Back in the early 2000s: there was an increasing trend in certain segments of the racialist movement towards the minimization of the jewish question.
This segment of the racialist movement was spearheaded by the 'darling' of the 'modernizing school': Jared Taylor.
While Taylor did not go so far as to 'ban' those who speak out about the jewish question from his organisation, or conferences. He was put under some intense pressure to do so by his ‘white jewish friends' and readers; notably Lawrence Auster (1) and Michael Hart (2).
It is interesting to note that after Taylor's 2006 article in his monthly 'American Renaissance' magazine; when he called jews 'irrelevant' (3), that there were (at the time) increasing numbers of references in said magazine to jews as an 'extremely ethnocentric white group'. (4) As well as published letters from subscribers identifying themselves as 'white jews’ (5) congratulating Mr. Taylor on his magazine and its content.
'American Renaissance' - and perhaps what we should call the 'Taylor school' of racialist thought seem - on the face of things - to present a water tight case.
Why associate racialism with the Jewish Question: I mean after all... the jews are just 'like us White people': right?
The interesting thing about the 'Taylor school's' stance on the jewish question is: how at odds it is with their own trumpeted methodology for understanding the world.
The 'Taylor school' love to talk about how they have both a 'populist' (6) and 'fact-based' (7) approach to the various issues that Racialist thought centres around.
Perhaps, their approach can be indeed be described as 'populist'; i.e. in this specific case: distilling racialist thought to such an extent where-by it supposedly becomes palatable to those individuals who don't like 'loonies' (read: anyone who talks about socially taboo facts), and such other ways of describing the truth as the facts of the matter present it.
However, 'populism' is certainly a double-edged sword, since when one compromises on certain parts of your belief system - as the 'Taylor school' invariably does - it allows an open door for a 'few changes here' and 'a few changes there'.
Since after all: you've made one 'modernising' change so why not a few, and if you've made a few... why don't you make a few more?
The essential point being made here is not the logical fallacy of the 'slippery slope' , but in fact it is stating that Mr. Taylor has openly 'modernised' his position and hence his 'American Renaissance' magazine has slipped into the bowels of essentially being hypocrites of their own method. This - my dear readers - is where the 'slippery slope' device, becomes fact rather than logical fallacy.
This hypocrisy is not inherent within the 'populist' approach to racialist politics: far from it in fact, but it is inherent to the 'Taylor school' in its publications, and its outlook. By this the author means the 'fact-based approach' of the 'Taylor school' is in fact nothing of the sort, but is largely a 'selectively stated fact-based approach'.
In order to evidence this to the reader, and indeed provide the necessary evidence that the present author’s 'slippery slope' device is indeed correct in its usage rather than as a metaphysical logical fallacy. It is necessary to critically review the pages of 'American Renaissance' to show how Mr. Taylor and the writers who write for ‘American Renaissance’ like to leave out inconvenient facts about jews, which do not support the 'white jews’ assertion.
Martin Luther King and the NAACP
One of the favourite targets for the 'Taylor school's' ire is the infamous 'Saint' 'Dr.' Martin Luther King, and Taylor as well as his nom de plume and alter-ego ‘Thomas Jackson’. (8)
'American Renaissance' offers the reader a seemingly detailed review from the literature around Martin Luther King, and how he was cheat, general malcontent, and plagiarist. This information is based as you might expect on solid facts that the specialist literature has uncovered, but remains outside the purview of many.
However, Mr. Taylor and his writers conveniently don't actually ask what is a fundamental question: how was Martin Luther King able to do what he did?
After all Mr. Taylor and his writers also have tendency to talk generally in terms of IQ when discussing racial differences and highlighting that the mean average for Negro IQ in the United States is 85: one standard deviation below the mean average for Whites at 100. (9)
This is interesting, because 'American Renaissance' and the 'Taylor school' in general expend - as we have stated - a significant amount of time and space to developing the IQ and civilisation argument (10) that has generally been pioneered in the modern era by Richard Lynn, Hans Eysenck (11) and Arthur Jensen. (12) Although they would argue - and this author would not object - that these figures are not averages and that outliers (i.e., exceptions to the rule) will be present.
However, this puts the 'Taylor school' and 'American Renaissance' in a bit of a logical bind; since it is clear from the literature - and is well demonstrated in the manner of the plagiarism of Martin Luther King itself - that he wasn't the brightest black man in the world. (13)
So how did Martin Luther King do what he did: if he wasn't the brightest chap in the world?
The logical - and in this case factually correct - answer would be that he had help.
The next logical question would have to be: who helped and what was the nature of that help?
Taylor, 'American Renaissance' and the 'Taylor school' in general make little to no mention of the jewish support for Martin Luther King, or that he was introduced to communism and extensively helped by the jewish communist Stanley Levison. (14)
To quote Stanford’s ‘Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute’ on Levison’s role in King’s success:
‘In 1956 Stanley Levison, a Jewish attorney from New York, began raising funds to support the Montgomery bus boycott and became acquainted with Martin Luther King, Jr. The two men developed a close relationship in which Levison not only advised King, but also aided him with the day-to-day administrative demands of the movement. In 1963, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used King’s relationship with Levison, who they believed to be a Communist functionary, to justify surveillance of King.’ (15)
Some of the specialist literature - as well as many of the authors of Racialist commentary on it, even makes the assertiont hat Levison actually wrote some of King's speeches for him. Duke - for example - asserts that Levinson may have in fact written the famous 'I Have A Dream' speech, (16) which we now know to have been plagiarised from another preacher (17) and also to have been ‘written’… sorry… plagiarised by Levison. (18)
Proponents of the 'Taylor school' however might seek to debunk this notion of Jewish power over Martin Luther King by asserting - in line with previous assertions made my members of this school of thought - that his two personal aides (chronologically): Bayard Rustin and Jack O'Dell weren't jews.
Thus somehow 'debunking' the fact that the jewish communist Levison was the most powerful man behind the scenes with King which we know to be true. (19)
Of course, what proponents of the 'Taylor school' would either mention in passing or 'forget' to mention at all is the fact that both Rustin and O'Dell were known communists. (20)
Communism of course is a philosophy largely created by jews for the benefit of jews (21) and it can be argued that it had its basis in some of the earlier practices of jewry. (22)
Thus, we can establish that although Rustin and O'Dell were not jews biologically: they were ideologically and in spirit.
Further to this we can further evidence that Levison was the more important influence in creating - and maintaining - Martin Luther King by the simple expedient of pointing out that he was both Martin Luther King's accountant - incidentally Levison was a major accounting presence in the (jewish-dominated) Communist Party USA (23) (according to Duke he was a funnel for funding from the Soviet Union) (24) and main fund-raiser. (25)
So thus far we have shown that one of the 'Taylor school's' preferred hobby-horses has far more to it than they that school and Taylor would have you believe. This author has already pointed out the fundamental contradiction between 'American Renaissance's', Taylor's and the 'Taylor school's' general obsession - which is perhaps somewhat justifiable - with IQ, and their lack of any non-hypocritical explanation for how Martin Luther King was able to do what he did.
Perhaps, it is also necessary to further re-enforce the point being made in so far as blacks lacking the will and the ability - as the 'Taylor school' tells us - to organise themselves in such manner. However, from its formation to the 1970's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (hereafter NAACP) was characterised by good organisation and the unusual ability to use the given tools of the day to the NAACP's advantage. (26)
Since that time the NAACP has become a by-word for self-interest, corruption and the support of general lunacy among the wider black community. (27)
This is not something mentioned by the 'Taylor school' very often (if at all), but it should be obvious if one compares the account given of the Rosa Parks incident (28) and the accounts given of current events in Taylor's writings (29) that there is an obvious disparity between the organisation now and then. In so far as if you read an article by Taylor about the historic NAACP and then one about the modern NAACP you would almost think you were dealing with two different organisations.
This again begs the logical question: what has changed?
Well 'American Renaissance' magazine answered that on their own in a manner of speaking, when they reviewed a book on the relationship between blacks and jews in the 'Civil Rights Era'. (30)
This was perhaps a surprise to readers of 'American Renaissance', because the jewish angle of events is not usually touched upon in the pages of said magazine. (31)
However, the article had an interesting slant in it for our purposes here. It argued that jews in fact supported blacks because they were afraid of a White majority (for reasons of 'anti-Semitism' and the so-called 'Holocaust') and hence thought a 'racially integrated' America was better for jews. (32)
Yes, the early NAACP had jewish Presidents, (33) the clear majority of its founding members were Jews (34) (interestingly 'American Renaissance' writes of Du Bois the one of only two black founding members of the NAACP as if he were the sole founder: again glossing over jewish involvement) (35) and was largely funded and organised by jews. (36)
‘American Renaissance' stops short of saying this in their review of that book, and instead generalises it as a 'general alliance' (37) rather than mentioning specifics, which might show how they and/or Taylor had glossed over the jewish role in earlier articles.
However, how can this revelation about the jewish role with 'American Renaissance's', and the 'Taylor school's' concept that the jews 'don't matter'? (38)
The 'Taylor school' contradicts this assertion by arguing that Jewish interests were against the interests of the White race in the past. (39) However that now 'the jewish people' are ‘now beginning to come round’ - remember this was argued by Taylor and his supporters in 2006/2007 and hasn’t aged well at all! - to a similar point of view about the current situation and find that their interests are similar to those espoused by this 'Taylor school'. (40)
The assumption behind this is actually remarkably similar to the beliefs espoused by this author and others who are termed 'Nazis' and/or 'anti-Semites' by 'mainstream' political thought. In so far as it assumes that 'the jewish people' are an extremely significant force within the modern political climate of the United States and to a large extent: the world.
The 'Taylor school's' idea seems to be that courting 'the jewish people' by falsely declaring them 'White' - more on that later - and distancing themselves from 'anti-Semitism' that the Jews will actively assist White people in their demographic plight. (41)
Sounds like a nice and quite logical idea doesn't it?
Well yet again the 'Taylor school's' logic is utterly superficial as one can easily demonstrate by asking who will hold the power after this 'saving of the White Race'?
To answer that you just have to look to the same powerful 'jewish people' who they say have (or were going to [but apparently haven’t gotten round to it yet]) just 'saved' the White race from extinction.
So the 'Taylor school's' logic leads them to leave the power within the United States, Europe and the European Diaspora generally with very people who they refuse to admit were behind 'Saint' Martin Luther King, the organised and powerful NAACP [ergo Rosa Parks] and behind the 'anti-racist science' that 'American Renaissance', Taylor and the 'Taylor school' consistently attack with a significant chunk of their ire.
These same Jews by admission of the 'Taylor school's' own logic and statements are highly ethnocentric, which means that they see themselves as jews first, and anything else second.
This means that they will always act in jewish interests first - and White interests second (at best) - so we come to a situation where the 'Taylor school' wants to give power to a supposedly 'White' group that does not identify as 'White' first.
Perhaps the 'Taylor school' might try and debunk this by claiming that it is the same as any 'religion', but as we will discuss later the appellation ‘jews’ refers to a biological group (traditionally in White nations as well as Israel), rather than an actual religion in all but the case of non-jewish converts of Judaism (which are few indeed).
One only need look at ‘American Renaissance’s’ jewish associate Lawrence Auster who is a practicing Christian to see a direct contradiction to this argument.
However, would any Protestant - for example - seek to act in accordance with the wish of another state?
Would they show the absolute loyalty to a Protestant state similar to 'the jewish people' to the jewish state of Israel if there were only one Protestant state in the world?
I doubt it.
For White people generally: race comes before religion and the same applies to jews.
If one doubts that one can easily look up the Israeli marriage laws and how the 'Law of Return' works in Israel to see how the concept of jew is defined biologically by the only jewish state in the world.
Not quite so nice and logical now: is it?
In fact: it is downright illogical, and absurd to suggest that this might be a 'good idea' if one assumes as the 'Taylor school' does that 'the jewish people' in the United States, and in Europe are a highly significant political entity.
The 'Taylor school' might now wish to use Mr. Taylor's argument about 'white jews’ (42) to back up their crumbling logic, but as we shall discuss this assertion is firstly disingenuous and secondly hypocritical to the stated methodological approach of the Taylor school, which as this author has earlier asserted is supposedly 'facts-based'.
Will the 'White Jews’ Please Stand Up?
In his article 'The Genetics of Race' published in 'American Renaissance' Harold Stowe spends a significant amount of time talking about the population genetics dimension of racialism and pointing out at length why assertions from Marxist academics such Richard Lewontin - who he doesn't mention was a jew - about absolute racial equality are in fact completely erroneous. (43)
Within this body of work, there is a section sub-titled 'Unique Variants' where it is pointed out that Ashkenazi Jews have certain exclusive genetic diseases and significantly different rates as a biological group for others.
This is not expanded upon by Stowe, but it is telling that Stowe appears to suddenly group Ashkenazi Jews in with the Han Chinese among others about having unique genetic polymorphisms. (44)
The fact it was not expanded upon is quite probably due to Taylor's earlier article ‘Jews and American Renaissance' where he asserted that 'American Renaissance' was to take no explicit policy as regards the jewish question, (45) but then later asserted when buttonholed about his position on jews that they 'look white'. (46)
It is hence obvious that Taylor does indeed take a specific stance on jews that has been further evidenced by his publishing of letters and articles in 'American Renaissance', which have explicitly stated that jews are indeed 'White'. (47)
Even the irrationally paranoid jewish hate group - the Anti-Defamation League (the ADL for short) decided to point out to its audience that Taylor 'avoids anti-Semitism' (48) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (often referred to as the SPLC) ran an article in its monthly 'Intelligence Report' about the rise of what this author has labelled the 'Taylor school' of Racialist thought noting that there was 'a new crop of racialist intellectuals with no interest in the jews’. (49)
This perhaps might seem strange; since the Taylor school has made few bones about the fact that among the various racial differences that they cite are unique genetic diseases or higher incidences of certain diseases among different racial populations. (50)
This already indicates to us that as before we are not getting the whole story from 'American Renaissance', Taylor and the 'Taylor school'. Since if they explore one part of the facts as they present themselves , but leave out other facts then they are not abiding by their own stated methodology of putting the facts first.
It also would indicate as this author earlier asserted that Taylor, and the 'Taylor school' rely on a selective interpretation of the facts to present the idea of 'white jews’.
However, the assertion that there are such a thing as ‘white jews’ is problematic, because it is by its very nature subjective. The only possible case that Taylor or the 'Taylor school' could make would be that 'white jews’ should apply to biologically-White converts to Judaism. However, this would be hypocritical since Judaism is a Semitic religion (hence not European or of White origin) and the 'Taylor school' routinely warns of the Islamic threat to the West (Islam being a wholly Semitic religion) and attacks Islam and its followers. (51)
Perhaps the reader is wondering what evidence the authors has to assert that the jews are not a 'White people' as some of the contributors to 'American Renaissance' have asserted in the past.
In order to provide evidence for this a very brief review of the academic literature as regarding the population genetics of Jewry is required.
Oppenheim et al (2001) (52) asserted that in terms of genetic clusters most Jewish populations cluster close to Iraqis and Kurds rather than Europeans. However, Oppenheim et al (2001) (53) also pointed out that Ashkenazi Jews differ from two other common varieties of jewish stock in so far as they appear related in some way to the Turkic tribe: the Khazars whose elite class converted to Judaism in the ninth century.
Of course, findings and assertions such as those made by Oppenheim et al (2001)'s are often countered by authors such as Thomas et al (2002). Who suggest that generally the haplotypes for the two main varieties of jews: the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic are in fact Semitic in origin.
The debate over the origin of world jewry - and especially the Ashkenazi jews is not of concern to us here - and it is enough to say that whichever side is eventually proven right - or if in fact it is a unspecified mix of the two - that both sides are not White with the Khazars being related to modern day Turks; who 'American Renaissance' and the 'Taylor school' rightly do not consider members of the White race.
With the other side of the debate contending that the jews are related to the modern day Palestinians and their Arabic neighbours. 'American Renaissance' and the 'Taylor school' rightly do not consider Palestinians or Arabs to be 'White'. This must lead us to the general conclusion that jews are not White.
However, the academic literature suggests that most of the maternal line of jewry is in fact drawn from the local Diaspora. (54)
In the context of this discussion this would indicate that jews are generally the result of inter-racial breeding between Semitic/Turkic peoples and local women. In the case of White people: this would suggest that White women had been breeding with Jews, and had combined to produce modern Jewry. This would mean that Jews are in essence a racially mixed group, which has continued to breed in the vast majority of cases within itself: much like the Creole in the United States. (55)
Since 'American Renaissance' and the 'Taylor school' do not support racially-mixed populations either breeding with White populations, or being created by the breeding of two racial groupings then we must conclude that they on their own logic should not class jews as 'White'.
It might be argued by some of the 'Taylor school' that some jews 'look White, so they are White': (56) other than being a ridiculous misrepresentation of race on the par of the jewish anthropologist Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg) (57) or the proven liar Ruth Benedict. (58)
It is also essentially fallacious and illogical assertion.
In so far as on that criterion of looking White then one would be forced to accept any number of upper caste Indians, Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis who can be classed as 'looking White' and thus in that logic being ‘White’. (59)
Since both 'American Renaissance' and the 'Taylor school' do not consider these people White then we must accept that this argument is illogical (otherwise it would be a purely selective interpretation).
Since physical morphology (or appearance) does not always indicate racial heritage (which is purely governed by genetics): (60) it is equally a fallacious thing to suggest.
So thus we can conclude from this that Jews must be non-White by 'American Renaissance's' and the 'Taylor school's' own approach to the literature and to the concept of race and that the continued presence of jews writing for - and being involved in the 'Taylor school' or 'American Renaissance' - is in fact extremely hypocritical and comparable to letting Arabs, Turks or Islamic converts write, argue and speak for the White Race.
Concluding Thoughts
As we have proven in the above article we must conclude that Taylor, 'American Renaissance's' and the 'Taylor school's' tolerance of jews is in fact hypocritical to their own methodological standards.
We can also state that by not investigating the jewish connection to such matters and establishing whether or not it is present: they are in fact deliberately mis-informing their readers and contradicting their own related positions on such topics as IQ.
If Taylor or the 'Taylor school' wished to be serious about racialism then they would address the jewish angle of matters from a serious and educated viewpoint. As this author has argued the fact of the matter remains that by entrusting the future of the White race to jews and their power, which Taylor does - as we have shown - recognise.
Then it allows those who were responsible for the situation in the first place to cling on to power and do it again should they feel threatened.
There is always hope that Taylor and the school of thought that is associated with him will recognise the fundamental truth of the need to replace the current jewish power structure with a White power structure.
And that this change cannot be effected by pandering to this same existing Jewish power structure.
Only time will tell...
References
(1) http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005523.html [
(2) http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1096
(3) Jared Taylor, 2006, ‘Jews and American Renaissance', American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No. 5, p. 11
(4) For example Letter 1 and 3, 2006, 'Letters from Readers', American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No. 6, p. 2
(5) For example: Letter 1, 2006, 'Letters from Readers', Op. Cit.
(6) For example Letter 1, 2007, 'Letters from Readers', American Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 2; F. Legrand, 2007, 'The National Front: Going Soft or Getting Wise?', American Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 1 & 3-5
[7] Jared Taylor, 2007, 'Banned in Halifax', American Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 1 & 3-8; Jared Taylor, 2007, 'Return to Halifax', American Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 12-14; http://www.amren.com/siteinfo/information.htm
(8) This is an assumption on this author's part based on writing style and type of contribution made.
(9) Cf. Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, 1996, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life', 2nd Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York
(10) Jared Taylor , 2006, 'Northwest Passage', American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 7-12[
(11) Hans Eysenck wasn't actually jewish as some have argued, but in fact had a Jewish stepfather. Despite having left Germany after Hitler came to power Eysenck was often later branded as a 'Nazi' according to his introduction to Roger Pearson, 1997, 'Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe', 2nd Edition, Scott-Townsend: Washington D.C.
(12) Arthur Jensen's mother was a Polish jew, which would make him in Jewish law: a full Jew, but in racial science that would make him a half-Jew. He has however often been smeared as an 'anti-Semite' by jewish organisations and Zionists [e.g. the ADL].
(13) Cf. Theodore Pappas, 1998, 'Plagiarism and The Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr, and Other Prominent Americans', 1st Edition, Hallberg: Tampa
(14) Cf. Martin Eric Dyson, 2001, 'I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr', 2nd Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York
(15) https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/levison-stanley-david
(16) David Duke, 1998, 'My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding', 1st Edition, Free Speech Books: Mandeville[
(17) Pappas, Op. cit.
(18) For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html?_r=2&referrer
(19) https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/levison-stanley-david
(20) Jesse Helms, 1983, 'Remarks of Senator Jesse Helms', Congressional Quarterly, Vol. 129, No. 130, S13452-S13461; cf. David Garrow, 1981, 'The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr', 1st Edition, Norton: New York
(21) For example: Kevin MacDonald, 2002, 'The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements', 2nd Edition, 1st Books Library: Bloomington
(22) Ibid.; Henry Ford, 'Is the Jewish "Kahal" the Modern "Soviet"?', The Dearborn Independent, 28th August, 1920; Anon., 1976, 'Let My People Go', 1st Edition, Empirical: Belfast
(23) See my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-communist-espionage-in-the and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-influence-in-the-communist
(24) Duke, Op. Cit.
(25) Helms, Op. Cit.; also https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/levison-stanley-david
(26) Jared Taylor, 2005, 'The Rosa Parks Madness', American Renaissance, Vol. 16, No. 11 (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/11/the_rosa_parks_madness.php)
(27) For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042701979.html
(28) Taylor, ‘Rosa Parks Madness’, Op. Cit.
(29) For example, 'Rose Parks [Copyright]' & 'Shameless', 2007, 'O Tempora, O Mores!', American Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 4,pp. 15-16
(30) Thomas Jackson, 2006, 'The Black-Jewish Alliance', American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 8-11
(31) Taylor, ‘Jews and American Renaissance', Op. Cit.
(32) Jackson, ‘Black-Jewish Alliance', Op. Cit.
(33) Duke, Op. Cit.
(34) http://www.naacp.org/about/history/howbegan/; Sally Miller, 1971, 'The Socialist Party and the Negro, 1901-20', The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 220-229; Sally Miller, 2003, 'For White Men Only: The Socialist Party of America and Issues of Gender, Ethnicity and Race', Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 283-302
(35) Duke, Op. Cit.
(36) Jackson, ‘Black-Jewish Alliance', Op. Cit.
(37) Ibid.
(38) Taylor, ‘Jews and American Renaissance', Op. Cit.
(39) Jackson, ‘Black-Jewish Alliance', Op. Cit.
(40) Ibid.; Letter 1, 2006, 'Letters from Readers', Op. Cit.
(41) Larry Auster, 'Why Jews Welcome Muslims', Frontpage Magazine, June 22 2004 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13894)
(42) http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005449.html
(43) Harold Stowe, 2006, 'The Genetics of Race', American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 1 & 3-7
(44) Ibid., p. 4
(45) Taylor, ‘Jews and American Renaissance', Op. Cit.
(46) http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=62926c33-df00-4608-b817-7a46d55d7da4 ; http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=215
(47) For example: Letter 1, 2006, 'Letters from Readers', Op Cit.
(48) http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/amren.asp?xpicked=5&item=amren
(49) http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1096
(50) For example: Wayne Lutton, 1998, 'Immigration, Sovereignty, and the Future of the West' in Taylor, J, (Ed.), 1998, 'The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration and the Future of America', 1st Edition, New Century Books: Oakton
(51) For example: 'Cartoon Jihad' & 'BNP Wins Round One', 2006, 'O Tempora, O Mores!', American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No.
(52) A. Oppenheim, M. Faerman, P. Majumber, B. Brinkmann, D. Filon, A. Nebel, 2001, 'The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews aspart of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East', The American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 1095-1112
(53) M. Thomas, M. Weale, A. Jones, M. Richards, A. Smith, N. Redhead, A. Torroni, R. Scozzari, F. Gratix, A. Tarekegn, J. Wilson, C. Capelli, N. Bradman, D. Goldstein, 2002, 'Founding Mothers of Jewish Communities: Geographically Separated Jewish Groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors', The American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 70, No. 6,pp. 1411-1420
(54) Ibid.; Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, 'Dad was out and about, while Mom stayed home.', Jerusalem Post, June 16 2000, p. F1
(55) For example: http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreolesWeAre.html
(56) http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=62926c33-df00-4608-b817-7a46d55d7da4 ;http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=215
(57) Ashley Montagu, 1975, [1942], 'Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race', 5th Edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford
(58] Pearson, Op. Cit.
(59) John Baker, 1974, 'Race', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford; Brunetto Chiarelli, 1995, 'Man Between Past and Future', 1st Edition, Institute for the Study of Man: Washington D.C.
(60) Ibid.; Maurice Fishberg, 2006, [1911], ‘Jews, Race & Environment', 1st Edition, Transaction: New York; Ernst Hooton, 1939, 'Twilight of Man', 1st Edition, G. P. Putnam & Sons: New York; Vincent Sarich, Frank Miele, F, 2004, 'Race: The Reality of Human Differences', 1st Edition, Westview: Boulder