Counter-Currents
NPI Chart (2008): 1950, 2000 and 2010-2060 population projections
2,717 words
So as not to mislead, I should note at the outset that there is no reliable global census of whites. I do not have even a ballpark notion of what the number might be, except that my estimate is usually lower than the back-of-the-envelope figures most white racialists arrive at on the rare occasions when they address the issue. The biggest hurdles are: a lack of hard data, no sustained focus on the question within the movement, and difficulties in specifying who is white. How many whites exist at any given time (or existed in the past, or are projected to exist in the future) also depends heavily upon your definition of “white,” and the degree of admixture you are willing to accept.
We all have a general, ill-defined picture of present-day population dynamics. Notably, conservative columnist and thinker Patrick Buchanan has attempted to wrestle with the numbers in articles and books such as The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (2002).
We also assimilate vague impressions of what’s happening via an intermittent diet of fragmentary news accounts like the following by the Left-wing, anti-white Guardian (UK) newspaper thirteen years ago: “The last days of a white world: We are near a global watershed – a time when white people will not be in the majority in the developed world, Britain included.” (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, trustworthy numbers that could shed greater light on the situation do not exist. Few countries in the world have census categories for whites, and the few that do, like the United States, cannot be accepted at face value. Prevailing Left-wing (including government) ideology is that either “race does not exist” or is a “social construct” (i.e., can mean anything). Although no one actually believes this, it is the party line and badly distorts the few scattered, sloppy official datasets that exist.
An Attempt at a Solution
An ultimately unsuccessful but instructive, one-time effort to rectify the situation was made by the National Policy Institute (NPI) in 2008 in a press release entitled, “Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit [sic]—Black Population to Double.” It was illustrated with very clear graphs. Ideally, a process would be in place to compile and continually update ever-changing demographic data and account for relevant policy changes, improvements in analytical methodology, and newly-discovered sources of information.
NPI describes itself as “an independent think-tank and publishing firm dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States, and around the world.”
Its full report was apparently never released, or else was compiled only in the form of the 2008 press release. The release has since been removed from the organization’s website. However, it can still be read in PDF format here. (Click on the green “Download” button.) The last two pages summarize the authors’ methodology.
Thumbnails of eight pie charts that formerly could be clicked on to be seen online are too small to read. Six of them are population projections for each decade from 2010 to 2060. However, all of the graphs, except the one for 2000, can be read (when paused) in a 4-minute 2008 YouTube video that remains online.
Of course, it would be helpful to first know the size of the white population in the past, in both absolute and percentage terms, and how many people we have now. But the report’s focus was primarily upon population projections, using 1950-2000 as a baseline.
According to two graphs, “Europeans” (i.e., whites of European descent, but including Jews and possibly some other non-whites and hybrids) comprised 28 percent of the world population in 1950, and 18.5 percent in 2000. One would have to examine extrinsic data to gauge whether non-white immigrants and mixed-race individuals figured largely into the “white” estimates for the year 2000, because by then everything had radically changed.
Patrick Buchanan cited the NPI report/press release favorably in his column, “The Way Our World Ends” (May 2, 2008), which also referenced a 2007 UN survey and a Pew Center (US data only) study.
Problems
While the NPI numbers and graphs appear convincing because of their highly professional presentation, a number of problems exist. One is the sources used. (Note that the report does explicitly cite its sources and state its methodology.) Unfortunately, most of them are flawed.
For example, the “Ethnicity and Race by Countries” table from the website of the Information Please Almanac is used. Online, at least, the Almanac does not specify where it gets its numbers from, or why they should be considered reliable. Also, precise definitions of races/ethnic groups are not provided. These flaws preclude the use of the Almanac as a primary source, just as Wikipedia cannot be used for that purpose. (Both can be utilized as starting points for further research.)
Other problems are revealed simply by glancing at the Information Please table. (I’m addressing what’s online today, not in 2008.)
For example, Norway’s entry says only: “Norwegian, Sami [Lapps] 20,000.”
Sweden’s is: “Indigenous population: Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities; foreign-born or first-generation immigrants: Finns, Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Turks.”
Besides the lack of numbers, the entries are prima facie incorrect, and certainly not indicative of the actual racial makeup of either country. Both nations have large contingents of colored residents, including Africans, Asians, and Muslims who are not Turks, not to mention many hybrids.
Similar problems plague most compilations that continue, against the grain, to provide racial or ethnic data—even supposedly authoritative ones such as The World Factbook published by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (The Factbook was not used by the authors.)
The Factbook’s entry for the United States reads: “white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate).” Until very recently that’s where it ended, making the entry look utterly ridiculous.
But a note about “Hispanics” has now been added, indicating that they constitute about 15.1% of the US population. Presumably the entire figure must be subtracted from the white population, bringing it down to a more believable 64.9%. But even that number (assuming the Factbook is following the census) includes Jews, Arabs, other non-white “Caucasians,” and so forth.
According to the US Census Bureau, “White” means “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as ‘White’ or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.” “Non-Hispanic White alone” “Includes people who reported White and no other race group and did not report being of Hispanic origin.” All census categories derive from self-reporting by subjects. No external verification takes place.
As with the Almanac, no ethnic definitions or detailed citations to authority are provided by the Factbook. Since such matters cannot be checked, the Factbook is not a reliable source of information for race or ethnicity, even though it undertakes to provide “Ethnic group” information for all the countries of the world. (I haven’t actually checked every country, but I’ve looked at many of them.)
Although a “World” entry contains the same general category breakdowns utilized for the individual countries, it omits aggregate figures for what the book everywhere else designates as “ethnic groups.”
The NPI report may be the best model for clear presentation of data—though it cannot be used as a dependable source of population information or projections. I suspect its white population figures err considerably on the high side.
The authors state that “The population estimates and projections were calculated on an order of magnitude basis. We believe them to be representative of the trends indicated and will be pleased to make corrections brought to our attention.” A method of broad approximation such as this would have to be used in any study of this type.
The Situation in 1914
In The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), author Lothrop Stoddard (1883–1950) presciently analyzed racial population figures in a similar manner. His book was widely known, so much so that it was alluded to by novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby (1925).
Referring to the year 1914—exactly a century ago—Stoddard in his opening pages succinctly summarized white geopolitical power and demographics.
In addition to largely unmixed homelands worldwide, whites exercised direct political control over most of the earth’s surface. Of the 53 million square miles (excluding the polar regions) constituting the world’s land area, Stoddard calculated that only 6 million square miles (11%) had non-white governments, and 66% of that was attributable to China.
Clearly, the rapid collapse of colonialism, which most of us do not think about, was an alarming symptom of profound sickness, possibly impending death. I am thinking now of collective racial life as a form of struggle, completely divorced from any altruistic, unreciprocated moral calculus.
When Stoddard focused solely upon the “real white world” of 1914—those regions such as North America and Europe where whites numerically predominated—then just 42 percent of the earth’s surface belonged to whites. And fully one-third of that, Australasia and Siberia, was “very thinly inhabited and is thus held by a very slender racial tenure—the only tenure which counts in the long run.”
In his book, Stoddard identified five primary races of mankind: White, Yellow, Brown, Black, and Amerindian. Although he does not say so, this approach derives from a racial classification based upon skin color introduced by German anthropologist Johann Friedrich Gmelin in a footnote to a 1788 German translation of Swede Carl Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae. (Linnaeus’s own breakdown, the first scientific classification of human races, was different.)
To backtrack for a moment, the division used by NPI was sevenfold: European (meaning whites), East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian), Central Asian (Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, Kyrgizians, Kazakhs), Southeast Asian (Indonesian, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Philippinos, Pacific Islanders), African (blacks), Arabic (North Africa and the Middle East), and Amerindian/Mestizo. Turks were placed in the Arabic category, although Turks are not Arabs.
I discussed the issue of racial classification at some length in Andrew Hamilton, “Taxonomic Approaches to Race,” The Occidental Quarterly (Fall 2008), pp. 11-36.
Turning from surveys of area to unspecified “tables of population,” Stoddard stated that the population of the earth one hundred years ago was 1.7 billion, of which 1.15 billion (68%) was colored and 550 million (32%) white. (Recall that NPI calculated whites at 28% for 1950, and 18.5% in 2000—which I suspect is too high.) Moreover, the bulk of whites, 450 million, was concentrated on the continent of Europe.
Four-fifths [80%] of the entire white race is concentrated on less than one-fifth of the white world’s territorial area (Europe), while the remaining one-fifth of the race (some 110,000,000 souls), scattered to the ends of the earth, must protect four-fifths of the white territorial heritage against the pressure of colored races eleven times its numerical strength.
Lothrop Stoddard’s “Distribution of the Primary Races” (1920). From the top: White, Yellow, Brown, Black, Amerindians.
But population is dynamic. Treating the “primary race-stocks as units, it would appear that whites tend to double in eighty years, yellows and browns in sixty years, blacks in forty years.” Thus, whites “are the slowest breeders, and they will undoubtedly become slower still,” since their birthrate was falling toward that of France, which had already “reached the extreme of a stationary population.”
A stationary white population in 2014 would represent 2.1 children per couple. In fact, the birthrate has dropped below replacement level even when the high birthrates of colored populations in white homelands, plus widespread hybridization, are statistically employed to mask what must surely be a precipitous, historically unprecedented drop in white numbers.
Yet, in the vast areas of the world dominated by whites in 1914, Europeans were busy removing all natural checks to population growth such as famine, disease, and tribal warfare. The result was a massive colored population increase in nearly every portion of the globe under white political dominance.
“Now what must be the inevitable result of all this?” Stoddard inquired. “It can mean only one thing: a tremendous and steadily augmenting outward thrust of surplus colored men from overcrowded colored homelands.”
Although startlingly prophetic in terms of identifying and predicting the overall global dynamic, Stoddard’s 1914 population figures, though interesting and suggestive, are unfortunately untestable. Unlike the NPI authors, who specified their sources, Stoddard gave no indication of his. Ultimately, their accuracy cannot be directly evaluated. Still, due to the relative absence of mixing, the calculations in 1920 should have been much easier to make than would be the case today.
Who Is White?
The question of who is white is a vexed one.
Due to a long period of racial-geographic stability, it should be relatively easy to calculate approximate population figures prior to, say, 1960. For such estimates I use books written by the late Colin McEvedy: The Atlas of World Population History (written with Richard Jones) (1978), The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History (1967), The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (1961), and The Penguin Atlas of Modern History (1972). (Two of these volumes were revised in 1992 and 2002, and therefore might incorporate politically correct falsehoods. I don’t know.)
These, of course, are secondary sources by an author who was not explicitly racialist, never mind pro-white. So it would be nice to have original research tailored to our specific problem. Nevertheless, when McEvedy’s volumes appeared society had not yet jumped onto the race denial bandwagon, and the Great Erasure hadn’t officially begun, so it is possible to form a rough picture of our population over time by using these or similar volumes.
“Who is white?” is an important question that should be discussed without assuming that differing viewpoints are ipso facto “divisive.” Ours is the only race to have devised and maintained freedom of speech and thought; I’m confident we can still handle a little vigorous back-and-forth. It’s one thing for Jews, the Left, and government to suppress speech. That’s to be expected. (Expected, not accepted.) But it’s inappropriate for us to ape lower forms of humanity in this regard.
Personally, I cannot dismiss out of hand the question of “deep ancestry” and phenotypic appearance. Probably the major issue here is Southern Europe, or “Latins”—what old-style physical anthropologists almost universally recognized as the “Mediterranean” sub-race or ethnic group. (The problem arises elsewhere as well. Are English celebrities Russell Brand and Rowan Atkinson really white? It’s highly possible that Brand is Jewish or part-Jewish, but that seems less likely in Atkinson’s case.)
Why is this an issue? William McNeill’s slender volume, The Shape of European History (1974), written before today’s rigid political correctness had set in, demonstrates with great persuasiveness that northern and southern Europe belonged to two distinct cultural and trade spheres for thousands of years. Southern Europe was part of a vast cultural/trade/population area encompassing North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia in a way that northern Europe never was.
On top of such difficulties, replacement migration since the 1960s has swamped Europeans everywhere in a genocidal Third World tidal wave. These issues must all be coped with simultaneously. But it is wrong to dismiss important problems out of hand simply because they are controversial.
Finally, surveys that count Jews as “white” (as both Stoddard and NPI did, and as the US census does) are not very helpful. Despite their many marvelous forms of camouflage, Jews differ more from whites than does any other race on the face of the earth, including blacks.
Furthermore, I do not believe that Jews constitute just 2-3 percent of the US population as they have steadfastly maintained since at least 1917, if not earlier.
Social power and demography are closely related. The smaller the population figure you are willing to accept for Jews, the more conscious coordination (often derided as “conspiracy”) you must admit in order to account for their inordinate wealth and influence. To assert that they’re simply so much more intelligent and talented than whites and non-whites will not suffice, and at any rate raises thorny genetic and cultural issues of its own.
Jewish population numbers are controlled entirely by Jews and cannot be verified by credible (i.e., potentially critical) independent researchers. Nor do Jews permit governments to number their population.
Finally, Jewish classifications are too narrow for our purposes. Jewish conservatism on this score is valid from their point of view, but irrelevant from ours. We must exclude from the white breeding population many of the same hybrids they exclude from theirs.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
45 comments
Is Andrew Hamilton White? Is Bjork White? Is David Bromstad White?
Personally, I do think it divisive to question entire areas of Europe, which have been part of Western civilization since its founding.
Here’s my simple answer to the “whiteness” question: Europeans people are the descendants of the first humans who emerged in Europe and painted the caves during the Paleolithic area. These people subsequently migrated to North Africa, the Near East, and to Eastern Europe where they underwent some genetic differentiation. These peoples include Indo-Europeans, Berbers, Semites, Caucasians, and even more far-removed peoples like the Dravidians. Some of these peoples returned to Europe and mixed with the original paleo-European population, further transforming it.
If Rowan Atkinson is descended from the original Europeans, he is a European. The same is true for the other peoples of Europe.
The assumption that Northern Europeans (Nordics, Aryans) are more genuinely European than Mediterraneans simply ignores the fact that Nordics are an offshoot of the original European population just as Berbers and Arabs and Jews are. Present-day Southern Europeans are by and large paleo-Europeans with some admixture through back-migration of near-Eastern Caucasoids. Present-day Northern Europeans are by and large paleo-Europeans with some admixture through back-migration of blue-eyed mutant Caucasoids from Eastern Europe.
Jews are problematic because they are a predominantly Caucasoid people who think of themselves as a distinct race destined to enslave the rest of humanity. Absent that consciousness, they are pretty much like any other Near Eastern people, e.g., Kurds, Armenians, etc. Of course Askhkenazic Jews are a sump of genetic abnormality that would make them undesirable mates on genetic grounds. But even if they all looked like Dolph Lundgren and Heidi Klumm, it is the distinctly Jewish consciousness and culture that makes them so obnoxious.
From a White Nationalist point of view, however, the most damaging form of self-consciousness is to mistakenly identify ourselves with only one ingredient of our identity, the most widespread version of which is the idea that we are Indo-Europeans or Aryans, a group that may well be extinct but which is an ingredient, genetically or culturally or both, of pretty much every European alive today.
Absent that consciousness, Jews would be a hybrid group of Near Easterners and White Europeans (mostly Italians, it seems, but also some other Western Europeans). In other words, if Jews didn’t have that consciousness, they would be closer to us than other Near Easterners. But they define their ethnic interests very narrowly. They are like canine venereal sarcoma, which is a disease genetically very closely related to dogs (in fact, it’s DNA is almost totally identical to that of dogs), but is nevertheless only a sexually transmitted disease and not a dog (although it used to be one a few millennia ago).
Greg,
I’d be interested in your opinion of this article:
http://europeanaction.blogspot.com/2013/09/our-response-to-nordic-supremacists.html
Thanks.
I agree with the general approach, but I would put matters a bit less polemically.
So you believe an Indogermanic approach to primary identity to be detrimental? I must say that I think it definitely has its uses, as it gives the racial cause an important historic-cultural-religious dimension, which lacks in “vulgar” biologic reductionism. I also believe its the latter that scares away a lot of people from the movement, a purely scientific approach is very vulnerable to the frequent pseudo-scientific attacks from academia and lacks a sense of the “sacred”, a higher moral approach to the matter.
It also gives this important founding myth to the global European struggle of this in ancient history shrouded tribe of shepherds and horse riders, something that Sorel and the 20th century showed is not something to be underestimated when it comes to mobilising men.
Of course I do not wish to alienate the Finno-Ugric peoples, but I am certain that when push comes to shove they could seamlessly integrate into larger Indogermanic body.
There are more options than Indo-European spirituality vs. biological reductionism.
European culture is more than just Indo-European. We should identify with and celebrate the whole of our indetity, not just a part of it.
There are more options than Indo-European spirituality vs. biological reductionism.
European culture is more than just Indo-European. We should identify with and celebrate the whole of our identity, not just a part of it.
Hamilton wants to frame his argument so that those who question his continuous questioning of the “whiteness” of varied groups (not his own ethnic ancestry, of course) are ‘aping’ Jew censorship. The problem is more fundamental than that.
The defining attribute of any group is “in/out.” At some point, preferably when the group is forming, this needs to be decided. Counter Currents has been in existence for a number of years, and has attracted writers (and commentators) of varied European origins. One of the founders of the project, Mike Polignano, is of part-Italian ancestry. It would be a good idea I think for the project to define who it is that it represents, so all involved know where they stand. It would be somewhat grotesque to have people who have contributed time, money, and effort to Counter Currents, on the presumption that the project was for all Europeans world-wide to be told that, no, wait-a-minute, we have suddenly decided that you don’t meet the Hamiltonian criteria for inclusion.
You cannot maintain a cohesive group if you are going to be repeatedly questioning the membership of that group of a significant set of its membership.
My understanding of European ancestral history, in simplified form, and based on genetic studies, is as follows. There’s the two component model and the three component model, and here we are talking about the major components of ancestry. In the two component model, Europeans are primarily a mix of a (somewhat Eurasian) Paleolithic hunter-gatherer population with Neolithic farmers from the Near East. The three component model proposes a mix of Western Paleolithics, Near Eastern farmer Neolithics, and North Eurasians (“Siberians”). Regardless of the model, Europeans are mixes of these in different proportions, with no group being absolutely solely one or the other (except maybe Sardinians). Obviously, the relative proportions differ between European groups. There’s a lot more Neolithic Farmer in, say, Greeks, than there is in Germans. There are also minor components to ancestry (putting aside the whole “Indo-European” question), which can include “exotic” non-European admixture in both historic times, as well as earlier. This element would be at the lowest levels in the more geographically isolated areas of Europe (the Northwest, particularly the British Isles) and greater moving south and east.
However the relative differences, in absolute terms, the “exotic” element is small. Genetic kinship analyses, such as offered by companies like 23andme and Decodeme (with all their faults, particularly with ‘admixture’ – the genetic kinship assays are relatively simple and reasonably dependable), tend to consistently show greater similarity between Europeans; that is, data I’ve seen from those companies has Southern (and Eastern) Europeans as more similar to Northern Europeans than to Near Easterners, North Africans, and Central Asians.
As far as Rowan Atkinson’s ancestry goes, insofar as I can tell, he’s English. There are “darker” elements indigenous to the British Isles. To question the “whiteness” of even Paleo-Atlantid Englishmen is really stretching things to a level of absurdity that is becoming comical.
There is absolutely no question or doubt about “who is white”.
All we have to do is look at the anti-white genocide program and see that mass immigration and “assimilation” is forced on ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.
That nations bordering on the Mediterranean would have more “contacts” with the Near East. Northern Africa, and Central Asian than would nations bordering the North Sea is an obvious fact and common sense. However, if there is any significant civilizational divide in Europe (note the word “if”) it has traditionally been viewed primarily as West/East rather than North/South, by individuals as varied as Huntington and Yockey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png
By the way, “Mediterranean” describes a body of water, not a population group or race. One cannot have a “race” in which groups belonging to the same “race” share less genes with each other than with members of other “races.” One would imagine that a real race would constitute greater shared ancestry.
Despite their many marvelous forms of camouflage, Jews differ more from whites than does any other race on the face of the earth, including blacks.
In the name of free speech, should we argue this argument, which is on its face, absurd. I’m the first to point out how the Jewish mentality differs from that of Europeans, but to state that Blacks are more similar to Whites than are Jews does strike me as being an assertion worthy of debate.
I’m confident we can still handle a little vigorous back-and-forth.
Indeed. I’m sure readers will remember these issues already being discussed on this blog (with respect to another Hamilton post, of course). Let’s also have some “free speech” discussion as to what the end game is here.
On the one hand, we can restrict Whiteness to exclude anyone whose ancestry derives to the south of Vienna and the east of Berlin, and we can exclude such ‘questionable” individuals as Rowan Atkinson. How about Richard Nixon? Aaron Burr? Hamilton would be satisfied with a very narrow definition; however, this would alienate a significant portion of CC’s readership (and, I think, Greg himself).
On the other hand, we can stick with what I have understood to be CC’s “ingroup” (all Europeans, excluding Jews). This may be in line with the thinking of Greg and I, but, I presume would result in Hamilton continuously questioning the “whiteness” of certain groups whenever the mood strikes him.
So, in the interests of free speech, we can add to the ‘who is white’ question, the question of whether or not CC is ever going to move on from that question, or are we going to have to argue it every time people with an agenda feel they need to question the definition of the CC group.
Ted,
How about making the Western Biopolitics blog available again. I can’t access it.
Apologies for the off-topic comment.
Right now, WB is off-line as I concentrate on other blogs and projects. Much of the material on WB is dated, anyway.
It’s obnoxious to have to deal with the northern euro obsession with being the gold standard of whiteness.
Ted, Dr. Johnson has made clear that CC represents all Evropeans, be the northern or southern, in North America. A position which is supported by genetic science, see Dienekes Pontikos’s blog, and our shared cultural heritage. Harold Covington and his clan are totally uninformed on the science of our people and Hamilton’s questioning of Southern European racial bona fides places him in their camp.
All of our subgroups are on the brink it’s time for these petty issues to be buried as Dr. Sunic
suggests. Dr. Sunic himself is not a Aryan type, if you will.
Hail Evropa. Long live our peoples.
Harold Covington accepts Southern Europeans. So you are totally misinformed about his work.
It would seem the Northern Europeans are now going to be discriminated against in White Nationalism for political reasons. Gandhi was against his own children because he was so afraid of appearing to show favoritism. Likewise, now fair skinned people are being called “mutants”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
The word mutant has negative connotations in regards to race. Blacks constantly insult Whites for being different from the other races. And they make a huge deal out of blue eyes, fair skin, and blonde or red hair.
If blues eyes began as a mutation that appeared among people in and around present day Romania 6000 years ago at a time when everybody is believed to have been brown eyed then why are blue eyed people not encountered today as much in southern Europe as they are in northern Europe? Put simply why are blue eyes not more evenly distributed? After all some Sumerian figurines between 5000-4000 years old from Iraq depict blue eyed individuals. So why isn’t the Middle East today just as full of blue eyed people as Scandinavia is? And why are blue eyes more often than not found as part of a genetic “package” that also includes blondism and tall stature? Traits usually associated in Europe with people of the Nordic physical sub-type.
You obviously have a pet theory, so why not just lay it out? In the age of the internet, you can look up answers to questions like these yourself. So why not just state what you are getting at?
Demosthenes in blockquote:
Why you chose to bring Covington into this issue is beyond me, but you have presented an opportunity for enlightening one and all.
The “science of our people” is still developing at an incredible rate. Read the genetics blogs and you will stand in awe at how much we have learned about the human genome in the last twenty years, and how much we could learn in this century.
The political science of our people is worthy of deep analysis, as well. At the end of the day our Race, ALONE, developed Civilization. That this process has become perverted, and is turning against itself in the current Western Cultural Moment, is a matter of far greater import than arguing about the effect of one drop of blood in any of us.
After a century of dramatic ineffectiveness, ineffectiveness to the point of self-selecting for impotence (with a few bright lights along the way – Stoddard, Oliver, etc.), we find the White race on the verge of extinction. When we go, the lights go out, and the Earth become a cold, dark cinder revolving around the Sun.
We have pretty much three Lights along our path: counter-currents, which addresses the metapolitical issues we have long ignored; Bob Whitaker and the BUGS crew, which addresses the current political moment with long-needed wisdom and insight; and Covington’s Northwest Republic as the temporal bridge best able to take us from where we are, to where our Posterity deserves to be, to walk again, Among The Stars (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom).
That is why it is critically important to donate to counter-currents, each and every month, without fail.
Greg wrote:
Present-day Southern Europeans are by and large paleo-Europeans with some admixture through back-migration of near-Eastern Caucasoids.
Do the Southern Europeans (places like Sicily, etc.) have some African admixture from North Africa (didn’t the Romans bring a few negroes from Egypt & other more remote African posts venturing into the Sahara?)?
So we are told. I would like to see modern genetic studies that prove it.
This is my comprehensive take on this issue:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2014/01/of-pragmatism-and-principles.html
“Present-day Southern Europeans are by and large paleo-Europeans with some admixture through back-migration of near-Eastern Caucasoids.”
Indeed.
“(…) It appears, therefore, that the overall Neolithic contribution to modern Europeans
is somewhere between 12% and 23% on the female side, with the most likely value being about 13%. It is probably somewhat less than 22% on the male side, depending
on how much overwriting there has been in recent times with Near Eastern
lineages in southern Europe. From both perspectives, it is clear that the ancestry
of the majority of lineages predates the Neolithic in Europe, stretching back to the
Last Glacial Maximum and beyond. (…)”
“The Neolithic Invasion of Europe”: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/neolithic_invasion.pdf
If you want to try to imagine how most europeans looked like about 20k years ago, just take a look for inspiration at modern cantabrians, basques, aquitans, sardinians and maybe, some people from Wales.
But the most important part is that europeans are “more native” with regards to Europe than, for example, amerindians with regards to America. Let’s talk about endangered indigenous peoples.
My primary benchmark for Whiteness is this: “Can you cry that you are a victim of racism and be taken seriously?” If you can, then you’re not White.
It’s not the whole story, but it’s a quick and dirty guide to what race actually means for us. In real life it’s a mix of genetics, history, color, facial structure, culture and politics.
Using the old (and pretty useful) threefold division, Mongoloids and Negroids are clearly not White. But Caucasians I divide into two groups: Whites, whose ancestors are the native peoples of European Christendom (regardless of current faith) and the Bronzes, whose ancestors are the native peoples of West Asia: Turkic, Iranic, Judaic, Arabic, Aryan Indic.
Actually Covington and his posters exclude Greeks and hesitate when talking about southern Italiana and Iberians. So it’s you Jaego who is uninformed.
Wrong.
HAC has consistently calls this a divisive issue first, secondarily considering all Europeans White. You are referring to him suggesting that Golden Dawn, drawing from a working class population, has members that are largely an admixture of Greek and Turkish.
FWM:
Thanks for keeping the conversation on point.
We see what the “one drop of blood” theory did for the Confederacy, and the Old South.
The larger, metapolitical issues, are the proper focus, and, regardless of all matters hemoglobin, the larger issue is the future of the Race. Period.
If everyone who spent so much time arguing over the racial equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin spent that much time into remaking the lives into the Living Foundations of the new nation, the Northwest Republic, and sent counter-currents one dollar for every word they wrote, we could rest comfortably.
As it is, for the most part they seem more interested in creating Heat rather than Light.
As it is, we can not rest for the foreseeable future.
It really has remove so much complexity from my life, to simply address all questions in the light of one Question: “Is what I am about to do the best way to insure my Posterity walks on Mars, and communicates with their Posterity on the Alpha Centauri Mission?”
Thanks again for the positive efforts.
I agree that constantly debating “who is White?”, and generally doing it to declare that not all Europeans are White, is utterly disheartening and demoralizing. It’s one of my least favorite things to see argued over, because it reminds me of how far behind we are. When you can’t even have basic agreement about who we are it really hinders anything from taking off.
People who are opposed to all of this point out the “who is White?” debate ad nauseam. It helps them far more than it’ll ever help us.
White = European
Upon finishing the article, I had a bit of a sense that I would see a “continued to Part II” message…the end seemed to come to a stop almost arbitrarily, in terms of a big-picture conclusion.
I think we see two trends in the responses to the article…the scholarly and the pragmatic.
The scholarly response betrays fascination with the nature and vaguaries of race…an interest in pre-and historic racial migrations and conquests, and a classificatory Linneaus-style mind-set.
The pragmatists counter with pleas for unity among all people of European descent, with perhaps an eye on final outcomes, and a desire to know who your friends are….
I don’t see a problem with either camp. For all the historical discussion and continental migration minutia, I am going to venture to say that EVERY ONE reading this article, if we were gathered in some huge venue, would recognize us all as *essentially* homogenous- at least, *homogenous enough*.
I think Ted raises some very valid points, with a series of valuable comments. Meanwhile, Helga and EssEm bring a perfectly valid “bottom-line” persective to bear. We are smart enough to have this discussion without driving any unneeded wedges between ourselves. One thing I can’t resist adding, though, is that US census numbers HAVE to be under-reporting blacks. There is no way that number isn’t higher than we’re told it is.
Arguments over who is genetically white make me start wondering if culture is actually the more natural boundary for human tribal identity.
We know who the founding populations of Europe are: European Hunter Gatherers, Near Eastern First Farmers and Indo-Europeans from the East.
We can recognize these genetic signatures.
All core European groups seem to trace at least 80% of their genetic material to these founding populations, with the exception of the Ashkenazi Jews and (probably) Gypsies.
Europeans are European and have the right to live in Europe…if they have the might to keep it.
That said, some groups do have some admixture that can be fairly characterized as non-European. South West Asian, Mongoloid Siberian or East Asian. You know the groups I mean. We can recognize those signatures too.
And some groups (Basques, Sardinians) skipped mixing with the Indo-Europeans entirely, although they’re still entirely (Basques) or largely (Sardinians) derived from European stock.
All this leads me to believe that Europe really shouldn’t become a new America where all unique ethnicities merge into a deracinated mass of mongrel “whites”. Basques avoided mixing with Indo-Europeans so far, why start now?
But, if Europe does become a new America where all unique ethnicities merge into a deracinated mass of mongrel “whites”, then yes, you have to kick out a lot of peripheral Europeans to avoid becoming less “white”. Genetic testing will show you who.
“All this leads me to believe that Europe really shouldn’t become a new America where all unique ethnicities merge into a deracinated mass of mongrel “whites”. Basques avoided mixing with Indo-Europeans so far, why start now?”
I understand where you’re coming from, but why even speak like this? I can’t agree that white Americans are “mongrels.”
We know that European ethnicities are not “pure,” so to speak, since they’re conglomerations of earlier tribes and sub-ethnicities. That goes for all Europeans. The Germans, for instance, are a mixture of Germanic, Celtic, and probably some Roman or Germanic, Celtic and Slavic in different frequencies depending on what area we’re talking about. Same basic idea for Englishmen, Frenchman, Icelanders, Russians, Hungarians, Spaniards and Italians, etc. So, even these ethnicities are “masses of mongrels” if we follow this logic.
I think it’s arguments like these that really reveal some of the great shortcomings of purist approaches.
It begs questions such as have the English really lost so much because they’ve become a “mass of mongrels” by way of their descent from Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Romans and Danes? In one way, yes, I suppose some things were lost…
“I understand where you’re coming from, but why even speak like this? I can’t agree that white Americans are “mongrels.”
Perhaps I should be more careful, my intent was not to imply that white Americans were mixed with other races. My point simply that in America there has been a significant amount of mixing of the various white ethnic groups, such that many of us aren’t really tied to any single European country anymore.
I’m a white American mongrel myself, English, Scottish and German. Not exactly anything freakish, but I have no connection to those cultures and no place in them. In fact, I question whether or not I have any culture at all, aside from the global consumer culture of the enemy. I’m completely rootless and I’m not the only American in this position. I wouldn’t recommend this way of life to others.
Perhaps the difference between your previous examples of historical mixing of white groups and the American example is the rise of the mass media. The previous mixed white groups literally had no choice but to pick up some of the culture from the groups they descended from, so they retained some sort of tradition, if in a syncretized form.
But today the mass media exists and stronger central governments exist and they promote a mass culture. When people have no strong connection to any particular ethnic group or culture (because they’re a mixture of several), it may become more tempting for them to forget about those traditions and simply follow the mass culture. After all, it’s what everyone else is doing. Even if it were a better group promoting the mass culture, I’m not sure it would be a suitable replacement for the organic traditions of a people.
And once those connections to the past have been severed, they can only be restored with great difficulty. Live action roleplaying doesn’t count.
But lets get back to the genetic side. Europeans share significant genetic similarities. But they also have significant genetic differences, not just in terms of non-European admixture, but in terms of the proportions of the different founding European components they exhibit. (IE: more First Farmer or more European Hunter Gatherer, etc). There is reason to believe that these differences also play a role in determining the different national characters and behavioral traits of the different populations. Is it ideal to eliminate all these differences and merge all groups into a single grey undifferentiated European type? To my mind the American example (and our individualism, our complete lack of any form of tribal solidarity and our vulnerability to mind domination) says “maybe not”.
Finally, the question of “who is white” is easy, if you imagine a Europe of nations. Europeans are in fact very European in terms of genetics. So, no need to kick any group out. So, easy to achieve consensus.
But the question of “who is white” becomes very hard, if you really plan to merge all Europeans into one giant America style gene pool. Even though Europeans are all very European, Europeans are not, in fact, equally European. Adding in certain groups makes the gene pool less European and more South West Asian, Siberian or East Asian. Maybe the 99% whites don’t want to let the 90% whites in. Maybe the 90% whites don’t want to let the 82% whites in. And NOBODY is going to want the let the 80% guys in, once they figure out who they are. So inevitable divisions among an already hugely outnumbered movement.
Europeans, don’t let your kids grow up to be Americans.
I knew that you didn’t mean mixed race.
The key word is “deracinated” and one need not be of mixed ancestry to be deracinated. Deracination is much more a cultural than a genetic issue. Yes, I do believe that most Americans are deracinated in the sense of taking part only in the consumer mass culture, but I don’t think it’s because White Americans are of mixed European background. Even Americans of only one ethnic background (including non-Whites) are sucked into the mass culture.
I don’t think the Afrikaners, for instance, despite being of German, Dutch, French, and British (and whatever else) descent were considered particularly deracinated until perhaps more recently. Again, being deracinated is caused by being lost in a sea of consumerism and global capitalism and not by being of mixed European ancestry.
Also, I think we should think more as North Americans. We have a different situation here. There should be some sort of acknowledgment that we are mainly concerned with our own future on this continent. I can’t pretend to know what’s best for Europe.
Well it all gets a little messy doesn’t it. Once we cut out the S.Euros and Slavs, we’ll have to determine whether the remaining members have some genetic pollution. At some point, I’m guessing only blonde/blue Nords above 6′ will be considered true Whites… So why not just cut to the chase?
No but seriously, I don’t know the solution and I suspect these issues will never go away. The native Greeks and Romans maintain(ed) a ‘supremacy complex’ long after their empires dissipated and I suspect Anglo-Saxon (Nordicists) are no different.
In the end, as long as the various groups/movement leaders/bloggers make their views clear – the people will support whoever they choose and for whatever reason.
It’s good that we’re having this discussion because you can be sure that our enemies will try to use it to drive a wedge between us.
From a political point of view, there are differences between North American White Nationalism and European Nationalism. In North America we want spaces and institutions of our own. The question is who are “we?”
I tend to agree with the standard WN point of view that “White people” are people of European descent. In the formation of future White spaces and institutions I would include all people of European descent who wish to be a part of these spaces and institutions.
But then the question arises about non-White admixture. What about the person who is 1/16th American Indian? To this question I say that Whiteness is what you think you are and what everybody else thinks you are. If you wish to be part of future White spaces and institutions, then it becomes a matter if you are accepted by the other Whites in these future White spaces and institutions. What kind of culture do you want to create and support? While White children should learn about the histories of all peoples, it will be Western culture that they will celebrate. It will be Western heroes, mythologies, and images that they will be socialized with.
So again it’s pretty simple. 1)Do you think you’re White? 2) Do we think you’re White?
In North America (US and Canada) I think freedom of association will work this out. People will form communities with who they wish and these communities will join other communities. Institutions (educational, political, cultural, charitable, religious, fraternal, and informational/media) will be used as “glue” to bond these communities together(along with Whites who can’t or don’t wish to live in a White community). A White community in Vermont will be connected to White communities in Oregon and Winnipeg by sending their kids to White colleges; watching White media; or joining White cultural organizations. Modern technology will assist in connecting the larger “White body.”
Europe is different. In Europe National identities matter. The historical nations of Europe will decide how they want to mix with other nations. If the English want to send all non-English Europeans out of England, then this will be their right. But chances are they won’t do this.
Institutions should also play a role uniting America Whites with Europeans as well. They should come to White America colleges; should be included in White media, and be a part of White cultural organization as well. I think there should a fraternal organization that is made up of the most capable Whites on the planet that exists to defend Western civilizations.
After the program of White genocide is ended and the anti-White system is turned to dust, we’ll make quick work of the issue facing the earth (pollution, energy, over-population, etc.) and then start our ascent to the stars and the creation of the Ubermensch.
I would put it this way, for individuals, it’s not possible to stop being white,but it may be possible to stop being Jewish.
On who’s white and who’s not, there’s a lot of good stuff here:
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/Race_Face_Plates.htm
and
here: http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/RaceandIQWorldMap.htm
A basic bright line rule: Europeans and Diaspora Europeans are white; non-Europeans are not white.
The question “who is white” is divisive and toxic, but it is also useless as an analytical tool outside of certain narrow contexts. Even among people of good faith, the question has little real value, because it’s premised on flawed framing. The question “who is white” doesn’t apply and can’t apply in places where “white” doesn’t have historical, cultural or socio-political significance.
The category “white” has significance in the United States and in the diaspora nations. It makes no sense, therefore, to frame a debate on the global European in-group using that question. In this context, the right question to ask is “who is of European ancestry“? Under this framing, the absurdity of trying to disaggregate Southern Europeans from “peoples of European ancestry” is immediately apparent.
After all these years I still don’t understand the fanatical obsession over formulas and degrees of Whiteness that serve no actual purpose, other than to fracture an already fractured ideology. Is this something that powerless people do in order to give the impression that they are at least powerful enough to control something in their lives? Is it some odd form of self-identity masturbation?
“I don’t want you to get your Mediterranean in my Nordic. Well, I don’t want you to get your Nordic in my Mediterranean. I’m White! No, I’m White!” – Considering the current state of exponential decay and atrophy of the White Western world, this would not be the talk of men that want to survive or know how to survive in a hostile climate.
When you, your family or tribe or group is on the brink of starvation, you don’t obsess over the intricacies of the menu or the exact protein content of the things on the food chain. That is just not the proper time to spend getting your girly-man panties in a bunch. Survival means having the right priorities at the right time, and not necessarily just having a set of rigid priorities. Starvation dictates your priorities, not really vice versa. You find a food source, you hunt it, you kill it, you cook it, and you eat it. Live today, and tomorrow you might be in a better position to reach your dream of being a world renowned food snob. …or you can starve.
Hi Greg, sorry if my reply came across as obstinate. I just feel my race is being attacked on all fronts. First we have the “Out of Africa” theory being used as a tool to trivialize the importance of race, but now we are being told we are “social constructs” and that the very physical traits unique to us are just recent mutations, all implying that our race is not worth trying to preserve. I also feel that the findings of geneticists could be easily skewed to fit an agenda and the average lay person would be none the wiser, as there is nothing tangible to be seen just theoretical reconstructions. I have looked for information to explain the processes involved of how one blue eyed “progenitor” 6000 years ago in Romania was able to pass on the gene for blue eyes to all blue-eyed people today, or of how the blue-eyed “muties” came to be overwhelming concentrated in the north of Europe rather than the south, but have met with little success.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment