The Truth about Race?

by Rasmus Munch Søndergaard

Rasmus Munch Søndergaard addresses the challenges of population replacement and migration while calling on Europeans to defend their heritage and identity with the same courage and conviction that Christianity once inspired.

Thanks to the recent work of Danish star researchers, we now know that modern ethnic Danes descend from the tall and muscular, horse-riding, and kefir-drinking Yamnaya people from the Caucasus steppes in the East.

Some of us picked up blonde hair and blue eyes along the way through Central Europe before arriving here. Researchers can show that our arrival happened about 5,000 years ago and that the people living here before were replaced by us — a different population. The lead researcher, Eske Willerslev, believes it is evident that the original population was eradicated through a bloody genocide.

Willerslev doesn’t hold back, stating that “many of the traits that define who Europeans are originated outside of Europe and came here with the great migrations.” Apparently, it’s neither politically incorrect to talk about revolutionary population replacements nor to say that genes influence a country as long as one only speaks about the past.

It’s quite different if, as a scientist, one believes in being able to pontificate on the very same genetic realities in a modern context. Mankind imagines that we’ve shed the yoke of past religions and superstitions, so that with modern science we now stand tall, basking worthily in the light of the non-Platonic and falsifiable “truth” in itself. Gone are the days when lovers of science, like Galileo, could be persecuted for undermining the foundations of the moral laws of the time, right?

But since the deranged and syphilitic incel Nietzsche declared the Christian God to be dead, and especially since the defeat of the Nazis in World War II, biological egalitarianism has functioned as the modern world’s foundational creed. The equality between races is held as a sacred truth that must not be questioned, and if indeed inequality is detected, that is solely mentionable if it serves to justify a kind of racial Marxism, where state power intervenes to redistribute racial advantages. These axioms undergird the hegemonic liberal worldview, which, in its extreme formulations, has been rightly called a suicide movement. Elon Musk calls it “the woke mind virus,” as the thought parasite kills its host, which is primarily native Europeans.

The EU Commission, with Denmark’s very own Margrethe Vestager, is now prosecuting Musk and his social media platform “X” (formerly Twitter) for granting too much freedom of speech on the internet and not sufficiently censoring the so-called “hate.” “Hate” is the political codeword for speech that goes against the axioms of “liberal” ideology and which central European institutions demand that all EU countries repress through criminal sanctions. Next week, as an attorney, I will be in court defending a client against criminal charges of offending an ethnic group because he suggested an aggressive black person should be given a banana so he could calm down. Naturally, the system was built to suppress nationalism. The EU cannot allow nationalism to express itself on social media either.

The conflict between Musk and the EU escalated during the outbreak of migrant riots in the United Kingdom when Musk was openly hostile to the British government, which he accused of being biased against the native population. Britain’s Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was even nicknamed “Two-tier Keir” by Musk for maintaining a double standard against his own people. This defiance triggered furious threats of punishment and legal consequences from the EU Commission’s media czar, Thierry Breton. Elon Musk responded on X with a meme from the movie Tropic Thunder and invited the commissioner to have intercourse with himself. Not much later, Breton indignantly resigned from the EU Commission after it was made clear to him that he was no longer wanted for the job because he was not a woman.

This was not the first time Elon put his neck and billions on the line to offend political orthodoxy. Just before the riots, he had commented on how “affirmative action” discrimination could lead to a decline in pilots’ intelligence levels if candidates were selected based on racial underrepresentation rather than race-blind, competency-based criteria. Do the planes really have to crash before the charade ends, and a child will dare say that the emperor has no clothes — that the biological differences between races go far deeper than just skin color?

Even the greatest superstars of science cannot claim for themselves the right to oppose the grand taboo. Molecular biologist James Watson received the Nobel Prize in 1962 for his part in uncovering the structure of DNA and its “significance for information transfer in living material.” For 35 years, he served as the director of one of the world’s leading research institutions, and an advanced academy bore his name until he dared confess the forbidden faith: “Our social policies are based on the assumption that black and white people have the same levels of intelligence, but all the tests say this is not the case.” There are genetic causes behind the differences, he asserted, in open defiance of everyone who, in shock, disowned him.

The same story applies to the researcher Charles Murray, who back in the 90s, like another Guy Fawkes, unwittingly nearly blew up the foundation of egalitarianism with a few short sentences in a longer academic work on intelligence: The Bell Curve.

The “Bell Curve” refers to how intelligence is normally distributed within a group. Most fall in the middle, but the ends stick out a bit, representing the occurrence of society’s idiots and geniuses, respectively. However, the curves are displaced depending on race, and Murray argued that the evidence suggested that this must at least partially have a genetic cause. A large group of researchers initially defended Murray’s position, but he was disowned by those better at condemnation. His reputation was tarnished and he was made a pariah. During a lecture at a university, he was even assaulted by an angry mob that injured a faculty member.

Whether it was Galileo, Watson, Murray, or somebody else earlier, there seems to be some kind of persistent force that requires great self-sacrifice to defend one’s conscience in this world. Apparently, such is the way, the truth, and the life. Despite solid scientific data showing variations in intelligence, physical abilities, and behavioral patterns between different population groups, only the most foolish would dare to touch the cross and defend the science against the strangling tentacles of the new secular religion, which depends on violence and repression to survive.

Today, when academic experts are asked anonymously whether genetic causes really are behind the intelligence differences between human groups, the majority say that Murray and Watson were right. About 50 percent of the reason for the wide disparity of intelligence between races is genetic. Most know it, but few dare to admit it. Like the early Christians of the Roman Empire, the persecuted modern researchers on genetic group differences must go underground and hold conferences at secret locations for fear of unwelcome martyrdom for the “truth.”

Many Europeans have been able to withstand the noise and shaming and have recognized that Europe is currently undergoing a new population replacement through the immigration of other peoples who have higher birth rates than us Europeans, who are becoming fewer and fewer each year.

The EU elite, who insists on flooding Europe with migrants, goes against the will of the native people. They demand that through taxes we reward aliens for coming to the continent and dissolve the native population. It is treason.

European countries like Denmark must never become like the terribly race-divided USA. We must never aspire to become an unstable and failed melting pot, constantly on the brink of exploding into malicious and hateful race riots. Even if a million Indian engineers or doctors came to the country, the gross national product soared, and wealthy capitalists were exalting in a shower of money, it would still make Denmark less Danish. The research is unequivocal: it would dissolve us and create a less trusting and less harmonious society. A country divided by ethnicity, fostering hatred and animosity rather than peace between neighbors.

It is time to break the taboo. It is time to destroy the false religion and for Europeans to bravely pick up their cross and state the truth: race is very real and after possessing our countries for more than 5,000 years, we have earned the right to rule and to exclude those who are not people of Europe like us.

The replacement must be stopped. Native Europeans must seize control of political power to protect our homelands and our right to remain absolute ethnic majorities in our countries.