From governments to media, from academia to the workplace, the word equity is increasingly used. Accustomed to equality, some balk at the familiar, yet alien equity. Many, perhaps, imagine equity to carry the same meaning as the constitutionally based equality. The concepts, however, while similar, are quite different, and the intent behind their similarity is insidious and would be known to any trafficker: introduce the new in the garb of the old.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle identified equity, or the equitable, as “a correction of law where it is defective owing to its universality.”ⁱ That is, established law must be circumvented when it applies to all, but does not coax equal outcomes for all. Equality under the law grants us the universality of opportunity; but some, according to subjective interpretation, do not have the means to adequately exploit this equal opportunity, so situations must be stacked to their advantage, which will theoretically ensure equal output. As a legal principle, equity is meant to balance inherent injustice within the law. Subjective interpretations of this legal principle are more recent, however, and attempt to apply it to a modernity that, socially, is far different than antiquity. Enter racial equity.

Racial equity has its roots in the ideological fallout of World War II. Indeed—ideology, not science. Quick to capitalize on the postwar euphoria and windfall accompanying the destruction of millions of people fighting in the name of spiritual struggle, the victors assembled a handful of thinkers diametrically opposed to the racial-spiritual worldview of the so-called Axis Powers. As part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), these thinkers gifted the world with a “scientifically backed” vision of race:

“race” is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage…. The biological differences between ethnic groups should be disregarded from the standpoint of social acceptance and social action. The unity of mankind from both the biological and social viewpoints is the main thing. To recognize this and to act accordingly is the first requirement of modern man.ⁱⁱ

The scientific character of the statement amounts to its self-identification as such. We are meant to believe in the “science” of the statement, despite its emphasis on prioritizing social action that results in a kind of forced unity. Moreover, racial differences are to be “disregarded,” or ignored; thus, we are offered a science of ignorance. This statement from 1950, then, has a touch of the modern! Always remember: in every way, our contemporary world was born with the material destruction of the Axis Powers. Our present slice of modernity was born out of destruction and with the flavor of social action—two things with which we are quite familiar in this era of “mostly peaceful protests.” It will hardly come as a surprise, then, when we look more closely at the clique who gifted the world their in-no-way-ideological statement on race, that we find such diametric opposition to the Axis’ own scientifically backed worldview.

UNESCO, established four days before the start of the Nuremberg Trials, drafted their statement on the “race question” in 1950, at the nadir of the Allied occupation of the now-puppet state of Germany. Expectedly, this statement’s authors were a touted mix of communists and non-whites: Morris Ginsberg, a Jewish sociologist interested in the “liberal disposition”; Claude Lévi-Strauss, a Jewish anthropologist whose structural anthropology is founded on the premise that all cultures are essentially equal; Ashley Montagu, a Jewish anthropologist who zealously called race “man’s most dangerous myth”; Juan Comas, a Spanish communist and anthropologist; Humayun Kabir, an Indian politician who served in the administrations of communist prime ministers; Luis de Aguiar Costa Pinto, a Brazilian sociologist aligned with the communist Brazilian Workers’ Party; Ernest Beaglehole, a Kiwi psychologist whose brother and confidant, John Beaglehole, was influenced by the Jewish communist Harold Laski; and E. Franklin Frazier, a black sociologist who rose to prominence writing of the “black proletariat” and under the intellectual aegis of the Jew Isaac Rice. Despite such allegiances and, in fact, how their statement itself reads, we must believe the authors’ motivations are entirely objective. This, of course, is akin to believing the sheep would be unbiased in its assessment of the wolf.

The clique’s statement goes on to say “there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament.” Now, science distinguishes itself from religion with its presumed ability to self-correct based on evidence and rational analysis; barring this, we would be left with something human, all too human.ⁱⁱⁱ Presumably, then, if science is indeed up for debate, we should expect rational discussion to continue when the issue was met with opposing evidence. This is not the case, however. At the time of its release, UNESCO’s statement met immediate resistance from a number of prominent scientists, among them the leading biologist, Ronald Fisher.^iv Fisher objected to the “very spirit” of the statement saying, races differ significantly “in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development” and the “problem is that of learning to share the resources of this planet … with persons of materially different nature, and that this problem is being obscured by entirely well-intentioned efforts to minimize the real differences that exist.”^v Fisher goes on to say:

the Statement as it stands appears to draw a distinction between the body and mind of men, which must, I think, prove untenable. [G]ene differences which influence the growth or physiological development of an organism will ordinarily pari passu influence the congenital inclinations and capacities of the mind…. Groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes.^vi

Because Fisher’s scientifically backed position on race does not echo the ideological tenor of the clique’s “modern standard” definition, he has been consigned to the “dissenter”—if not “evildoer”—heap: a constituent college of the University of Cambridge decided in June 2020 to remove a stained-glass window honoring Fisher because of his “offensive” position.^vii Science and Nature should never “offend,” of course. This is just the beginning of the end for Fisher’s legacy, no doubt. Another notable, more recent scientist has objected to the UNESCO ideology: Nobel Laureate James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, who might know a thing or two about genetic dispositions, was effectively canceled for his scientifically backed comments on race. Among other things, Watson stated that racial stereotypes and even average IQ differences between Europeans and Africans have genetic basis. In due course, Watson was compelled to resign, lost speaking engagements, had honorary titles revoked, and, sadly, was forced to sell his Nobel medal to support further research.^viii None of this points to UNESCO’s position being anything other than pure pageantry to appease the quantity.

Since when does “science” care about offending anyone? Since 1945, of course—the material struggle that culminated with the defeat of the Axis Powers and the terrible loss of millions of strong men and women of European descent rages on in a spiritual struggle that yet manifests physically. What’s at stake are the mind, body, and spirit of the European Folk and the future of the world. Racially aware people of European descent are at mental, physical, and spiritual loggerheads with traitors to our people and their surrogates.

In a textbook for teachers-in-training—written by a black man and white woman—the topic of equity is of paramount importance, and the proffered definition is striking:

Equity does not necessarily mean the same thing as equality…. [E]quality often suggests treating everyone in exactly the same way or distributing resources uniformly across the population. On the other hand, equity refers to judgments about what is most desirable and just, and it draws attention to ways in which resources or opportunities might need to be distributed unequally if groups that start with unequal advantages are to succeed.^ix

Equity, then, is a matter of ideological judgment and inequality—specifically, inequality for whites. Its purpose is to forcibly redistribute resources from whites to non-whites. The textbook’s authors go on to say that “excellence” and “equity” might be competing goals, and later quote another educator-author, without irony, who says, “Quality in the public schools is achieved when all learners succeed, not only those considered most able.”^x The best (quality) students will suffer at the expense of the worst (quantity) students; this is a fact of reality when pursuing equity. From the context of the discussion and as later clarified, the best students are nearly always white and Asian.^xi As expected, however, it is the (white) teachers’ fault for not properly accommodating the learning needs of non-white and non-Asian students.^xii Indeed, “white guilt” is presumed and encouraged in the textbook. Part of the instructional method consists in fictional dialogue amongst two white females and a white male. The male participant embodies an “anachronistic” cynicism meant to highlight the females’ progressive awakening; it is the females who come to the “depressing” realization of their “white guilt” and vow to “make things even better after us.”^xiii It is interesting to note that the fictional discussion occurs immediately following an anecdote about the (black) author’s parents moving into a neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. His parents saw “white flight” firsthand as white families moved away one after another as real-estate agencies received incentives for bringing in black families, leaving even more residences open to new black families. Obliviously, both the authors and their fictional interlocutors fail to see the irony in presuming and feeling “guilt” about white people fleeing Chicago’s South Side and it consequently becoming one of the most violent, dangerous places on the planet.

In still another incredible explanation of equity, a charitable foundation built to help “disadvantaged” children uses a telling graphic to show just exactly what equity’s aims are:

Yet again without irony, the foundation 1) expects us all to be happy about losing equality, and 2) ostensibly represents whites as qualitatively superior to, presumably, non-whites and thus in need of ideological judgments and redistribution of resources to level the playing field. It seems that foundations and educators are not above using “racism” to fight “racism” in more ways than one—one supposes that with equity all is permitted.

Concerning enough is the fact that educators and various other agitators are rabidly pursuing the equity agenda, but there is more to the story. Day one of the Biden administration saw an executive order “advancing racial equity.”^xiv The intent of this order is, using the brunt of government, to correct the supposed injustices of equality by enforcing equity, the purpose of which is to take resources and opportunity away from whites and redistribute them to non-whites—most specifically, to blacks and Hispanics. This, they say, will “benefit everyone”—potentially to the tune of “$5 trillion in gross domestic product.” As typical, the government masks its interests in economics with the veneer of “social justice.” Whites can and should be disenfranchised because they deserve it—so says the prevailing ideology, the “science” of ideology dictating the terms, first, of biology and anthropology, then economics. This executive order was just the first step. Peppering the language of the American Rescue Plan (ARP),^xv for example, is equity for “underserved” and “economically disadvantaged” groups, which is all euphemism for “non-whites.” Indeed, soon after the ARP was passed, a group of white farmers seeking loan forgiveness under the provision were denied because of their race. Justifiably, they filed a lawsuit against the offending federal agencies, citing the “Defendants’ use of race discrimination as a tool to end ‘systemic racism,’” as “unconstitutional.”^xvi This is one example of many. Federal and state employees are hit with equity training and browbeat about the “problem” of whiteness frequently. “Minorities” of every kind (who really aren’t minorities in any quantitative sense) get their voices heard, their celebratory days/weeks/months, their signs displayed at federal buildings, etc.—just not those actual minorities (i.e., whites, spiritual conservatives, traditionalists, etc.) whose very existence seems antithetical to the modern, Allied-victory-borne ideology.

What does all this talk of equity mean in the end? The authors and purveyors of “racial equity” would clearly have us believe in the unfair advantages some races have over others. Not wanting to account racial disparities to actual racial characteristics, however, the ideologues of equity invent divisive concepts like “institutional racism” and “structural racism”—as if more phantoms were needed to shift the burden of responsibility away from races that desire none to begin with. Were it not for the communist, anti-white origins of modernity’s racial ideology, it would really be a wonder how any could fall for such nonsense. After all, do we not breed animals for certain characteristics attuned to particular purpose? Do we look to the terrier to pull the sled? Do we look to the malamute to plunge into the foxhole? For one do we not seek out a tenacious spunk? For the other do we not respect a stalwart endurance? As if it is somehow unimaginable that physical, mental, and spiritual traits could be linked! Indeed, “each race has certain characteristics and features which are unique to it. These racial features are passed on to the offspring…. There are races which can create high cultures and those which can never elevate themselves on their own strength.”^xvii For those in the latter group, we must have paradoxically “racist” doctrine forced upon us—at the attempted detriment of the former group. The fact remains that responsibility rests with the individual—always and everywhere, the individual and the community he fosters bear the privilege of responsibility. If responsibility is shucked, then we are left with ideological distortions of supposed “disadvantage”; if responsibility is embraced and fulfilled, the same distorters will resort to wailing about phantasmagoric travesties of “race privilege.” As both Ronald Fisher and James Watson—two geniuses of their time and beyond—attest, stereotypes describe a type derived from genetic determination. Aberrations of the types exist, but these only serve to prove the rule. Ultimately, we are representatives of the ancestors before us and the descendants to follow, and it is our responsibility to attain the racial potential inherent in our blood, prefigured in our type. “More important than skin color is the character of the man. One belongs essentially to the race whose virtues he professes through deed”: A better statement on the matter was likely never written. And though its authors were and are enemies of modernity’s architects, it’s clear the former sought sense and Nature as their muse, while the latter can only wallow in the hatred native to their kind. To be creators or destroyers—this is the choice all must make; blood makes the choice easier.

Coming under disenfranchising attack for our “socially constructed” and “not scientifically backed” race might seem surreal to many folks of European descent. The fact is, however, that the equity agenda is only a small part of the larger spiritual struggle that has been blazing since the close of World War II. Whether spewing from a left-wing UNESCO, an international-socialist academia, a Jewish Hollywood, “woke” Big Tech, or sycophantic (and psychotic) media corporations, hatred and social action against whites is all the rage. Science and history be damned—especially since they are so terribly “offensive.” To thwart this onslaught, we have no greater power than ourselves. We choose what we consume—mentally, physically, and spiritually; we choose what our children consume; we choose our friends; we can choose to be aware of our enemies and our heroes. Weakness, however it manifests, must be discarded, and the strength of our blood must again drive our Folk forward. Trying times will cull the herd; but what remains will carry the banner of our eternal Myth and Sun into a new morning.