Who are We?
Nordics, Aryans, & Whites
White Nationalism presupposes an answer to the question “Who is white?” White Nationalism is a political movement, whereas white identity is a metapolitical question. A precise answer to this question provides the foundation for effective white advocacy. False or imprecise answers, however, lead to confused and ineffective efforts. I wish to deal with two such misleading answers: “Nordicism” and “Aryanism.” Both attitudes undermine White Nationalism by introducing confusions about white identity.
The archetypal Nordic is tall, long-headed, and fair-skinned, with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nordic types and traits are found throughout Europe, but as the name suggests, they are more prevalent in the North. As I define it, Nordicism is the view that the Nordic type is the model, paradigm, or archetype of whiteness, with the implication that non-Nordic is non-white, or white to a lesser degree. The most childish Nordicists actually imagine that the only way Europeans could acquire dark hair, eyes, and complexions is through racial admixture.
The Aryans were the creators of a particular language and culture. Their homeland, apparently, was in Eastern Europe, somewhere between the Baltic and Black Seas (an area now populated by Slavs and Balts, whom some Nordicists consider inferior breeds). In the second millennium BC, the Aryans began to migrate West into Europe, South into the Middle East, and East as far as India and China, diffusing their language, culture, and genes in the process. Because of the expanse of this diffusion, Aryans are also called Indo-Europeans. The original Aryans are thought to have been Nordic types, hence the same physical traits are described as Aryan and Nordic. Just as Nordicism regards the Nordic as archetypically white, the Aryanist makes Indo-European languages and cultures normative.
What’s wrong with Nordicism? Nothing really, if one is a Nordic. It seems perfectly natural and healthy for Nordic people to prefer the company of genetically similar people. Indeed, the brain is hard-wired to do so. I am a Nordic type, and I am most comfortable in northern climes among Nordic people. Other things being equal, I would prefer a Nordic mate who shares my recessive traits and can help pass them on to the next generation. These attitudes would only be objectionable if I expected non-Nordics to share them as well. This would be to take a natural preference that is relative to a subracial group and turn it into an absolute standard for all groups.
I don’t even object to the idea of Nordic superiority. If groups really are different, then every group is bound to be objectively better than others by some standards. But we must remember that this also implies that the same groups are bound to be inferior by other standards. Nordics are objectively superior at creating prosperous, egalitarian, high-trust, low corruption societies. As a Nordic, I am most comfortable in such societies, and many other peoples are attracted to such societies, if only as sponges and plunderers. Nordics, however, are proving objectively inferior at preserving our societies due to low ethnocentrism, high trust, and extreme credulity in the face of predatory tribal peoples out to dispossess us. Nordic superiority becomes objectionable only if (1) we assume that Nordic excellences are the only criteria for judging societies, and (2) we forget that Nordics are not superior in everything.
Although such White Nationalists as Wilmot Robertson and William Pierce were strongly Nordicist, and their attitudes linger on, in my experience Nordic White Nationalists are the most aware of the weaknesses of our own people. Beyond that, the Nordics that have the most naïve and ingrained supremacist attitudes tend to be the liberals and Leftists who believe that non-white immigrants can become citizens of Nordic societies, that they want to become citizens, and that apparently we don’t even have to try to assimilate them, because the Nordic way of life is so intrinsically compelling that everyone would spontaneously and voluntarily want to adopt it (without, I might add, divesting themselves of their own ethnic identities, which are apparently only superficial matters of clothing and food anyway).
Nordicism is problematic for White Nationalists because it undermines cooperation and trust among different European groups. This damages the ability of White Nationalists to advocate for white interests in European colonial societies like the United States and Canada, which were peopled by many different European ethnic groups which are increasingly blended into a generic “white” identity. In Europe itself, it also undermines the pan-European solidarity necessary to prevent European infighting and to unify Europe in the face of extra-European threats.
Imagine, for instance, the feelings of a Greek or Italian American toward William Pierce’s National Alliance if he read Pierce’s Who We Are, in which he laments that the Nordic invaders of Greece mongrelized themselves with the indigenous European populations rather than exterminating them to keep their blood pure — an exterminationist agenda that he envisioned for the future in The Turner Diaries. Such attitudes follow logically from the premise that Nordics are the only authentic Europeans, which implies that non-Nordics are lesser men. The National Alliance accepted non-Nordics as members, but such people could legitimately ask if the organization could really take their money and represent their interests in good faith.
The idea that Nordics are authentically and archetypically white is simply an intellectual error.
- First, there is no reason to think that the first Europeans were Nordic.
- Second, even if the first Europeans were Nordic, there is no reason to suppose that all departures from the Nordic type represent a decline from the ideal.
Nordics are just one branch of the European family tree, and are no more or less authentically European than any other branch.
Another error that is allied to Nordicism is what I call the son-in-law fallacy. Many whites operate on the assumption that the only truly white people are those they would have marry into their family. And since most people’s attitudes about such matters are based on genetic similarity, the son-in-law fallacy is really just a form of unconscious sub-racial chauvinism. It is perfectly natural and healthy to want to marry people who are genetically similar, so one can more reliably pass on one’s genes and culture to the next generation. But this does not imply that groups one would not wish to marry into are less European or less white.
Aryanism is an even more problematic attitude than Nordicism. Again, Aryanism is the view that Indo-European language and culture are normatively white. At its most childish, Aryanism leads to the false inference that Basques, Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians are “not white” because they do not speak Indo-European languages. Equally childish is the inference that non-European Caucasians (Persians, Armenians, Indians) are somehow “us” because they speak Indo-European languages. The reductio ad absurdum of Aryanism is a European who feels more kinship with Persians and Hindus than Hungarians or Finns because of common linguistic roots. Of course, due to colonialism there are also millions of Africans, Amerindians, and Asians who speak Indo-European languages and even carry European genes. Logically, the Aryanist should also prefer these people to Basques or Estonians, but let us hope they shrink back before this absurdity. Europeans can learn a great deal about our own pre-Christian language and culture through the study of Aryan offshoots among non-Europeans. But those who bear these languages and cultures today are still non-Europeans — not “us.”
There is no reason to presume that Indo-European language and culture are normatively European. The Aryans were a branch of the European family that split off from the main stem, evolved a distinct language and culture in isolation for untold millennia, and then migrated back into the European heartland, as well as into the Near, Middle, and Far East.
The Aryans certainly contributed to European civilization but they did not create it. Indeed, when the various waves of Aryans returned to Europe, they were rightly regarded as barbarians. They even regarded themselves as barbarians. Agriculture, ceramics, metal-working, written language, clocks, calendars, astronomy, irrigation, urban life, the wheel, refined arts and crafts, monumental architecture — all of these were pre-Aryan inventions. Europe’s first high civilizations arose around the Mediterranean shore, not in the North. Their creators were subracially Mediterranean, not Nordic. The creators of the high civilizations of Mesopotamia were Caucasian, but they were probably no more European than the current residents of those lands. And when the Aryans diffused themselves throughout Europe and the Orient, they were awestruck by the superior civilizations they found and eagerly to assimilated them, culturally and genetically, until Aryans in the pure form became extinct.
Europeans today, culturally and genetically, are more or less composites of Aryans and pre-Aryans. Thus it is a form of false consciousness — of inauthenticity — to identify ourselves, individually or collectively, with the Aryans, an extinct people who live on only as genetic and cultural ingredients of modern Europeans. The Aryans are part of us, but they are not us. Dreaming that we are Aryans is like a dog dreaming that he is a wolf.
Who are we then? Who is white? Who is European? A simple but pragmatic answer is that we are the branch of the Caucasian race that has inhabited Europe since the last Ice Age. Pragmatically, this common ancestry embraces all groups that we recognize as Europeans, but also excludes the non-European Caucasians in the Middle East, the Caucasus Mountains, and Central and South Asia.
Europeans and non-European Caucasians apparently had common ancestors. But when I speak of the European or white race, I am referring to the subset of the Caucasian race that settled and developed in Europe. Although there are liminal cases where the two sub-races blended, non-European Caucasians are culturally and genetically distinct from Europeans. Furthermore, non-European Caucasians exist in vast numbers and unlike Europeans, they are in no danger of extinction. Although breeding between European and non-Europeans Caucasians is not race-mixing in the strict sense, it should still be discouraged, since it erodes the genetic distinctness of an already threatened race.
If Nordicists think this definition includes people they would not want to live or breed with, they need not do so as long as they maintain their own distinct homelands.
Whites are united by a common origin, common enemies, and a common threat of extinction. The only common thing we lack is a way to prevent our complete genetic and cultural oblivion. The purpose of White Nationalism is to give our race a future again. Changing the course of history is no small task. It requires white consciousness and solidarity, as well as organization and world-historical action.
White solidarity need not conflict with particular regional, national, and sub-racial identities. Indeed, the whole purpose of White Nationalism is to protect such differences. But sub-racial and national chauvinisms — and imaginary identifications with extinct ancestors and non-Europeans who speak Indo-European languages — do conflict with the solidarity we need to save us. Nordicists and Aryanists are slated for destruction with all the rest of us. Which means that such attitudes are ultimately self-defeating. They are luxuries and indulgences a dying race can ill afford.
Guillaume Faye: Od soumraku k úsvitu
Are Americans Europeans?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 528 Karl Thorburn on the Bank Crashes
Revolution with Full Benefits
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
The Machiavellian Method
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
The dominant theory in the Nazi period was that the “Urheimat” of the Indo-Europeans/Aryans was in Northern Germany, between the Weser and the Wisła rivers, not in Eastern Europe. From there, they supposedly migrated towards the East, West, South and North. This theory allowed the Nazis to identify German nationalism with Aryanism, although even during the Nazi period, Nordicism was criticised for driving a wedge into German unity, since not all Germans are Nordic according to the criteria of the time.
The importance of the myth of the “Aryans” (which partly had an historical basis in the Indo-Europeans) was that it provided a positive basis for a larger European identity, one that is not based on perhaps arbitrary geographical limits, skin color (Ashkenazi Jews also have white skin) or purely negative definitions (including all Europeans who are not of Jewish descent). It also provided a criterion for distinguishing between elements in European culture that could be considered authentic, as part of a “deep identity” and those that could be considered alien, part of a superficial identity. For example, is Christianity really European, and if not, in what respects is it intrinsically alien to the “European spirit”?
Also, since the Indo-Europeans were war-like conquerers, it provided a useful mobilising myth in a period when Germany wanted to establish its hegemony in Europe through military conquest.
Even the term “white” has Nordicist implications, since it can be taken to imply that those with whiter skin (generally speaking, Northern Europeans) are more “white” than those with more “olive” skin (generally speaking, Mediterranean Europeans).
I thought that H.F.K.Günther put the Aryan homeland somewhere to Central Asia; and he also did not like to use the term Aryan. That an Urheimat was to have been in Northern Germany is new to me and quite at odds with the migrations and changes occurring in the last two thousand years.
The general tone of what you are writing sounds a lot like a commentary to the treaty of versailles with the German bogey man conquering Europe.
It is illuminating to look at historical maps and notice that the space Germans reside in has continuously shrunk since the early Middle Ages.
That Germans could (and can) only survive as Germans is based solely on a strong will for self-defence. That this is being denounced as militarism is a convenient tool for expansion from east to west and from west to east for everyone wishing to conquer German territory. Any German defence becomes an attack, and any attack from abroad becomes a defence.
The Europa idea has always had the strongest advocates in Germany; Germany has the most to gain from relative security from hostile intentions. Under Hitler the idea of prosperous co-existence of European nations was given a great chance by rejecting any claims to German territory taken by France and Italy; Poland refused to give consideration of a longterm solution to the ethnic realities along its border with Germany. During the war plans for post-war a European Union were discussed.
No, you are misinformed, Günther and Kossinna both put the Urheimat in Germany or Northern central Europe, and in particular, in the regions of Thüringen and Bohemia. See Kossinna, Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen, 1928 and Günther, “Germanentum und Indogermanentum rassekundlich betrachtet”, Festschrift für H. Hirt.
There is no scientific basis for applying the term “Aryan” to all Indo-Europeans. Only the Eastern branch of the Indo-Europeans called themselves Aryans.
The Pontic steppe hypothesis was mainly advanced by M. Gimbutas, and is probably the most widely accepted one among scholars today.
Thank you for the information; I will look up these books.
I find the question of Aryan origin somewhat interesting, but not of such great importance that I would want to spend a lot of time to read up comprehensively on the matter.
In the first place, we are living now and are by overlord decree supposed to not live according to our concept of such a life as has been conveyed to us through the chain of countless generations.
It seems that Nietzsche that the Left stupefyingly has hijacked and whose 169th birthday Google celebrated with a Doodle! was a Nordicist too:
“In the Latin word malus [bad] (which I place alongside melas [black, dark]) the common man could be designated as the dark-coloured, above all as the dark-haired (“hic niger est” [“this man is dark”]), as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of Italian soil, who stood out from those who became dominant, the blonds, that is, the conquering race of Aryans, most clearly through this colour. At any rate, Gaelic offers me an exactly corresponding example—the word fin (for example, in the name Fin-Gal), the term designating nobility and finally the good, noble, and pure, originally referred to the blond-headed man in contrast to the dusky, dark-haired original inhabitants. Incidentally, the Celts were a thoroughly blond race.” (On the Genealogy of Morals)
Perfectly healthy ethnocentrism. It is only a problem when exported or set up as a universal.
It was no doubt ethnocentrism on the part of the Indo-Europeans conquerers, but was it mere ethnocentric bias on the part of Nietzsche? As far as I can tell from photographs, he was not himself blonde.
He’s describing these people’s attitudes. That is different from agreeing with them. N. might have been blonde as a child, too.
What I mean is that in some passages of “On The Genealogy of Morals”, Nietzsche seems to link the “master morality” with the idea of a master race of heroic conquerors, of “blonde beasts”. The master race is an aristocratic morality, and in many European countries, the aristocracies of were of Germanic origin.
Sorry about reposting, I just needed to correct a mistake in my comment. What I mean is that in some passages of “On The Genealogy of Morals”, Nietzsche seems to link the “master morality” with the idea of a master race of heroic conquerors, of “blonde beasts”. The master morality is an aristocratic morality, and in many European countries, the aristocracies of were of Germanic origin.
Greg, what do you think about “March of the Titans” (authored by Arthur Kemp, who wrote a history of the white race avoiding the nordicist attitude of William Pierce in his “Who we are”)?
It is one of the dumbest books I have ever read.
It has been years since I threw it down in disgust. It is riddled with elementary historical errors, but what I found most absurd was his relentless parable-like reduction of the decline of every society to race mixture.
Im an not a monocausalist, thinking the one and only reason for the fall of Rome was race-mixing.
There are many reasons, but too many writers ignore the influx of non-whites to Rome (and Greece). And this miscegenation was one reason for the decay of these peoples, and not the least.
So it is good to have writers, who focus on this.
Another example is Portugal: This country was a superpower 500 years ago – after bringing masses of blacks to Portugal and mixing freely with them, Portugal fall down and never turn upward – till this day.
This is one lesson of this book: Race-mixing lead to decay.
But the value of this book is another:
The masses of great examples, which we have to emulate.
This is precisely what I find so stupid about his book. There is no evidence that Rome fell due to race-mixing. And the idea that black olive pickers in Portugal led to the downfall of its empire should be silly on the face of it. For one thing, Portugal held onto its empire longer than any other European society, relinquishing its territories only in the 1970s after a Left-wing military coup. And surely there are other reasons why Portugal was eclipsed by other European empires, for instance, the fact that the Spanish had a larger population and had the luck to seize the gold rich Aztec and Inca empires.
Race Mixture in the Roman Empire Tenney Frank
Yeah, I read that. But a lot of it does not imply real race mixture, and beyond that he does not give us any reason to correlate such patterns with decline.
Kemp tries to argue that there were Nordic Phoenicians. I haven’t read the whole book, but that alone is pretty silly.
And plenty of grammatical and spelling errors.
Also remember Lisbon was destroyed by an earthquake in 1755 followed by a tsunami and then fires. A quarter to one half of the cities inhabitants were killed. Portugal never fully recovered because the chaotic aftermath of the disaster allowed England and France to really gain the upper hand in the colonial empire department. Several “Enlightenment” philosophers such as Kant, Voltaire and Rousseau comment on the earthquake and its impact on European politics. Sometimes, it is the fickle finger of fate that screws things up.
@ M. Bell:
Errors? Of course there are errors in “March of the Titans”! The Phoenicians were not nordic and some other peoples mentioned in the book neither. The book includes 700 pages and hundreds of peoples: of course there are errors.
Many WNs are so afraid of all remote past miscegenation mentioned in Kemps book (e. g. Slaves mixed with Huns, Mongolians and other asiatic invaders; Portugues, Italian even French with Blacks), that they will not see the beauty of the “Titans”, that could encourage us. That’s a pitty.
Greg, let’s agree to disagree in this point.
Thanks a lot for discussing here ideas, which are unwelcome.
It is not just filled with “mistakes,” the falsehoods are so systematic and driven by an agenda that the book has to be dismissed as dishonest. But beyond that it is clumsily and stupidly dishonest.
What is this agenda?
Christian apologetics, Christian evangelization, silencing the critics of Christianity, and other forms of fiddling while the race burns.
Are you saying that Kemp was over-emphasizing the race-mixing factor in order to cover for the detrimental effect Christianity has had on our race?
If I remember correctly he concluded his chapter on Christianity by saying that it was the “most devastating ideological catastrophe ever to hit Europe,” or something to that effect.
I have no desire to to defend any other shortcomings the book may or may not have, but I know for sure it is by no means pro-Christian, and wanted to point that out. Maybe you didn’t read that far?
I said nothing about Christianity. This is irrelevant.
Maybe Mr. Johnson read never the real book but a stolen PDF-version with logos of “Church of the Creator”.
Garland is right: no pro-Christian propaganda at all.
I think Racial differences are good for study because they are an excellent tool to show us how differences in biology affect us, but I don’t believe it should go beyond that.
In the end what is important is, is the human genome improving, and not racial identity. You want to control the type of people you have in your country by what amount of “ability” they have as well as have the innate ability of people being born improving, but racial nationalism should have no part.
For HBD and like measures to be accepted in society, we need to be on top of the ethics and if we slack you can expect a quick revolt.
This is a little off subject, but in volume 4 of Henry Ford’s “The International Jew;” Ford makes an address to gentiles. Ford states that we must question the term “gentile,” that we do not know what “gentile” means, that it is another instance of the jew “putting something over on us.” I agree with him; we do not know the true meaning of “gentile.” Gentile could mean the most vile and disgusting thing. We know that “goy/goyim” means cattle, and that “shiksa” means impure and object of loathing, taboo, flesh of an animal. Jews/blacks have also inculcated in white men the self-descriptive of “white boy.” One could make a tenable thesis that the aryans lost the war when we started naming our children after characters in the bible.
I didn’t know that about Dr. Pierce, weren’t a couple of his wives Eastern European i.e. non-Nordic women?
Anyone? I may just have to go and have a more in-depth look into Dr. Pierce and his work.
For my own amusement, I define Whites using “Tonto’s Razor.” The story is that he and the Lone Ranger found themselves greatly outnumber and under attack from a hostile Indian tribe. When the LR said, “Looks like we’re in trouble, Tonto,” his Faithful Indian Companion replied, “What do you mean ‘we,’ White Man?”
Hence, as a base, anyone who can excuse himself from the charge of racism under pressure is not White.
Caucasians come in two varieties: the AfroAsian groups of North Africa and west Asia (Arabs, Jews, Turkic and Iranic and north Indian peoples) and the Europeans. And using Tonto’s Razor, one is of White/European descent if his ancestors come from the native peoples of European Christendom –Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant– regardless of his current beliefs.
This leaves out long-standing non-native resident of Europe like Gypsies (north Indians) and Jews (whose homeland is in west Asia). I myself would include Georgians and Armenians, but exclude Muslims, since their allegiance is to Christendom/The West’s most persistent imperial enemy.
Simply put, if your ancestors are Christian Europeans, Tonto will abandon you. And that makes you White.
Christendom is not the same thing as Europe.
Hillaire Belloc would disagree. “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.”
Yes, but he’s obviously just wrong about that. Already in the Middle Ages, the borders of Christendom stretched from Abyssinia in the South through Mesopotamia and India all the way to China.
I grant you the geographical point.
However, Europe is also in America. We are transplanted Europeans after all.
And what is our most important problem in both Europe and America? We no longer reproduce ourselves at the replacement rate. This failure to reproduce began to collapse I think around 1970. I think the point can be made that since the time of Constantine till about 1970 or so, Europeans knew how to reproduce whether in Europe or America. What caused the beginning of the failure to reproduce? Well, it was the pill, legalized abortion, the sexual revolution, the normalization of homosexuality, feminism and so on. Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant provided strong sanctions against all of these things for 1500 years or more. As long as Christianity remained strong, the family remained strong and there were lots of white children. I myself saw this directly. I was born in 1956 and my parents and all of our friends and neighbors had families of typically 3, 4 or even 5 children. I attended a Catholic grade school in a Chicago suburb and every family seemed to have at least 4 children; many had more. There were even jokes about the Catholics and their large numbers of children that were in wide circulation till about the mid to late 1980s. My parents had 4 sons. From those 4 sons, there are no white grand children and all of us have lost the Faith. So it was my generation, the boomer generation, that failed to reproduce. My parents’ generation, the Depression teenagers and WWII young adults who still clung to the Faith did quite fine. Maybe this is all coincidental, but I think I have made an argument in the Spirit of Belloc, and I will modify slightly his aphorism to “Europeans require the Faith and the Faith requires Europeans.” Looking at the second part of the modified aphorism, I can see that it is probably falsified by the large number of African and Mestiszo Christians. But the first part seems to me to be true.
I know what you mean, Greg, but in this case Christendom is proxy for people with white genes. Any nonwhite Christians are much recenter acquisitions, as far as I know.
Its a bad proxy that should be discarded. If I defined Europeans as those descended from the worshipers of the Celtic, Greek, Roman, and Germanic pantheons in 4 BC, you would be right to suspect an agenda. The same is true of the equation of Europe and Christendom.
Of course, Europe and Christendom are not identical. Which is why I specified European Christendom and the native peoples thereof, as ancestors. It’s not the only way of shaping the concept of White people, but I think it works pretty well. It excludes groups that don’t really have or want a White identity while not, to my knowledge, excluding any groups who do.
I know that mentioning Christianity is triggering to a lot of Alt Right guys. For what it’s worth, I have no expectation that Christianity will do anything other in Europe than shrink. And whatever its past achievements, the Church’s current infection by its own Mordred, post-Enlightenment Liberalism with its anti-White racial obsessions, has rendered it traitorously unfriendly to said European native peoples. Pope Evita is a painfully stark examplar of its plight.
For myself, however, I have no wish to look on the many generations of my Irish and Scandinavian and French ancestors, who were all eventually part of Christendom and of its great White Empire, as deluded victims of some bimillennial Semitic plot, which excludes them from White identity. European Christendom was European. It is not the future, but it is a past that I resist rejecting.
You should take a look at my essay “Christianity and European Identity”: https://counter-currents.com/2015/04/christianity-and-european-identity/
Outstanding article! I learned a lot from it.
Christianity was not a Semitic plot exactly. Myself, I agree with Joe Atwill’s thesis is Carsars Messiah: the Gospels were written at the court of Titus after the sack of Jerusalem as a satire on messianic Judaism. The Son of Man is Titus, the true messiah according to Josephus who, if he was a real person, probably wrote the gospels.
I always wonder what the Mediterrenean Europeans would look like without the imposed miscegenation from the Moors and the Turks(Dhimmitude). If we are to believe Classical sculpture, the looks of the Romans and Greeks were irrefutably white and furthermore must have been closely genetically linked to the North Europeans.
If we look more closely at population genetics, the greatest contribution to European DNA comes from the Near East Farmers who arrived ca. 7000BC from the Near East; this group must have been white and not ‘copper-skinned’ like most of the current inhabitants of the Near East.
There are many ancient paintings depicting Greeks and Romans who are ‘copper-skinned’ – hamitic/semitic (whichever); the point I’m trying to make is the depictions of those Greeks/Romans are of racial groups who acculturated to the Greco/Roman culture but, ultimately, were genetically non-European.
Fortunately, the Ancient Egyptians, Minoans, and Etruscans were skilled at self-representation. You are engaging in the precise line of thinking that I think is childish, i.e., presuming Nordic whiteness as the archetype and accounting for darker shades through positing racial admixture.
I sincerely hope we will be able to get rid of the modern, evolutionist historiography. The various traditions say that Aryans came from the North – the now-lost Thule – and incepted the Tradition in whomever they met. This is more spiritual and fulfilling than the dumb prehistoric man thing. May Guénon, Evola, Gangadar Tilak be proven right.
Besides, I think Aryanism is an interesting option, but not in the sense aforementioned. “Aryan” refers to a genetic and personality root that has a different character than the Semite and allows us to distinguish from the Jews. Overall, “Aryan” refers to a wide and rich culture, to a historical path, while “White” is – as you said – an all too generic identity. I don’t want to have my identity reduced to the color of my skin, nor let Satan’s chosen people pretend to be “White” because their skin is the same color than mine. Being Aryan tells us much more of who we are and ought to be.
I enjoyed this article.
I would like to add, in my opinion, the attitudes found in Nordicism and Aryanism were created by ant-German Allied propaganda during the second World War, and any White Nationalist who claims that “blonde hair and blue eyes” are quintessentially European and superior, are continuing that propaganda.
I also fail to see how being Christian and being white have anything to do with each other, Christianity may have been strengthened by Europeans, but the reverse is no longer true.
In response to the comment about race mixing leading to the collapse of Rome; I would recommend reading Spengler’s “Decline of the West” for another point of view.
So man foolish lies are believed about Greeks and Italians. Oh so many in fact. It would take a year to explain and another ten for the reality to sink in. , what a waste.
When I watch reports on the ongoing invasion of Europe by Syrians, Afganistanis, etc., I’d say about 10% actually look Caucasian, but they still don’t belong in Europe.
I know that the racial lines of “who is white/European” are still blurred and for the most part inconsequential; i.e. “Are Slavs/Irish white?” is divide and conquer. Given our current circumstance, as you have said, the elephant in the room of massive third world immigration (1.5 million into Germany in 2015!) is a pretty clear of example of who is NOT a European.
Now, to the point, in your educated opinion, how would you define “White European” in the context of an American, who may have a fraction Mestizo/Indian blood but could be mistaken with a southern European?
Smart article but
1. “White Nationalism is a political movement, whereas white identity is a metapolitical question.”
Fully agree. But I repeat what I wrote elsewhere: it makes more sense in the USA than in Europe. At least not yet. And possibly never. It resembles in this respect the … communist ideology. When in 1848 Marx and Engels wrote the “Communist Manifesto” the communist ideology seemed to be something smart and a plausible (dark for some/many?) prophesy and it still is – a prophecy, that hasn’t bear out yet but with interim false hopes to speak euphemistically.
2. “A precise answer to this question provides the foundation for effective white advocacy.”
Here I disagree. What about the simple and “unscientific” answer that “White” are all European ethnicities, that is, all the ethnic groups that historically have been living in Europe – with the exception of the Turks and Tartars and other such Muslims of the Balkans and Eastern Europe, of the Roma people (aka Gypsies), of the Jews (Sephardim and Ashkenazim) and of Diaspora Armenians.
3. “Nordic types and traits are found throughout Europe, but as the name suggests, they are more prevalent in the North.”
Let’s be honest, Nordic is synonymous to Germanic. While Celtic, Slavic and Baltic people (and Finns and Laps) share the Nordic traits they are looked down by Germanic nations and the reason is because some Germanic nations live on the lands that belonged to the former ethnicities and because German nations historically fought against the former ethnicities. The Celts, Slavs and Balts were the “other”, the “enemy”.
4. “The archetypal Nordic is tall, long-headed, and fair-skinned, with blonde hair and blue eyes.”
They (the Germanics + Celts + Slavs+ Balts) “produce” the best looking people (women – I am hetero 😉 in the world. In an objective sense. Don’t believe the rubbish that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, that is subjective, that every race consider itself the most beautiful one, etc. The truth is that GentleMEN of all races prefer blondes!
5. “It seems perfectly natural and healthy for Nordic people to prefer the company of genetically similar people. Indeed, the brain is hard-wired to do so.”
I don’t think this trait is universal. For instance, I am white (complexion between the milk whiteness of the Nordics and the olive skin of the Mediterraneans), with brown hair and eyes but in Britain my look was easily recognised as foreign. Nevertheless I consider the British (English + Scottish/Irish) women more good-looking than the Romanian ones (on average of course). I prefer the Nordic look to the average look of my people – the Romanians.
Am I an aberration? A race traitor? A self-hating Romanian? LOL. No, I am just like everybody, I like good-looking people. (I’ve also noticed that some English women (young, of course) showed an interest in me even though they knew that I was a Romanian or a foreigner. So its seems, having a foreigner look is not a flaw for all people when it comes to finding a sexual partner.)
6. “Nordic superiority becomes objectionable only if (1) we assume that Nordic excellences are the only criteria for judging societies, and (2) we forget that Nordics are not superior in everything. ”
But who cares? “My nation/ ethnic group/race, right or wrong”. If all people shared your generous attitude nations would stop insulting/bully each other. We would live in a very different world. The NWO?… LOL.
7. “In Europe itself, it also undermines the pan-European solidarity necessary to prevent European infighting and to unify Europe in the face of extra-European threats.”
Yes, but this is the crux of the matter because in all EU countries the most Eurosceptic (anti-European unity) parties/politicians are the ultra-nationalist parties. It seems Europeans are not ripe for White Nationalism yet.
8. “Many whites operate on the assumption that the only truly white people are those they would have marry into their family. And since most people’s attitudes about such matters are based on genetic similarity, the son-in-law fallacy is really just a form of unconscious sub-racial chauvinism. It is perfectly natural and healthy to want to marry people who are genetically similar, so one can more reliably pass on one’s genes and culture to the next generation. But this does not imply that groups one would not wish to marry into are less European or less white.”
Wrong. See also point 5.
Firstly, people prefer to marry and have children with “high-quality people” (intelligence, good-looks, money, social status, etc.) and if they cant find such people among their own ethnic group will be content to look for such qualities among foreigners. This is the true human nature! For instance, a Nordic woman who dates or marries an athletic Black man, doesn’t do it necessarily because she was brainwashed by the liberal ideology, blah, blah.
Secondly, chauvinism is a political attitude and is not used as synonym for biological concepts such as sexual preference for kin. For instance, I am half-Greek and only 1/4 Romanian but I have no patriotism for Greece, not even 50%, I am 100% with Romania- and that is my conscious decision, a political or cultural decision if you like. Biology has nothing to do with it.
9. “Whites are united by a common origin, common enemies, and a common threat of extinction.”
But more so by a common history, a long history of mutual interaction, common religion (more or less) and common Civilisation – the Greco-Roman, the Christendom, the West and last but not least a penchant for pork…yum, yum.
10. “But sub-racial and national chauvinisms — and imaginary identifications with extinct ancestors and non-Europeans who speak Indo-European languages — do conflict with the solidarity we need to save us.”
Indeed, and that is why I consider White Nationalism a nonstarter in the Europe’s context.
with some flaws.
“… this is the crux of the matter because in all EU countries the most Eurosceptic (anti-European unity) parties/politicians are the ultra-nationalist parties. It seems Europeans are not ripe for White Nationalism yet.”
Every european knows that this has all to do with the current actual reality of the “European Union”, fantasies of some identitarians notwithstanding: a neocommunist uber-egalitarian dystopia of post-modernist tyranny.
“Firstly, people prefer to marry and have children with “high-quality people” (intelligence, good-looks, money, social status, etc.) and if they cant find such people among their own ethnic group will be content to look for such qualities among foreigners. This is the true human nature! For instance, a Nordic woman who dates or marries an athletic Black man, doesn’t do it necessarily because she was brainwashed by the liberal ideology, blah, blah.”
The problem with this oversimplification is that it consciously ignores that humans are internally divided regarding which traits are more desirable at any given moment. Furthermore, it also willfully ignores that the cultural environment is a major part of the selective environment as a whole, arguably the most influential one.
What is “high quality”? There are certain universals, of course: presumed health, youth, ability to gather resources/wealth, social status. When some of these conflict or cannot be found at the same time, what to choose? There are many other parameters that factor in: opportunity costs, time preference, availability. One of them, extremely important, is the system of social incentives in place.
In a highly ethnocentric culture with effective public rewards and punishments (even by mere shaming) the “black partner” example is simply unthinkable. The individual just keeps searching.
In a highly ethnophobic society where hyper-exogamy is not only punished, but even socially rewarded with status, the individual can even, in extreme cases, stop searching altogether within his or her own ingroup. I’ve met people like that.
In a healthy society (demographically young, moderately ethnocentric, replacement-level migration absent) the “quality partners” lie almost all the time, overwhelmingly, in your in-group. The exceptions are extremely rare anecdotes. I know how it is to live in such a society.
In a dysfunctional society (demographically aged, highly endophobic, individualistic, obsessively egalitarian) what was before unthinkable (literally) becomes a quite minoritarian but highly noticeable trend. The balance between the factors has changed, especially for people in the losing end of the competition for partners. Again I know what I’m talking about since I’ve been personally a witness of the transition from the first type of society to the second one. And not only in my own country, but also in others within the Eurosphere.
Ceteris paribus, in a normal society without strange distortions, you will always prefer a high-quality partner within your own ingroup since it’s much more adaptive. Furthermore, a good-enough coethnic beats an outstanding alien, so powerful are the benefits of social acceptance, inclusive fitness and cultural compatibility. Only in strongly distorted societies the balance changes: still not for most people, but for a sizeable minority.
1. “In a highly ethnocentric culture with effective public rewards and punishments (even by mere shaming) the “black partner” example is simply unthinkable. The individual just keeps searching.”
The Amish people… Very white! Most likely the White race will survive through the Amish rather than through White Nationalism… But who cares? The good thing is that it will survive. We should relax a little bit.
2. “In a healthy society (demographically young, moderately ethnocentric, replacement-level migration absent) the “quality partners” lie almost all the time, overwhelmingly, in your in-group. The exceptions are extremely rare anecdotes. I know how it is to live in such a society.”
Are you a graduate? Have you worked for a big firm? In the university environment and at workplace in a big company you will meet many “high quality” people (i.e. gorgeously looking intelligent and ambitious women ;-)), not only fellow country(wo)men of a different race or ethnicity but also foreigners (plenty of foreigners in fact, and not exclusively from the Third World). You see now the dilemma?
Of course I do (and it’s a constant source of surrealism and pain) but there’s no dilemma, since there are literally many more high-quality partners belonging to my in-group or to related groups than the other way around. On top of that, Culture (memes, social learning a là Richard Alexander) quickly kicks in and whispers “keep searching. It’d be so much better in the long run” rather than “sperm is cheap and nobody around cares anymore. Go for that asian woman”.
How many maladaptive mongrelizing couples in the fifties?
BTW: I found my woman years ago and, unlike so many in these circles I have a family, which I intend to make grow even more.
From memory, I think that A. James Gregor’s article “National Socialism and Race” effectively noted that Nordicists such as Hans F. K. Günther defined Nordic in a manner that was remarkably rigid and elastic, dogmatic and arbitrary. On the one hand, they’d define Nordic so narrowly that hardly any Whites could be classified as Nordic. On the other hand, they’d define Nordic so broadly that virtually all eminent White men or all White civilizations could be classified as Nordic or partly Nordic. That’s not exactly rigorous or honest, is it?
Incidentally, Gregor could be considered an early HBD type: although he was involved with the early Mankind Quarterly as well as an outfit called the Institution for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, he married an Asian woman, like the utterly despicable John Derbyshire.
Another issue that you need to tackle Mr Johnson is the association of “White Nationalism” with Fascism…
My first impression when I accessed the Counter-Current webzine was that it must have been a neo-fascist publication…
I don’t see why a hard stance on immigration, a hard stance on the dysgenic effects of a generous welfare state, “naming the Jew” (anti-Jewish suprematism aka “anti-Semitism”), White Nationalism (Euro-centrism), etc. need to be associated with Fascism or Nazism or even with any other brand of Conservatism. (Though it is true that they are associated TRADITIONALLY).
Jewish philosopher Karl Popper introduced the concepts of a “closed and open society”. For him the epitome of the closed society was Sparta and that of the open society Athens (though by modern standards even Athens was pretty much a closed society). Being a Diaspora Jew he obviously praised the “open society”. (However, it would have been interesting to know his views on Israel’s politics…)
One can think of a line where at the extreme left is the absolute closed society and at the extreme right the absolute open society. In the 1930’s Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and USSR were very much to the left of Britain, France and USA. Now the epitome of closed societies are Communist Korea and Cuba. Democratic Japan, Israel and Russia are to the left of the West. But obviously all is a matter of degree. A country that abandons its open-door policy to immigration is less open than before but that alone doesn’t make it a “fascist state”. Anti-immigration politicians are not “fascist”. Trump, Farage, Orban, etc. are not “the new Hitler”.
I am anti-immigration (for an ethnically fairly homogeneous country), Euro-centric, proud European, White Nationalist if you like, etc. but that doesn’t make me a fascist. I prefer to live in a society much more open than Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.
I and I think most of our readers would agree with you, but there is a great deal of wisdom to be learned from classical Old Right fascism and National Socialism. Read my essay “New Right vs. Old Right”: https://counter-currents.com/2012/05/new-right-vs-old-right/
By telling us that only Nazis and fascists could oppose their utterly stupid and destructive policies, Leftists and Jews are scripting their own doom. They’d better hope that sensible, moderate people like me prevail against the in-earnest Old Right LARPers and revivalists.
I’ve replied to you on the page “New Right vs. Old Right”. Thanks.
Good article here as always and I agree with it.
Gonna give a little credit to the Aryans though. They were definitely barbarians but they were also highly creative. They seem to have been the inventors of the wheeled vehicle(carts, wagons, chariots) and the domesticators of the horse. They were among the first with knowledge of bronze metalworking (and of iron metalworking, later on), and played a big role in spreading those technologies. Aryans may have invented the composite bow too.
Definitely lovers of combat. Yeah they didn’t have much to do with the initial development of “civilization” but it looks like they were always at the forefront in war technology. Anyway it’s great how it all worked out. The barbarian hyper-warrior met the civilized man and together they created Western Civilation.
I used to post this Lane essay years ago on Usenet; it’s at least somewhat relevant here.
FOCUS FOURTEEN (January 1995)
Who is White?
by David Lane
Those of you who have over the years or decades either observed or participated in the resistance to the murder of the White race know that provocateurs have attacked the racial purity of professed leaders to impugn their motives.
In my opinion part of the reason this has successfully worked for the enemy is a mind set grown from an alien religion. A basic tenet of judeo-christianity and part of its fatal allure is that it allows inferior men to claim superior status without corresponding effort. A judeo-christian with an IQ of 90 and a dismal life history can get baptized, repeat a few ritualistic words and presto, suddenly proclaim divine status superior to that of a man a million times his superior in intellect and character.
The “blue-eyed blond” syndrome is typical of this mentality. And I say this advisedly since I appear Nordic, tall, slender, blue-eyed blond. Yet I can only guess at the purity of my ancestry. My father of record sold my mother to his buddies and to strangers for booze money, so the Gods alone know all.
What I do know is this. I look White. I fight for White. I recognize the achievements of the White race. I want to preserve our kind. I am horrified that the beauty of the White Aryan woman may soon perish from the earth forever. I suffer for each White child tormented in America’s inter-racial nightmare.
I see beauty in a Celtic princess with brown or red hair and green eyes. I see beauty in the statuesque Nordic Goddess with blue eyes and golden hair. I see beauty in the freckle-faced Irish lass. I see heroism in Robert Jay Mathews and Richard Scutari with their dark hair and eyes of green or brown, as well as in Frank DeSilva, a fair skinned Brüder with a French Portugese name. Theirs is far greater nobility than 99% of those “Nordic Ideals,” I might add.
For those who boast of their “purity,” you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on. Go back 500 years or so and you have a million ancestors. A few more generations and everyone who ever trod the lands of Europe is your ancestor, including Huns, Mongols and Moors. There are no 100% pure Aryans as per 10,000 years ago. But we do still exist as a distinct and unique biological entity. The cultures and civilizations we create are beyond comparison. The beauty of our women — blondes, brunettes, redheads, green-eyed, blue-eyed, brown-eyed — is the desire of all men and the envy of all women. We are not going to debate over whether the collective remaining White gene pool is 95% or 97% pure Aryan. Surely it would be a tragedy if the various divisions of our race lose their distinctive traits and beauty. And after we have secured the existence of our people and a future for ALL our children, hopefully we can take steps to preserve this diversity.
But for now, we are going to accept the facts and circumstances as they exist. We are going to work together for the holy cause and we will not tolerate provocateurs, divisions or dissension. If someone looks White, acts White, fights White, then until their actions prove otherwise, they are our Folk.
On the other hand, regardless of pedigree or appearance, those who oppose, criticize, hinder or fail to support our cause are no friends of ours.
14 WORDS: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”
14 Word Press
HC01 Box 268K
St. Maries, ID 83861
Concerning “Caesars Messiah”
Jay Dyer crucifies J. Atwill on his thesis.
My ancestors were Teutons, aka Northmen/Germanic. “The Culture of the Teutons” was written in the early 1900’s before the Aryan concepts became more widely known.
Reading that work felt like coming home. I was able to see myself and my ancestors in a way that spoke to me like no other experience in life.
White is simply a term for a people that have lost their unique ethnic identity.
Henry Harpending attributes much of Indo-Europeans’ success to a chance mutation enabling the digestion of milk. The theory goes that this mutation enabled the conversion of lactose to energy which gave I-E’s a caloric advantage over people without lactose intolerance, thus differentially preserving I-Es through times of drought as war and enabling them to be more mobile and thus conquer much of Europe.
Anyway, I guess you’re right that the I-E past can’t be used to draw present day whites together because Yamanaya ancestry is distributed unevenly among white ethnic groups and if it is prized above other ancestries then it would create a hierarchy of whites around which potential fractures between white nationalists might form.
Still, even dogs still sometimes howl at the moon, but I guess a concert of howling can’t be used to start a movement. Nevertheless, I think archaeogenetics and deciphering human history from DNA is fascinating. Yamnaya ancestry is in virtually every white group.
Each white group from the past had its own culture and new technologies, from the hunter gatherers to the Early European Farmers to Yamnaya to the Greeks, Romans, Medieval knights, and Renaissance explorers. Each of these is associated with some technological innovation and/or social formation.
I suppose we have to look to the next group, the one which forms a white country and preserves the white race.
Btw, have you ever read Sam Francis’ “The Roots of the White Man”? He basically uses I-Es as a contrasting ruling elite, contrasting them to the Semites (thus cryptically to Jews). I know K-Mac claims we need an elitist I-E ethic to replace the prevailing egalitarian one which he links to hunter gatherer tendencies.
Anyway, it’s interesting how Jeffers was a nordicist. In addition, Bowden called him a misanthrope extraordinaire. I’m not an outright misanthrope, but sometimes whites, particularly in my work and family life, get me down. Their back-stabbing, deceit, corruption, and stupidity make me depressed. Sometimes the reality of the sad state of dogs around me makes me yearn for the wolf as a pure breed. Maybe Jeffers constructed an ideal for similar reasons. But I’m sure the I-Es were imperfect too. Good whites inspire me to work harder for the movement. Thus there are good dogs. I think I just need to improve myself and I’ll end up around better whites, and be discouraged less frequently.
I read this smart making article, because I have racial reservations about buying an Abyssinian cat.
Hi I am a mild Aryanist, but I consider race in all its 3 forms (a la Evola) – biological, cultural, spiritual. So Persians, Kurds and Tajiks might be Aryan (with copious degrees of forced racemixing by Arabs and Turks) in the biological sense but, like you’ve mentioned, they’re not like us culturally and spiritually, so they’re different. Still on a base level when Persians fight Arabs, in my soul of souls for some reason I root for the Persians. It’s also interesting to know that while they were at the centre of their own civilisation (Islamic) for a long time, they are now (partially for religious reasons) besieged by enemies from all sides and barely hold the majority in their own country. I think that if we loose and the (((globalists))) win, we can look at Iran for our middle term future.
In regards to Indians, while the high casts share some Aryan blood, they’re not racially Aryan at all they’re part of the Indid race and that’s separate.
It is possible that a people is of one race but speaks the language of another. For instance Baltic Finnic peoples (Finns, Estonians, Veps, Izhorians etc.) are of the Aryan race, if you consider genetic studies of their similarity to neighbouring peoples (Nordics and North Russians). So the fact that they speak an Uralic language is not very relevant here. Perhaps mildly in regards to their culture, but biologically they’re Aryan. I would say some Volga Finns like the Mordvins and Udmurts are similarly more White than native Siberian in race but I guess those ones are more mixed.
So this leaves Basques, who are an old-European people. We don’t know much about them but it would be logically to assume that Etruscans, Minoans, old Cypriots and the peoples of the Caucasus are in the same boat but I don’t know if they constitute(d) one race or more. However, I don’t know why you’d consider Georgians non-European. Culturally they’re very European and they’ve been a bulwark against Muslims centuries on end. And Armenians? Ok, with Armenians there is a little problem of some / many of them being descended from race mixing with Levantines of Oriental Christian denominations (mainly Arameans / Syriacs). But again, a Christian cuture, not very different than Greece’s. Also Armenians already faced a genocide and are in danger of extinction just like Europe. Perhaps let’s use “honorary Aryan” for such groups as Basques and Georgians and stop using this term for any foreign civilisation, however great.
In regards to the Hungarians, I’d love to consider then Aryans, or “honorary Aryans”, as they have been thoroughly Europeanised, both culturally and genetically, but the Magyars themselves will tell you they are part of “the Turanic race”, “like the Turks”. This is deeply ingrained in their nationalism. What can you do about it. Of course they are European, and they are Christian and racially probably they are more Aryan than Turanic or Siberian, but their counsciousness is explicitly Turanic. Sidenote: there is Turanic blood in more or less measure in the following European peoples: Bulgarians, Georgians, Greeks, Hungarians, Romanians, Russians (incl. Cossacks), Slovaks, Ukrainians (incl. Cossacks), and possibly also Belorussians. Probably some more, after all we were conquered by Turanic peoples a lot here in Central and Eastern Europe.
These are just my thoughts.The truth is, if you say “White European” eryone understands what you’re talking about. But “Aryan” packs more of a punch in my opinion. Anyway, obviously Basques, Finnic peoples & Hungarians should be included, and I think also Georgians and Armenians (I mean if you include Greeks, you don’t have many arguments against including them).
Polish version: https://nacjonalista.pl/2020/12/01/greg-johnson-kim-jestesmy-nordycy-ariowie-i-biali/
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.
Edit your comment