This article is long so I’ll be releasing it in multiple parts (four, probably). I’ll edit links to other parts here as I finish them.

Part 1: Introduction (1500 words)


  1. Foreword
  2. Introduction
  3. Defining ‘race-denialism’
  4. Is there a scientific consensus on race?

1. Foreword

This article is long overdue and long in general. Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to cram over a century’s worth of information into one piece; I’ve had to cut a lot out as it is. Anyway, I was repeatedly flabbergasted while researching this article. Hopefully, you find this information just as enlightening as I did. There’s a lot to take in, so at some point, I may produce a TL;DR version. To be honest, I think this would be better as a series of videos but I currently don’t have the time to create them.

2. Introduction

This article will cover everything you need to know about the origins of race denialism: Its ideological lineage; who originated it, where, when, and why; how it was popularized and came to dominate mainstream culture in the West; and how it ties into the overarching agenda of globalism. This article will not debunk the so-called “scientific” arguments against the existence of race — I’m writing another piece that will debunk all of those.

3. Defining ‘Race-Denialism’

‘Race-denialism’ is defined as follows:

“The denial of the existence of human races, in part or in whole, as they have historically been perceived and as they are commonly perceived today.”

Race-denialists generally fall into three categories:

  1. Those who do not deny the existence of biological races, but claim that biological race only affects superficial characteristics, such as skin color.

    The “smile and nod” stance on race. Generally speaking, this is the stance of the average politically-disengaged individual who believes that “racism is mean” but has no interest in getting involved with heated racial politics.
  2. Those who deny the existence of biological races, but claim that “socially constructed” races do exist.

    This “social constructionist” stance, which is linked to concepts such as “institutional racism” will be the focus of this article. Proponents of this theory deny the biological reality of race for political reasons. However, much of their political rhetoric is entirely reliant upon the existence of race. Thus, they claim that biological race is a myth, but “socially constructed racial categories” are real. Confused? You should be, it’s complete nonsense.
  3. Those who deny the existence of race in its entirety.

    These people are rare, but they do exist. Often includes hippies, New Agers, or those who have highly universalized religious beliefs.

Throughout this article, I will be using race-denialism and anti-racism semi-interchangeably, since they both refer to the same concept, more or less.

“Anti-racism,” as defined by globalists, the Left, etc., is far easier to explain: The short version is that “racist” means “White person” and “anti-racism” means “anti-White-people. This is why the term isn’t applied to non-Whites who are anti-White, or to anti-White media propaganda.

The image below contains zero racism because all of it is directed at White people. That may sound confusing if you’re new to racial politics, but you’ll understand by the end of this article.

4. Is there a scientific consensus on race?

The dominant social and political institutions of the West have done an excellent job at tricking the populace into believing that there is an overwhelming “scientific consensus” on race:

“99% of scientists agree that race is bad, mean, and fake!”

Do “the majority of scientists” actually deny the validity of race? No, absolutely not. If anything, the global consensus is the precise opposite. How a scientist views race is significantly influenced by their scientific field, as well as their nationality and geographic location.

Since around the 1960s, there has been a steadily increasing trend of Western scientists denying the validity of race, as demonstrated below via Lieberman’s ‘Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors’ (1992).

Lieberman’s study also demonstrates that human physical anthropologists are far more likely to deny race than animal biologists.

This data is supported by numerous other studies, such as Kaszycka’s ‘Current Views of European Anthropologists on Race: Influence of Educational and Ideological Background’ (2009), which also demonstrated that Eastern European scientists are far more likely to acknowledge the validity of race than Western European scientists.

Similarly, Wang’s ‘On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and Well’ (2003) found that 100% of the Chinese anthropological articles sampled for the study regarded race as a biologically valid concept, stating that:

“All of the articles used the race concept and none of them questioned its value. Since these active researchers are also members of the teaching staffs at various educational institutions, it is very likely that this attitude will be transmitted to the next generation of Chinese scientists.”

The study’s conclusion was supported by a 2013 report delivered to the US government, which stated that “Chinese racial attitudes are ancient and have become worse in the modern period,” roughly translating to: “the Chinese are extremely racist and have no intention of denying the biological validity of race any time soon.”

Race-denialism is mostly restricted to European countries, or countries founded by European people (Australia, USA, etc.). Even non-European countries within the European sphere of influence, such as Japan, overwhelmingly acknowledge the validity of race.

Western European scientists are by far the most likely to hold race-denialist views. However, even among Western scientists, there is no landslide consensus in favor of race-denialism. The split is approximately 50/50 — see data from ‘The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility’ by Fuerst (2015), below.

By analyzing morphological and genetic studies from 1688 to 2011, Fuerst (2015) also demonstrated that, for over 300 years, scientists have generally agreed upon the existence of around five major “racial” groups, or five major biological subdivisions within the human species.

These ‘racial groups’ are predominantly listed as follows, occasionally with the addition of one or two extra divisions:

Amerindians‘Native Americans’
Australoids‘Australian Aboriginals’
Caucasoids‘Europeans’ [initially]
+ ‘N. Africans, M. Easterners, North Indians’ [later]
Mongoloids‘East Asians’
Negroids *‘Sub-Saharan Africans’
* occasionally split into ‘Congoid’ and ‘Capoid’

Data from Fuerst (2015):

Furthermore, until around the 1980s, each human race was regarded as a separate subspecies [1] of Homo sapiens (one sapiens, not two). Carl Linnaeus (1739–1778), the “father of modern taxonomy” himself, identified four subspecies of Homo sapiens, which he listed in his tenth edition of ‘Systema Naturae’ (1758).

These subspecies were as follows:
– Homo sapiens europaeus, Caucasians;
Homo sapiens afer, Africans;
Homo sapiens americanus, Native Americans;
Homo sapiens asiaticus, East Asians;

Linnaeus later added Homo sapiens ferus (‘Malays,’ an antiquated term for Southeast Asians), and Homo sapiens tasmanianus (Australoids) was occasionally used alongside Linnaeus original subspecies.

The moniker Homo sapiens sapiens (two sapiens) — which is now used to refer to all of humanity, a change that occurred around the 1980s — was initially used as a synonym for Linnaeus’ H. s. europaeus. This nomenclature was used as late as the mid-1940s, just after the Second World War. See, for example, E. Hall’s 1946 ‘Zoological Subspecies of Man at the Peace Table” in the ‘Journal of Mammalogy.’ It was only when Linnaeus’ subspecies classifications were phased out after the 1960s that some academics began using H. s. sapiens to refer to the entirety of humanity, rather than Europeans alone (despite the fact it was never intended to be used as such). Why this change occurred will be covered in a subsequent section.

In summary:

1. The more politically and geographically distant a country is from the West, the less likely its scientists are to deny the biological validity of race

2. Biologists are less likely to deny race than anthropologists.

3. Animal biologists are less likely to deny race than human biologists.

4. Denying the biological validity of race was popularized after the 1960s, peaking around the 1980s.

5. Even today, Western scientists are split around 50/50 on the issue of race.

6. Since the 1600s, scientists have divided humanity into around 5 major biological groups.

7. Human ‘races’ were originally regarded as separate subspecies and ‘race’ was used as an informal synonym for ‘subspecies.’

8. The global scientific consensus appears to be overwhelmingly opposed to race-denialism. Half of the scientists of a handful of Western countries deny race, while the rest of the world unquestioningly accepts it as a basic fact of nature.

As with pretty much all of our problems today, the beginning of the shitstorm was the end of the Second World War. However, the shitstorm had long been brewing…

End of Part 1


[1] It must be clarified that the classification of races as subspecies is not an implication that any race is sub-human. These subspecies still belong to the human species, and to the ‘Homo’ genus. Moreover, this classification applies to all “races” equally, therefore, if one was to regard a particular ‘race’ to be sub-human due to said race’s sub-species status, it logically follows that all other races must be “sub-human.”