Andrea Mantegna, "The Adoration of the Magi," circa 1495–1500
1,216 words
In daily life, how do we determine who’s white?
Most whites never think about this. We have a psychological tendency to assume the answer is obvious.
All of us are locked irrevocably within ourselves, within the context of our personal lives and experiences and, especially, within a (very) narrow slice of historical time.
But from a slightly longer historical perspective, the issue looms larger.
The line between whites and non-whites is fast disappearing due to massive non-white immigration, the suppression of every barrier to interracial social and sexual intercourse, widespread hybridization (the multiplication of part-whites, whose racial makeup is difficult to ascertain), suppression of white consciousness and identity, and cultural homogenization (misleadingly referred to as “Americanization” or “Westernization”).
Cultural homogenization is significant because we often distinguish foreigners not by external physical traits but by cultural cues. If such cues are leveled or eliminated, reliance upon physical appearance (phenotype) alone, which as a practical matter is usually all we have to go by, becomes exceedingly difficult.
This is particularly true with Jews, who frequently look white and more often than the members of any other group actively conceal their ethnic identity. Think of name-changing alone. Names are important cultural cues. Name-changing suffices to significantly disguise the Jewish presence in host countries.
The problematic nature of phenotypic identification of so-called “brown” and “red” men (to use Lothrop Stoddard’s terms) also increases greatly once cultural leveling occurs.
This is because we key on skin, hair, and eye pigmentation to identify people as white. (Think of the havoc wreaked by the universal dying of hair.) And the unconscious models we employ for this are northern and eastern Europeans.
Southern Europeans (“Mediterraneans,” “Latins”) and peoples originating along the southeastern Eurasian land divide, are sometimes impossible to distinguish from non-European Caucasians or Amerindians.
In those cases we can distinguish, we often employ residual (still surviving) cultural cues rather than physical race to make the determination. As long as such cues exist, are authentic and correctly interpreted, they can be enormously helpful, even render racial identification simple.
Still, we must recognize in such cases that we are not relying primarily or solely upon physical race.
The unfortunate truth seems to be that the only races whites can consistently differentiate on a purely physical basis are black-skinned peoples such as sub-Saharan Africans and Australoids, and unmixed East Asians.
The psychological ability to identify race is probably analogous to facial recognition. According to anthropologist Peter Frost,
Natural selection tends to hardwire recognition of objects that regularly appear in our visual environment. One such object is the human face. As shown by Zhu et al. (2009) through a twin study, the ability to recognize faces is innate and not learned. This heritability is further shown by the two extremes of prosopagnosics and “super-recognizers.” The former cannot recognize faces better than any other object, whereas the latter have exceptional face recognition ability.
It seems likely that sensitivity to racial differences (absent cultural cues) is similar to this, with some people highly sensitive to differences and others insensitive.
Suppression of white consciousness and identity must also be taken into account. Social and legal suppression of identity dulls or eliminates the ability to make racial distinctions. Explicit race consciousness is a survival prerequisite formerly, but no longer, instilled by the culture.
To illustrate some of these points, think about the Coen brothers’ film No Country for Old Men (2007). Here is the movie trailer. I’m not certain the clip will suffice to make my point for those who haven’t seen the movie, but those who have will know what I mean.
No Country for Old Men (2007) Trailer
http://youtu.be/YBqmKSAHc6w [2:26 mins.]
In the film, you look at each major character in turn, save one, and instinctively think to yourself, “white, white, white, white . . .” This is true even of the minor characters shown in the clip.
But one major character (assuming you don’t know beforehand, and don’t peek by researching) is different. You will automatically think to yourself, “Non-white.”
This raises two questions:
What is the intended race of the fictional character in the film—and why do we think so?
And,
What is the real-life race (or mixture) of the actor portraying the character, and the implications of this?
The actor and character are not black-skinned. They fit instead into the vast range of highly problematic brown- and red-skinned races. (I don’t know where the usage of “red” to indicate skin color originated [but see here], although Swedish taxonomist Carl Linnaeus and others were employing the term even in the 1700s. Amerindian skin isn’t red; it’s brown.)
The task of thinking about race in the context of No Country for Old Men is a useful practical exercise in the study of “whiteness.” The actors we pick out as unequivocally “white” are unmixed northern Europeans—a rapidly diminishing breed.
In an interesting sidelight, Kelly Macdonald, the actress who played Josh Brolin’s wife, is Scottish. Seeing her interviewed, I assumed from her looks and pronounced accent that she was Irish, because Scots are rarely seen nowadays, whereas Irish are quite common. (Of course, many Irish settled in Scotland and England.) Perhaps also I can’t distinguish Irish and Scottish accents; at least I couldn’t within the context of the brief interview I saw.
I should break in to mention that in the interview, Macdonald described her character in a positive light. But in a separate interview, the directors (who also wrote the screenplay), after praising Macdonald’s work in the obligatory manner typical of Hollywood, laughingly denigrated her character, who, as one of them put it, “lives in a double-wide [trailer] and works at Wal-Mart” in a blatantly racist way. This comes as no surprise to viewers of the Coens’ films, which display a peculiar, deeply implicit and crudely overt anti-white prejudice distinctive to Jews.
In the movie, Macdonald was required to play a character with a West Texas accent. The accent differs markedly from her native speech.
Accents, like foreign languages, are cultural cues. Remove these cues by homogenization or deception, and we become easily confused about race and ethnicity.
Macdonald did not speak a large number of lines in the movie, but her accomplishment was impressive nevertheless. It was a surprise to hear her real speech. Not knowing anything about her when I saw the movie, I assumed she was American (though not necessarily Texan).
A more impressive exhibition of the same skill is provided weekly by English-born actor Hugh Laurie, star of the American TV hospital drama House. When interviewed, he has a pronounced accent; but over many years on the television program he has spoken thousands of lines in American English without the slightest trace of the accent.
The presumptively non-white character in No Country for Old Men likewise speaks with a foreign accent, a cultural cue which, combined with his phenotype and the movie’s Texas setting, is one of several attributes that cause us to conclude with a high degree of certainty that he is non-white.
In real life, the actor who played the part fortunately married actress Penélope Cruz instead of someone like, say, Kelly Macdonald. (The couple has a son; Macdonald married a fellow Scot, and also has a son.)
What about this statement, which reflects my true feeling? Viscerally, does it strike you as offensive, or acceptable?
Why?
37 comments
Why could it be “offensive” if it’s common ethnic sense? I wouldn’t bother if a Nordic guy married a cute Spanish woman like Penelope. But I certainly would be very upset if a Nordish woman married the more Neanderthalesque actor who played the major character. (The whole film greatly offended me btw: The serial killer is presented as omnipotent and at the end it’s assumed that he kills a kind white woman.)
Great post. I don’t know why, but the mention of the huge amount of miscegenation made me uneasy. I guess the lines are much more grey then they were before, even with whites.
I suppose that is what our enemies want…for white race to be totally unclassifiable .
It is also the case that in the New World the distinct phenotype of many European subraces have also been lost to mixing. Many whites, maybe even most whites in the Americas are too mixed to resemble a certain nationality and this also leads to confusion.
From Germany to Dominican Republic to Japan, I am at least once asked (usually by immigration) if I am from that country, or a have a parent of that nationality. Same thing goes to my Northwestern European husband, who was spoken to exclusively in Spanish when we went to Argentina.
So as far as your true feeling? That Spaniards are not truly white? Javier Bardem is from the Canary Islands which has had the most African admixture in Europe, so the case can be made there. Penelope Cruz is from Madrid but had a Gypsy granny. So…white or not white?
To me, they both seem white, but I would qualify it that some are more white than others. Obviously that is the case- isn’t it acceptable to qualify whiteness by the paleness of skin/hair etc.
I mean, isn’t some Congo negro “blacker” than a 1/4 black person? Why can’t this apply for whites as well.
Javier Bardem looks white to me. I see no problem in preferring people that look like you, or wanting to preserve the looks of a certain people- but this essay smacks of Nordicism. Again, nothing wrong with preferring people of your own phenotype, but consider that not all readers are scandalized by the idea of Southern European mixture with Northern Europeans, I am an Italian-German mix, if I went under an nonwhite-sounding pseudonym I should hope Mr. Hamilton would still look at me as a white man! Good essay, but it did sort of offend my Pan-Aryan sympathies.
Agreed phenotype is important, but it seems like Northern Europeans who are concerned with phenotype are really just polite Nordicists, and this article seems to fit that mold. Just as a personal observation, though I am Nordic, I was raised in a largely Southern European community surrounded by non-White neighborhoods, thus I do not automatically associate “White” with Nordic as the author seems to suggest. “White” to me usually meant Irish or Italian with little differentiation between the two. In general (though clearly not always) I find that Nordicists have had very little exposure to Southern Europeans.
I don’t get the point of this article. Rather than non-white, Anton Chigurh is a non-American, vaguely alien character and deliberately so. In fact it is hard to say which origin he has, and that is the point about him. Now, what? It doesn’t take me 1,200 words to realize.
Coen Brothers movies aren’t really anti-white. Jewish prejudices against Whites are rather satirized as emphasized. As for the satirical aspects, they give their fellow Jews exactly the same treatment, as can be seen in “A Serious Man”. Also, I do not see at all how the remark about MacDonald’s character is “blatantly racist” or “denigrating”.
Andrew, with all due respect, you’re a little fixated on the purely physical aspect of peoplehood. As far as I’m concerned, all Southern Europeans are IN, as are Middle Eastern and Anatolian Christians. They do not get affirmative action and have no where else to go. Their kids might buy into a non-white identity under media pressure, but that is paper-thin and gets punctured when confronted by blatant anti- and non-white identity in the cafeteria, on the streets or at the Financial Aid office.
E.g., I wouldn’t worry about the Kardashians’ genes or slight swarthiness—only their fitness as parents and their self-respect. And to exclude practically the entire Greco-Roman world? You must think that recessive alleles disappear rather than get masked and reappear phenotypically in accordance with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
I favor Nordicism for Nordic countries. Perhaps those who are so bothered by non-Nordics should, instead of complaining about their more or less happy neighbors, try (especially after White Nationalists take back the whole West) to seek immigration to these Nordic countries.
I agree with Greg Dancer. Good Post!
Although I can see why it is necessary, I hate that we have to have this discussion for two reasons.
1) It directly plays into the portion of the anti-White narrative that says “there is no such thing as White.”
While I would never admit to it when I’m knocking heads with anti-Whites, I can’t help but feel our own disagreements over who is and is not White gives them a legitimate point. After all, if *we* can’t agree on who is White, doesn’t it lend just a bit of credence to their claim that “Whiteness” makes no sense as a population category? Am I wrong?
2) It is very divisive, and in my experience it is often the self-identified Nordicists who are in the vanguard of raising the matter of White sub-ethnicity in a polarizing and divisive way.
My wife is of a Swedish background, I am of a mostly German background, but my skin is as White as fresh snow. I do have one olived-skinned Italian grandparent, which in sum makes my kids of 7/8th German/Swedish. Maybe it is my American background, but I never think of myself or my family as anything other than White Americans. Culturally, I see no reason to choose between Wagner and Puccini and don’t.
With all Whites under a dire existential threat, I can’t see any good reason for dwelling on White sub-ethnicity *at this stage.* In the future, definitely yes, but not now.
It seems to me that dwelling on White sub-ethnicity at this point has little real value beyond *the necessary and important minimum* of reaching a consensus on who is and is not White, and identifying criteria for excluding Jews (in terms of physical features, the almond/Asian eyes are the dead giveaway for most Khazars no matter how they otherwise look).
Focusing on sub-ethnicity at this point in time is not akin to arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It is more akin to being on the Titantic after hitting the iceberg and casually discussing plans for your grandkids in 20 years from now, before getting on a lifeboat, and before everyone else is in a lifeboat. It seems a severely misplaced priority. If all Whites don’t survice, it doesn’t seem likely any particular sub-ethnicity will either.
I guess I’m a bit confused by the post; were you trying to make the point that Tommy Lee Jones is part Amerindian but Javier Bardem is not?
The problem at this stage in the game is that whites are still not a real-life community, so it doesn’t really make sense to decide who belongs and who doesn’t to an imaginary white folk (imaginary because no one is being effectively included or excluded from a breeding population). If we were a community, it might make sense to base membership criteria on the degree of genetic admixture, which can be cheaply and accurately determined by a large number of ancestry informative SNPs – along with information about mtDNA and Y-DNA. Those with, say, <1% of non W. Eurasian admixture are "in" and those with more are out. But then, such criteria would effectively make the vast majority of Russians non-white. So the solution isn't quite so simple. An alternative might be to have different ranks within a hypothetical "Aryan" society that confer different reproductive advantages to a person depending on how "European" he is – thus Aryanizing the population over time. But such a scenario is still a far off dream of the future.
Personally, I think the definition of whiteness should depend both on heredity and culture. It appears increasingly likely that the Aryan homeland was in Anatolia (not in the Pontic Steppes) and that "we" spread throughout W. Eurasia because of farming, which is the source of civilization. This event occurred before the spread of the Semitic languages in the middle East, and some even hypothesize that in Sumerian and other Mesopotamian languages there is a detectable Euphratean (Indo-European) substratum present in the names of places, animals, agricultural items, and deities. I am not a linguist, but it is an intriguing possibility. If that is the case, and given the location of the PIE Uremheit, should Near Easterners be included among our number? Perhaps the answer is "some of them", again, depending on admixture.
So, in my opinion, at this stage in the game, we shouldn't obsess over who is white and who isn't. I think we have a pretty good idea of who we are, and the more inclusive our definition is (within reason), the better is our chance of success. It is pretty well established that many Boers have African ancestry, many Americans and Argenitinians have Amerindian (and African) ancestry, many Kiwis have Maori ancestry, and many East Europeans have North Asian ancestry. I see no reason to exclude any individual from such groups, if they take our side. In time the availability of information will allow us to diminsh introgression into our population and perhaps eliminate it completely. Therefore, as a starting point, if someone is on our side and is from the ancient Indo-European realm, he is with us, regardless of admixture. Whether he is able to find a European mate is his own business. I think this definition falls in the "big tent" camp.
Yet, skin colors according to von Luschan’s scale are interesting. See this Wikipedia illustration.
Yes, this is an interesting subject. There is actually a device that measures differences in skin color to a high degree of precision. However, it was developed just as it became taboo within physical anthropology to study racial differences, so it has not been extensively employed.
Differences in hair and eye color, particularly marked among whites, are a related topic.
Here, for example, is a hair color chart on Peter Frost’s website: http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/04/puzzle-of-european-hair-and-eye-color.html
“An alternative might be to have different ranks within a hypothetical “Aryan” society that confer different reproductive advantages to a person depending on how “European” he is – thus Aryanizing the population over time. But such a scenario is still a far off dream of the future.”
This sounds like Evola’s idea, that each country is made up of several racial strains, and the idea is to select and favor the most ‘Aryan’ strain so that it dominates the rest. In Italy’s case, Roman over Mediterranean. In Germania, the Nordic over the Alpine.
This, by the way, is the proper response to those childish sneers about “how Nordic were the Nazis?” If intended seriously, the answer is that these primarily Alpine folks [Hitler, Himmler, Goering, etc.] were trying to select for the Nordic features of the German race, embodied in such men as Heydrich, which they lacked.
redspaniel: “Therefore, as a starting point, if someone is on our side and is from the ancient Indo-European realm, he is with us, regardless of admixture. Whether he is able to find a European mate is his own business. I think this definition falls in the “big tent” camp.”
I like this working definition.
As far as I can see, this article advocates a notion of whiteness that is not reduced to biology. As a follower of Evola I can only agree with that. But Hamilton only concentrates on rather superficial characteristics such as names and accent. What about character and cultural preferences?
Marry as Nordic as possible. I’m not pure Nordic, unfortunately, I will be the first to admit, so this is not vanity speaking. I train young people on a certain technical task for a living. I am repeatedly impressed how fair, lilly white guys catch on amazingly fast, almost as though they have a pattern set in their heads. This mechanical apptitude would appear to be independent of other standard measures of IQ, for example, grades. People with southern European or non-white genes are noticeably slower. Some Asian Indians are really quick too. I can’t speak for Chinese or Jews because I have not seen many. Stay light and bright!
The focus on Ms. Cruz is interesting, since I vaguely recall reading some WN type point out that real Spaniards would cut your throat if you called them “Chiconos” or “Latin Americans” etc., whereas Cruz came to Hollywood and found that there was a craze for “Latinos” [remember the “Latin Music Craze’? No?] so she promptly discovered she was a “Latina.”
The National Lampoon, in Pre-PC 70s, had some interesting racial material. In their “Canada: Retarded Giant on our Doorstep” they advised readers that “You may find some border guards resemble Puerto Ricans. These are French Canadians.”
I also recall some issue that had a Darwinian chart showing Modern Man rooted way down in blonde Greek Man, who had diverted slightly for the darker Roman, who then branched further off and down into Modern Roman, Modern Greek, and then Rodentia.
And let’s not forget [Irish Catholic] Tony Hendra’s “Americans United to Beat the Dutch” as well as O’Donoghue’s World of Whiteness [“Q: Are Jews white? A: Technically….”]
I posted this awhile ago here, but perhaps still of interest:
For a nice contrast, I recommend the opening pages of Burroughs’ Letters, where he discusses how the Central and South American tribes had “the luck” to be conquered by “the white trash of Europe” and hence largely escaped extermination and even preserved some of their own “culture.”
Of current interest is how B. discusses this “culture” in quite positive terms, although today it reads like a Minuteman rant about them Mezzicans. B likes it because they leave him alone, unlike the meddling Puritans.
However, the idea of importing millions of people from a culture where ‘no one is lower than a cop’ and everyone is subject to murderous, inexplicable fits [“Hee geeve mee the eeveel eye!”] does give one pause. Interesting to read in the context of today’s cartel wars.
Today, one isn’t supposed to breathe a word of criticism of “Latinos” while in the 50s, the oh-so hip Burroughs and Kerouac considered Mexico a stewpot of murder, sluts and drugs; ironically, in both cases, we are/were expected to prefer “more natural” Mexico to the “cold, repressed North.”
I disagree with Andrew Hamilton’s piece, pretty much comprehensively. And I think it’s destructive to foster such divisions, particularly when Whiteness and the collective genetic interest of all Whites is under challenge and in danger.
To read people out of Whiteness over petty cosmetic details such as a deeper tan goes against Frank Salter’s ideas on genetic interests, and these, with the works of Kevin MacDonald, ought to be the foundation stones of our understanding.
Also, reading people out of Whiteness on trivial grounds has a catastrophic history for Slavs.
White is White, and Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz are White.
They are particularly well suited to each other in obvious physical terms, but you could say the same of two good-looking Scottish gingers marrying each other.
It is good when parents like themselves and each other and want to have children that are like them. Naturally people will have preferences in this regard that go beyond such broad categories as “White” even if that is an essential starting point for Whites.
To dispel some confusion, I consider both Bardem and Cruz, based upon presently available information, to be European whites.
I did notice, as Flavia observes, that Bardem was born in the Canaries, which might affect his racial makeup. The question is, were his ancestors settled there for an extended period of time, and experience actual genetic admixture with other races (they might have intermarried exclusively with fellow Spaniards) or are the islands an outpost where Spanish elites maintain expensive residences? I believe he comes from a family of filmmakers.
It is often necessary to adopt a provisional position about race based upon scanty available information, and subsequently revise it if necessary or feasible.
Thus, the information I’ve seen about Tommy Lee Jones’s alleged Cherokee (or part-Cherokee) grandmother, and the equally vague part-Gypsy (supposedly) ancestry of Cruz, is not sufficient to cause me to rely upon it. I make a mental note of it because it could prove meaningful if more detailed, reliable information surfaces in the future.
It is necessary to draw racial lines now rather than later. Currently we’re depending entirely upon historical inertia. But the cultural barriers our predecessors erected when they decided who was white and who was not have been formally eliminated. While “products” of their past decisions (today’s whites) remain, the barriers that preserved us as a group do not.
As a result, whites are melting away. We are well into a population bottleneck from which we either will not emerge at all, or will emerge in redefined form.
Similarly, it is time for a smaller- rather than bigger- tent approach (at least in one sense). For if you preserve a group that is already significantly hybridized, you’ll create a new race rather than save a remnant of the old race that can subsequently expand.
Some anthropologists regard African Americans, because of the infusion of white genes, to be a new local race distinct from sub-Saharan Africans. There are other examples of “new” hybrid races of this type.
The marking off of the gene pool (one large “white” gene pool, itself comprised of several more or less discrete yet not wholly isolated gene pools reflecting historical, linguistic and cultural particularities), while itself rooted in physical anthropology and population genetics, is not all there is to it. It’s simply the first (and “easiest”!) step. At least you have objective data to go by.
Adopting this approach results in some unexpected consequences.
For example, George W. Bush and his wife and children are white. But his brother Jeb Bush and his family must be ruled out immediately. Thus, the knife slices right through some families, putting various members on different sides of the divide.
Then comes the next step, across the entire spectrum of those classified as white.
George W. Bush is firmly committed to an anti-white ethic and is a promoter of Jewish interests. He is deadly to his race on both counts. Many whites, like him, are implacable foes of the white race.
I haven’t written about this problem yet, because, you know, “First things first.” But in truth both processes of exclusion must go on simultaneously.
Andrew Hamilton: “It is often necessary to adopt a provisional position about race based upon scanty available information, and subsequently revise it if necessary or feasible.”
Yes.
Of course the best information is about the mother. With fatherhood there is always a degree of speculation, lacking genetic tests.
Andrew Hamilton: “As a result, whites are melting away. We are well into a population bottleneck from which we either will not emerge at all, or will emerge in redefined form.”
Yes.
The overwhelmingly important thing is that we emerge, collectively, alive. That is not a sure thing.
Andrew Hamilton: “Similarly, it is time for a smaller- rather than bigger- tent approach (at least in one sense). For if you preserve a group that is already significantly hybridized, you’ll create a new race rather than save a remnant of the old race that can subsequently expand.”
I don’t agree. You can have your cake and eat it to, if you do as the Jews do and see to it that your least adulterated population is also your fastest breeding. This does not require explicit racial rules and the problems that go with them either.
The “small tent approach” is defective in giving up potential allies, it fosters hard divisions that tend to grow, and it is highly vulnerable to an Alinsky style attack: force the enemy to live up to every rule in his rulebook, because nobody can do it.
It’s also poison with everyone who has a limited knowledge of their ancestry, and that is most Whites. Everyone who has scant knowledge of their ancestry but is thinking of mentally defining themselves as explicitly White and who hears of a “small tent” policy will think that it might stigmatize and exclude them. That is a bad starting point.
“It is necessary to draw racial lines now rather than later. Currently we’re depending entirely upon historical inertia. But the cultural barriers our predecessors erected when they decided who was white and who was not have been formally eliminated. While “products” of their past decisions (today’s whites) remain, the barriers that preserved us as a group do not.”
I agree. The idea that “European culture = white”, which was true in the past, simply isn’t true anymore. Too much race-mixing has been going on. I think a more narrow ethno-nationalism is the best option right now, although it won’t work in the US in the same way it does in Europe where there are clearly defined nation-states.
As for the racial lines – which ethnic groups can be classified as “acceptably white”? Obviously, recent hybrids of whites and non-whites wouldn’t be counted as white, but which groups are predominantly white and does culture play a role in whiteness at all?
(This reminds me of those “are Albanians white?” debates on Stormfront, BTW.)
Your statements suggest that you see the issue pretty much as I do.
The specific answers as to who’s in and who’s out racially will vary from individual to individual and group to group. The most important thing at this stage is for people to understand the kinds of questions that need to be asked.
Many comments suggest that individuals are uncomfortable with the idea of race itself–i.e., with “the physical stratum of race,” as Wilmot Robertson called it. If so, this is a replication within the movement of the social pathology of the larger society.
The anti-Nordic guilt-tripping is another example of this.
However, when I used the term “northern European” here, I was referring not to Nordics, but to the historical peoples living north of the mountain ranges that divide the peoples of the continent into northerners and southerners along an east-west axis.
There has been a marked north-south pigmentation divide there since earliest times. A racialist can’t ignore this; non-racialists can.
I will say that Bardem and Cruze both strike me as looking darker than average. Perhaps it has to do with the former Muslim presence in Iberia, or backwash from ex-overseas colonies.
@ “I will say that Bardem and Cruze both strike me as looking darker than average.”
Mediterraneans consist of two types: those who have delicate features (rare–cf. Botticelli’s Venus, a perfect nymph) and the cruder facial likes so common among male Spaniards and Southern Mediterraneans. What concerns me about Bardem is that his phenotype would bastardize—excuse me the expression—the gentler genotype of a latter-day Venus. Himmler and the Nazis got it right: let’s marry the blondest type of Aryans, like those they encountered in a Norwegian town.
Incidentally, I lived a year in Palmas de Gran Canaria, Bardem’s native island. I was very surprised to learn that (1) the native, pre-Hispanic Canarians were whiter than the Spanish conquerors of the XVI century, and (2) so Aryan actually that Himmler ordered an (inconclusive) investigation about the historical origins of such natives.
In the year I stayed in the island I saw about a handful Spanish nymphs as beautiful as Botticelli’s Venus.
Your statements suggest that you see the issue pretty much as I do.
@Andrew Hamilton:
“The specific answers as to who’s in and who’s out racially will vary from individual to individual and group to group.”
Yeah, I tend to agree with this. I personally think the ethno-nationalist path (white groups stay separate, but can respect each other on a co-nationalist basis) is more viable than the “pan-white” one – but I know that most white Americans are a blend of European groups and don’t really have any ethnic labels other than “American” and “white”. So, for preservationist purposes, “white” does have a value here (while Europeans identify more with their specific nation than with their skin color). I suppose white Americans would’ve been more receptive to an European-style ethnocentrism if the country was populated by a British Isles majority from the get-go and stayed that way (thus, “American” would be an Anglo group, as opposed to an European mishmash).
In the Old World, most people don’t really self-identify as “white” unless they’re contrasting their own people to obvious non-whites. I’ve met a Russian woman who had never been called “white” in her life, until an African immigrant yelled “YOYOYO, WHITE GIRL!” at her.
“Many comments suggest that individuals are uncomfortable with the idea of race itself–i.e., with “the physical stratum of race,” as Wilmot Robertson called it. If so, this is a replication within the movement of the social pathology of the larger society.”
It’s rather creepy how mainstream pathologies tend to replicate themselves even in fringe subcultures like WN. Refusing to admit that Penelope Cruz isn’t racially identical to Kelly MacDonald, and whining that “all Europeans look the same”, is one of those pathological multicultural ideas.
Not familiar with Wilmot Robertson, but he sounds interesting. I’ll check it out.
“However, when I used the term “northern European” here, I was referring not to Nordics, but to the historical peoples living north of the mountain ranges that divide the peoples of the continent into northerners and southerners along an east-west axis. There has been a marked north-south pigmentation divide there since earliest times. A racialist can’t ignore this; non-racialists can.”
Yeah, I tend to use “North European” in this way too. Inside Europe, the main genotypical divide is between North and South. And it shows in their skin coloring. Of course, it gets tricky with several groups – Slavic people, for instance, range across the entire spectrum from dark East Meds to pale blonde Nordics.
From this “pan-white” American mindset, it gets even more confusing. Which groups are “in” as white, and which are “out”? Do half-white nations get counted as white? Does your culture affect race at all (are Balkan Muslim acceptably white or not)???
So many questions…
They also both live in LA and vacation frequently. Even quite pale people can tan pretty dark. I do agree that whites that are phenotypically complimentary should stick together. I think it usually happens without even trying; I can site for example the fact that blue eyed men prefer blue eyed women (also works as an easy paternity test, as it’s impossible for two blue eyes to have a non blue eyed child).
I think there is a problem with our natural proclivities for egalitarianism and kindness to corrupt the white movement. And let’s be real- I think a lot of it comes from not wanting to hurt the feelings/isolate us swarthier, lower IQ whites.
As April has said, I think it is important to foster a culture of ANTI-egalitarianism and respect for hierarchy- whether it be WRT physical attractiveness, intelligence etc. We cannot still carry on this marxist nonsense of a perpetually dishonest society.
Frankly, I’m just happy to be white. Oh to be something else would be such a bummer, seriously. Ugh. I mean, seriously, could you imagine? What a raw deal for those people.
@Flavia:
“I do agree that whites that are phenotypically complimentary should stick together.”
I’m of the same opinion, really. Different white groups should stay different from each other, stick to their own, and selectively breed for the best traits in the own group. I’ve said before that all Europeans can respect each other on a pan-nationalist basis (where everyone is free to be ethnocentric in their own way) without resorting to a “all whites are the same” racial marxism.
“I think there is a problem with our natural proclivities for egalitarianism and kindness to corrupt the white movement.”
Probably. I think another factor is that many WNs still have “mental leftovers” from the mainstream media and Cultural Marxist indoctrination, and this tendency to egalitarianism and everyone-is-equal is one of them.
“And let’s be real- I think a lot of it comes from not wanting to hurt the feelings/isolate us swarthier, lower IQ whites.”
Yeah, probably.
As for lower IQ…I’m not really so sure about that. I know that African-mixed people like the Portuguese have a very low IQ by European standards. But on the other, I think we all agree that the swarthy Italians have created a far richer culture and superior civilization to the pale blonde Finns.
“Frankly, I’m just happy to be white. Oh to be something else would be such a bummer, seriously. Ugh. I mean, seriously, could you imagine? What a raw deal for those people.”
Have to agree with you, Flavia.
Every time I see ghetto blacks, blasting rap music or shambling around like mindless drones, I thank the gods I’m not them.
Living up here in Canada Hamilton’s article on the suppression of white consciousness and identity, and cultural homogenization (misleadingly referred to as “Americanization” or “Westernization”) was most timely. Our Defense Minister and heir apparent to P.M. Harper recently married “a local woman” and that being par for the course I thought nothing of it until reading White, White, White – non White and I realized that the designation “local” was being watered down too,
Born abroad, the new Mrs. Mackay did attend a local high school and so in some sense she does qualify as a “local woman” but considering that she can’t let go of the land of her birth she really strikes me as being more of a foreigner. This “impassioned human rights advocate” co-founded Stop Child Executions (in Iran) and was instrumental in having the death sentence of an Iranian woman who killed a rapist. Nothing wrong with Mrs. Mackay’s sentiments but the fascination with the place of her birth and her interests hardly make her a “local.” Needless to say, this attractive young woman with a degree in International Relations serves on the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and we all know what that means. Another needless to say is that her husband has no interest in the land of the Mackays, so perhaps afterall, she is more of a local than he is.
People often observe that Whites are not Jews. Ain’t it the truth. Jews sure don’t let superficial differences divide them in the face of a common enemy.
Other groups sure don’t do it either, but leave it to Whites to split the hairs over Germans marrying Spaniards while Whites are being driven to extinction all over the world.
You just don’t see this kind of thinking among other races. Black Nigerians who immigrate to America don’t hesitate to jump on the affirmative action gravy train, and mixed race American Blacks don’t hesitate to accept them in their struggle against Whites. You don’t see the top American Black leaders debating whether Nigerians are Black, or a different kind of Black, or how much admixture they may have acquired from people in the Middle East 500 years ago, or whether the daughters of mixed race Black Americans should marry Nigerians. They just accept Nigerians as Black for purposes of forming a political coalition, and then they move on with their agenda of dispossessing Whites.
But Whites just don’t do it, and because they don’t do, they have to be encouraged to do it.
The notion that there are people in the movement who have been infected by mainstream race pathologies or race egalitarianism is nonsense. People are simply encouraging others not to promote needless division when unity is necessary to turn back the existential threat.
And here is another pretty absurd idea: the notion that there is a natural hierarchy among the various White ethnic groups with Northern Europeans at the top and everyone else at some unspecified place at the bottom. There is zero historical evidence for such a hierarchy if cultural and scientific achievement are the standards for ranking the ethnic groups. All of the various groups have achieved at a high level.
Well said
Lew, at least I am not talking about hierarchy, but about beauty, physical beauty: my only nymph.
Thank you, Lew.
I was extremely disheartened by some of the comments in this thread, until the wisdom of your words surpassed the ignorant words of those above.
I am a product of paternal and maternal German ancestry, though I have Spaniard and various European bloodlines within my DNA profile. I have auburn hair, brown eyes and wear a White skin. My Y-DNA is: I1.
Stop splitting hairs.
Again, I am talking of beauty, especially the most spiritual kind of beauty, like Harry Potter’s little princess, which is more common among Northern Europeans than in the farthest South.
(If the YouTube video cannot be seen in the US please let me know.)
Many blacks in Africa would not consider American blacks (those who have some White blood) as their “brothers.” They have a natural distrust of them.
The jew “race” is splintering and harder to control by jews, because many jews have mixed with other races. So race mixing affects jews as well.
Andrew Hamilton wrote:
“Many comments suggest that individuals are uncomfortable with the idea of race itself–i.e., with “the physical stratum of race,” as Wilmot Robertson called it. If so, this is a replication within the movement of the social pathology of the larger society.”
Agree 100%. Many WNs are uncomfortable with the idea of race….strange.
Most American Blacks would stick out like a sore thumb in Africa, both racially and especially culturally. It is true but irrelevant when it comes to politics in the US and the West in general, where the various Black demographics never let differences keep them from forming a unified coalition against Whites.
As for WNists supposed discomfort with race, it is, quite frankly, possibly the most absurd claim I’ve ever seen in these circles. I have the utmost respect for Andrew Hamilton; he is one of a handful of writers whose work I always make time to read. Still, while I don’t want to read too much into a offhand remark in a comment thread, his claim that contemporary race pathologies have infected the WNist movement was not well reasoned. Maybe I read it wrong. I’m open to that. But on my quick reading, Mr. Hamilton seemed to offer up the classic false alternative: if you don’t accept his principles and his Nordicism, you are bringing pathological race Marxist egalitarianism into the movement. And some of the subsequent comments suggested there are people sympathetic to this view. Clearly, however, there are more than two possible positions on these issues.
Lew,
I’m not a Nordicist. What I said was that I discuss obvious intra-European ethnic differences without being stopped by taboos. An analogy is a white site I was looking at where the moderator took someone to task for his “misogyny, which we don’t permit here.” His “misogyny” was roughly equivalent to the kinds of things Roger Devlin routinely writes about.
There are subjects that need to be openly discussed and analyzed even if they make people uncomfortable, because papering over them won’t make the underlying realities disappear. It’s better to get them out into the open and examine them.
Also, there are notable intra-ethnic differences and tensions between blacks, and Jews.
But, on the flip side, it is also true that c. 90% of the world’s Jews today belong to a single ethnic group—the Ashkenazim. Racially and psychologically they are highly similar to one another, and possibly evolved from a relatively small founder population slightly more than half a millennium ago.
Finally, the entire institutional framework of society, media and educational propaganda, and government policy works to strengthen Jewish, black, and other identities and to erase white identity.
Blacks and Indians did not present such a powerful racial front before the Jews hopped into the saddle and seized the reins of power. The institutional framework, laws, and Zeitgeist of earlier times inhibited rather than fostered such solidarity on their part.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.