawn between them. Factual beliefs are more objective, pertaining to things or events that exist outside of the mind. Ethical beliefs are more subjective, pertaining to something which exists inside the mind. Ethical beliefs are concerned primarily with human behavior, and in essence consist of what we believe human behavior should be or should have been. Factual beliefs apply across the entire spectrum of existence or nonexistence, including human behavior, and in essence consist of what we believe actually is, was, or will be, not what should be or should have been. Factual beliefs are not necessarily factually true, and ethical beliefs are not necessarily ethically right. They are what the believer believes to be true and right. Much of the confusion between factual and ethical beliefs stems from the attempt to reduce complex matters of human behavior and causation to a simple explanation. This is an example of reductionist thinking. The causation of human behavior is not simple, but is rather enormously complex and varied. In spite of the great influence that genetic or inherited characteristics have on human behavior, there are so many other random and interactive influences that defy all attempts to reduce human behavior to scientific levels of predictability and control. Human emotions, values, needs and desires often influence the progression of ethical beliefs, principles and conduct much more than do factual beliefs, with the result that ethical conduct often varies widely from what the subject's factual beliefs might lead one to expect. Values are commonly more influential in determining ethical beliefs than are factual beliefs. Values can be more accurately described as the qualities of life and existence that are regarded as important and desirable than as beliefs. They are more deeply held and more resistant to change than beliefs. When there is a conflict between values and beliefs, values often prevail and the beliefs are often either rejected or modified so as to be consistent with and reinforce the values. Values are one of the most important distinctions separating humanity from inhumanity and brutality, civilization from savagery. Some values may be inborn or natural to human nature. If there are innate values it can be assumed they have a genetic basis like all genetic characteristics, in which case they would likely vary between individuals and between races. While it is appropriate for ethical beliefs to be determined by an interaction of factual beliefs and values, it is not appropriate for factual beliefs to be determined and influences by ethical beliefs and values. Ideally, factual beliefs should be determined by an objective reasoning process whose first duty is to the continuous search for empirical truth. Unfortunately, factual beliefs have been very strongly influenced, and even determined, by ethical beliefs and values. Factual beliefs have even been judged by the standards of ethical beliefs -- as ethically good or bad rather than as factually true or false. Ideologies are systems of values, thought and belief which can frequently be dogmatic, requiring conformance to their dogma or prescribed beliefs, both factual and ethical. Dogmatic ideologies are intolerant of any beliefs which vary from those they prescribe. Their ethical beliefs hold that any deviance from the orthodox or prescribed beliefs is immoral. They judge factual beliefs that are deviant or unorthodox not only as erroneous on factual grounds but also on ethical ground. Scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, artists and many others have repeatedly suffered persecution for their factual beliefs when they deviated from the prescribed beliefs of a dominant and intolerant ideology. Their deviant factual beliefs were not judged on factual grounds but rather on the grounds that the holding of any deviant belief was ethically in error, immoral and intolerable. Of course, philosophy, theology and the arts commonly expound ethical beliefs, and it is proper for these ethical beliefs to be judged by the standards of ethics, as morally right or wrong. But they also deal with factual beliefs, as do science and history, and it is not proper for these factual beliefs to be judged by ethical standards as morally right or wrong, or by any standards other than the standard of whether they are factually true or false. Ethical judgments should be reserved for ethical beliefs. Unfortunately, the practice of intolerant ideologies, either religious or secular, have regarded any belief - or disbelief - which differs from their own prescribed factual or ethical beliefs as a threat. They have perceived any threat in moral terms as ethically wrong and evil. This practice of judging factual beliefs on ethical grounds can generally be traced to the misconception that factual beliefs are the sole cause of ethical beliefs. The persecution of deviant factual beliefs, and the practice of making ethical judgments about persons based on their factual beliefs, is a common characteristic of intolerant ideologies. Ironically, these ideologies often seem more inclined to ethically condemn a person for deviant factual beliefs than for deviant ethical beliefs. The intolerant and dogmatic secular ideologies in the modern age have continued the custom of making ethical judgments about factual beliefs. These secular ideologies have persecuted, as far as their power to do so goes, those factual beliefs that conflicted with their policies and goals. Science (especially as it relates to the study of genetics, human nature, and individual and racial inequalities, differences or diversity), economics and history have been the primary targets of this persecution of conflicting factual beliefs. The beliefs of established religious ideologies were enforced under the direction of a priesthood which presumed to dictate beliefs and values. The modern secular dogmatic ideologies behave in essentially the same intolerant manner. If they are "established" they are enforced by the police and judicial power of the government. If they are not established their means of control are less overt, but not necessarily less effective. In both cases the control is directed by what can be described as a secular ideological priesthood. If the ideology is established this "priesthood" is concentrated in the government. If the ideology is not established, its priesthood is concentrated in those positions which exercise the greatest degree of control over ideas, especially in academia and the communications and cultural media. The MARXIST ideology that held established status in the Soviet Union (1917-1991) was quite blatant in its control of scientific, economic and historical factual beliefs. In BIOLOGY it held a dogmatic factual belief in both human equality and human malleability, and persecuted factual belief (in the new science of genetics) in the existence of innate human characteristics that were both unequal and resistant to efforts to change them by external means. Its ECONOMIC factual beliefs were dictated by arbitrary ethical beliefs and value judgments, and produced an economic system that condemned its practitioners to material impoverishment and eventually collapsed from its own inherent inner contradictions. In HISTORY it held a dogmatic factual belief in dialectical materialism, and forbade any historical interpretation or factual belief that deviated from this doctrine. The dominant secular ideologies in the modern Western World have shared many beliefs in common with Marxism -- which can often be traced to the same underlying ethical beliefs and value judgments. This ideology has also tended to be dogmatic and intolerant, typically persecuting and repressing beliefs that conflicted with their own as far as it was in their power to do so. In particular, they have shared the factual belief in innate human biological or genetic equality. This version of egalitarianism that is quite different from the primarily ethical belief in human legal and political equality of Thomas Jefferson had its beginnings before there was a science of genetics. It has persisted to the present in a continuous ideological line that has opposed and sought to repress the development of conflicting factual beliefs by denouncing them on ethical grounds with an intolerant dogmatism of religious intensity. The study of genetics, particularly as it relates to human racial diversity and differences, has been gravely retarded by the organized intolerance, hostility and persecution it has encountered whenever it has challenged the dogmatic factual beliefs -- and the values and goals they support -- of the prevailing ideological orthodoxy. In history, as in science, the same secular ideological elements are dominant, and promote those historical factual beliefs that tend to support their position while seeking to persecute and repress those historical beliefs that differ from their own. Their intolerance of conflicting historical factual beliefs typically assumes a posture of ethical judgment, and the holding of the deviant belief is condemned as immoral. Conformance to the prescribed (or "Politically Correct") factual beliefs is required as a demonstration of good faith, and is often sustained by faith alone, as the critical faculties are suspended for the sake of moral respectability. In this anti- intellectual environment, where beliefs that disagree with the orthodox position are in effect forbidden as heresy, the pursuit of objective truth is effectively restricted to the factual beliefs deemed acceptable by the dominant ideology. The intent of those engaging in the condemnation of factual beliefs on moral grounds can only be the enforcement of conformity to their own preferred factual beliefs by the repression of conflicting beliefs. The situation is reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen's tale of _The Emperor's New Clothes_, wherein the ability to see something (in this example nonexistent clothing) which did not really exist (belief or faith in the prescribed factual beliefs) was regarded as proof of virtue, with the result that all pretended to see something which did not really exist, except for a child who was innocent of pretense. Nowhere is the enforcement of factual beliefs by ethical judgment and intimidation more pronounced than in academia. If this is surprising, it should be remembered that, historically, universities and other institutions of higher education have more commonly been centers for the promotion and enforcement of ideological orthodoxy and conformity of belief than for the promotion of intellectual and academic freedom. The perception of universities as havens of free thought, belief and speech, which we cherish so highly, is a very fragile ideal promoted by the ideology of classical liberalism, and often violated by the very persons who claim to hold it most dear. So called "political correctness" is merely the re-establishment of the illiberal norm by the rise of a new dogmatic and intolerant ideology to a position of dominance. The existence of rights is probably the best evidence for the power and importance of ethical beliefs. Rights are an ethical belief. These values are expressions of ethics and values that depend on a consensus of belief to keep its structure intact, without which it would collapse. That is why rights have been so seldom recognized in the past or present, and why they have so often been gained only at great cost and after difficult struggle. To achieve a consensus of acceptance and achieve recognition, rights should meet certain criteria. Not all rights are equally valid. Some are arbitrary and capricious, applied selectively or unequally, granted to some but not to others by a double or multiple standard of application. Valid rights apply equally to all, by one common standard of application. They can be granted to all, for their possession by some does not require their denial to others. It is this reciprocity in the recognition of rights, by which one party recognizes for others the same rights they want recognized for themselves, that is the basis for the consensus of acceptance upon which the existence of rights depends. Some rights take priority over others, and those of the foremost priority may be referred to as primary rights. Primary rights are the most fundamental and are founded on the most basic and universal human existential needs and desires. The first among these is the right to life. This right includes the right to the conditions required for life, without which the right to life would be meaningless. Next, is the right of a living entity to control its own life, the right to be free, to self-determination, independence, liberty. With recognition of, or ethical belief in, these primary rights, humanity rose to a higher level of ethical existence and civilization. From the beginning these primary rights were recognized not only for individual living beings, but for the living populations which are the larger whole of which individuals constitute the parts -- namely peoples, nations and races. The early documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, explicitly affirmed and promoted the rights of nations and peoples to independence and liberty. The influence of a global movement to minimize and eliminate human particularities, diversity and differences has discouraged and inhibited the further development and recognition of rights for population groups. Where national, ethnic and racial rights have been upheld they have only been applied selectively and unequally. Primary rights should be clearly described, affirmed and recognized for all human racial or ethnic populations. Those other alleged rights which are not essential to life or liberty, and particularly those which conflict with the rights of other peoples to life and liberty, are secondary rights, and should yield when they conflict with primary rights. The United Nations Organization produced a number of documents which gave increased legal recognition and standing to the ethical concepts of racial rights. These documents addressed the right of a people to both life and liberty (independence or self-determination). The first responding to allegations of the commission of genocide during the recently concluded conflict of W.W. II, the second responding to the growing demands of colonized or subject people for freedom, and recognizing their aspirations as legitimate. The following passage, taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, describes some of the provisions of the U.N. document which sought to define and prohibit genocide, and which gave effective recognition to the right of every race to life and the conditions necessary for its continued existence. According to the United Nations _Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide_, which was approved by the General Assembly in 1948 and went into effect in 1951, genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of peace or of war (distinguishing it from crimes against humanity which are acts committed in connection with crimes against peace, or war crimes) and under its term "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are also made punishable. Perpetrators may be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals. One of the results of the convention has been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an internal matter ("a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction") but a matter of international concern. The document was, in theory, a great step forward in the recognition and promotion of the ethical concept of racial rights, but in practice it has been applied rarely and selectively, and ignored whenever those with the power to ignore it found it to be inconsistent with their own goals. In particular, its definition of genocide as including means of racial destruction other than the actual mass murder of individuals is a critical breakthrough for the concept of racial rights, recognizing that racial destruction can be, and has been, caused by means other than actual mass murder. The recognition, affirmation and defense of racial rights -- particularly the primary racial rights to life and liberty, or independence -- is also a recognition and defense of the value and importance of human life and human racial diversity. Human rights include racial rights, for races are the branches or divisions of humanity. If the diverse races of humanity are to COEXIST and share the planet earth together they must first agree to recognize and defend the right of all races TO EXIST. Humanity needs to adopt a concept of racial relations that is based on the principle of racial rights, permitting the different races to share the earth, their common home, together by assuring their secure possession of their own racially exclusive homelands or countries where they will enjoy the conditions of geographic separation and reproductive isolation required for their continued existence.

Charter of Racial Rights

Racial rights are primary rights as they are concerned either with the right of all races to life or the right of all races to control their own life and destiny. Taken together they can be regarded as a _Charter of Racial Rights_, the essential foundation of the Racial Compact. They are as follows: All races have a right to be unique and different, to be themselves, and to love, value and be proud of what they are. All races have a right to have their existence and identity recognized, respected and protected, to define, affirm and celebrate their existence and identity, and to promote their legitimate rights and interests. All races have a right to racial life, a right to live, a right to exist as what they are and preserve what they are, a right to exist as a separate form of life, and a right to the conditions they require for continued life, existence and evolution. All races have a right to independence and peaceful self- determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races. All races have a right to their own living space or territory, to possession of their own racial homeland, to exist within secure borders, to have and hold their own country, separate from and exclusive of other races, as a condition required for both their continued life and independence. All races have a right to self-government, to their own sovereign and fully independent government to govern their own country, their own life and existence, and determine their own future. All races have a right to the affections and loyalties, love and care of their members, and this right takes precedence over any ideology -- or system of beliefs and values -- that would promote disaffection or alienation of loyalties, or censure racial love and caring. All races have a right to exclusive control over the creation, upbringing, development and education of their own children, to control over their own reproduction -- the renewal of their racial life, the transmission of their genes and culture to successor generations -- free of interference by other races. All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture and replacement. All races have a right to the material product of their own creation, and to use that product for their own benefit, free of any claim upon it by other races. These rights apply equally and by the same standard to all human races. No race, regardless of its status as either a majority or minority, has a right to violate the above primary and inalienable rights of any race. There is no such thing as minority or majority rights, only racial rights, which are exactly the same regardless of demographic status as a racial minority or majority. No group, whether a majority or minority, has a right to deny or violate the right of another race to the conditions it requires for racial life, liberty and independence, or to its own territory or government. Therefore, no race has a right to be in the living space or territory of another race, or to be involved in the government of another race, as the first violates the racial right to a separate and racially secure homeland, and the second violates the racial right to independence, sovereignty and self-determination. The recognition and defense of the racial rights listed above requires support for certain other related ethical beliefs, values, policies and positions, and the practice of certain ethical principles, which include the following: Support for the ethical belief or principle that no race should be a slave or servant to another, that all races are an end in themselves and not a means to the ends of others, that they should serve and benefit their own ends and not the ends of others, and that no race should interfere with or unduly influence the affairs or development of another. Opposition to any and all doctrines or forms of racial supremacy, dominance or mastery, whereby one race is supreme, dominant or master over another, whether in whole or in part, totally or partially, overtly or covertly, by force or by guile. Support for the moral principle of reciprocity as the basis of racial relations, recognizing the same rights for all races (the racial "Golden Rule"). Opposition to all forms of invasion, migration or movement, whether forceful or peaceful, by members of one race into the establishment and recognized living space, territory, country or homeland of another. Opposition to and rejection of all claims made for transfer of wealth from one race to another, or claims for material support made by one race on another, either as reparations for alleged past wrongs or for any other reason. Rejection of the concept of "collective guilt," which holds all members of a racial, religious, national or ethnic group responsible and guilty for the wrongs committed by some members of the group, and thus both responsible for reparations and subject to punishment. Opposition to any and all forms of genocide or racial destruction or diminishment, whether with or without the consent or cooperation of its victims, whether inflicted by other races, self-inflicted, or a combination of both, including the following: Any action, policy, value system or condition which prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful reproduction of a race. Any action, policy, value system or condition which denies a race the conditions it needs for its continued life or well-being, especially the condition of multiracialism which denies a race the condition of racial isolation it needs for its successful reproduction free from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture. Any action, policy or process of racial dispossession, displacement or replacement whereby members of one race move, or are moved, into the established, clearly defined and recognized living space, territory or homeland of another race and dispossess, displace or replace it. Any action, policy, process or condition which is the result of human action and has the effect of lessening or diminishing the existence of a race, or altering, distorting or diluting its racial traits and characteristics, in the short term or the long term, in the existing generation or in the course of the generations to come. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the racially destructive practice of racial intermixture. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which has the effect of taking persons away from their race, in mind or in body, physically or in alienation of affections or loyalties, and transferring them, or their affections and loyalties, to another race. Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the continuation or renewal of racial life. Any use of allegations of past wrongs to deny a race its present or future vital rights and interests, the conditions it needs to live and preserve its existence, especially its own exclusive territory and its separation and independence from other races. The ethical belief in rights, including racial rights, has an effect on political, social and cultural ethics and values. In particular, it requires government to recognize and defend the rights believed in as part of its fundamental purpose. It also expects the dominant or "mainstream" social and cultural institutions to affirm and support these rights. Therefore, the ethical belief in racial rights promotes the following ethical beliefs and principals concerning political, social and cultural institutions: The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of government is to serve and preserve the race, to defend its separateness and independence, to serve its interests, and preserve it form dilution, diminishment or extinction by intermixture with, or replacement by, other races. Therefore, when a government becomes destructive of this end, or harmful to this purpose, when it becomes racially oppressive by denying the race its vital rights -- the conditions of independence, separation and reproductive isolation required for its continued life -- or when it threatens, endangers or violates the vital rights or interests of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the change of that government. The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of a socially, culturally and politically dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion, or system of beliefs and values, is to serve and promote the welfare, well-being, health and best interests of the race, especially its vital or life-essential rights and interests, including its successful reproduction, and to act to preserve its existence. Therefore, when a dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion becomes destructive or harmful to this end or purpose, or when it promotes the violation of the vital rights and interests of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the change of the dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion. The belief that the primary purpose of an international organization is to promote the Racial Compact and uphold the Charter of Racial Rights, promoting the coexistence and continued existence of the diverse human races by protecting the reproductive isolation, geographic separation and political independence of races and preventing the violation of the rights, independence or separateness of one race by another. Racial independence and self-determination are concerned with the right of a race to exercise control over its own life, existence, future, and destiny. Racial independence is cultural and economic as well as political and biological. To truly control its own life a race must also exercise exclusive and sovereign control over its culture, history, art and myths, its self-image, soul, heart and mind, its view of its past, present and future, its purpose and destiny, nature and identity. No race can be truly free if another race exercises control over it, in whole or in part, in any of these areas. The sovereignty of a government is derived from the people or race, the branch of life or Creation, that it serves. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. When its actions and policies become destructive of the proper end or purpose of government, when it works against the vital or life-essential interests of the people or race it was created to serve, and upon service to whom its legitimacy depends, it becomes illegitimate and loses its ethical justification for existence. The ethical belief in racial rights extends the ethical concept of human rights to explicitly include, recognize and respect the rights of human races as well as individuals. The race is the whole of which the individual is a part, and that which is destructive of the whole is also destructive of its parts. The true interests of the individual are intimately connected to, and consistent with, the interests of its race in a natural mutuality or commonality of interest. They are joined together by the bonds of biological relationship -- sharing the same genes -- and the "mystic cords of memory" from thousands of generations of common ancestry. For an individual to deny their race is to deny themselves, their place and role in nature, where they came from and what they are, the cause of their existence as well as the greater purpose of their existence. Humanity has reached a point in its development -- technological and moral -- where racial rights are required for the preservation of its racial diversity. The continued existence of certain racial groups is dependent upon the implementation of the Racial Compact and the principles of racial rights upon which it is based. It is not constructive to attempt to impose these principles on the past, or to judge past generations by their standard, or to dwell obsessively on past deeds which violated them. Past generations were in a different situation from the present, and the EX POST FACTO application of current values, standards, and ideologies upon the past do it an injustice and our understanding a disservice. But what was then was then and what is now is now. Our concern should be with the present and the future, with where we go from here, not with the deeds or misdeeds of the past. People want something to exist when they regard its existence as a valuable, important and desirable part of life and existence. Therefore racial rights will exist only when enough people regard them as important and desirable. To do that they must first regard races and what they represent as valuable, important and worth preserving -- their own race in particular, but also other races and racial differences and diversity in general. If they do they will make racial rights, and the Racial Compact, a fact. That will be a great step forward for humanity. It will replace the ages-old rule of "the survival of the fittest" -- a condition of existence that is the antithesis of civilization, and which civilization has progressively sought to replace -- with the values and concepts of racial rights as the governing principle of racial relations, affirming and protecting the right of every race to life and liberty, existence and independence. That will be the world of the Racial Compact, a world safe for human racial diversity.