Racial RealitiesChad Crowley
Contrary to conventional wisdom, race isn’t a concept, construct, or any other type of trite postmodern abstraction, but rather a scientifically-proven, biological fact. Moreover, race is a preexisting biological categorization, a taxonomical measure of the primordial differences which distinguishes and delineates the various races of mankind from each other, and as such the acknowledgement of the validity of race, or lack thereof, by the mainstream is not only culturally crippling, but racially deleterious.
In Race and State, the political philosopher Eric Voegelin correctly postulates that the human condition, and more exactly the existentiality of being human, is a “multilayered existence,” but incorrectly posits that “. . . making one of these layers [i.e. race] the measure and explanatory basis for the others” is prime facie false, and this premise, and permutations of it, underpins and infuses the Zeitgeist of the postmodern white-European world. Race and culture, and for the purposes of this essay, race and political organization, are two reciprocal sides of the same proverbial coin. Race and culture, and thus race and the nation-state, are two inseparable, mutually interdependent entities, with culture deriving from the racial soul of a unique people living in a unique geographical locale. The Australian academic Frank Salter posits, “Genetic continuity is the ultimate interest,” not only of the individual and their kinship relationships, but of the wider racial community and their collective interests as well.
In politics, humans organize themselves into groups, and a polity is a type of collective political entity in which human organization is based upon a shared identity, and it is from this sense of identity that formalized social hierarchies are formed. For the past few centuries, the various peoples of Europe and of European-settled lands have organized themselves politically along the lines of the nation-state. The basis of the nation-state, or of any other polity for that matter, is what the German jurist Carl Schmitt defined as “the political.” According to Schmitt, the underlying basis of “the political” is the centrality of the friend-enemy dichotomy, and the correct exercise of political power in any community manifests in correctly identifying the friend and the enemy.
The current liberal-democratic system operates along creedal or civic lines, and espouses the contrived notion that loyalty to the “State,” in the abstract sense, and specifically to the institutional apparatuses of the State, is the fundamental and cohesive basis of the nation. White Nationalism, being primarily concerned with genetic, racial, and thus organic civilizational continuity, seeks to organize human beings according to racial and ethnic kinship. More specifically, White Nationalism, as a form of racial nationalism, utilizes the medium of blood and kinship to define itself, its people, and its nation. White Nationalists explicitly acknowledge that race is a real, positivistically sound, and biological fact, and it is because of this shared realization that our movement is chastised and ostracized at the societal level by a hostile ruling elite which is intrinsically vested in dissociating itself from this reality.
The current regime defines the “nation” as an atomized collection of individuals, each person being greater than the whole and the community. Inversely, we White Nationalists define the nation along the lines of Blut und Boden (“blood and soil”). Our conceptualization of the nation isn’t a rotten core of intangible and ultimately meaningless democratic platitudes, but rather that of the organic nation, a racially-oriented national body, organized into concentric circles extending from the individual to his extended family of wider relations of racial kinship. In the present, European civilization is organized around loyalty to an abstract, and increasingly meaningless, State, while we contrarian White Nationalists proffer loyalty to our racial kindred and our shared genetic interests.
Returning again to Schmitt, he believed that the modern liberal-democratic State was incapable of being political, and thus unable to define who exactly is a friend and who is an enemy. According to Schmitt, the distinction between the friend and the enemy, between in-groups and out-groups, is the “degree of the intensity . . . of [the] association or dissociation” between people, and is thus the basis of any healthy and functional polity.” More decisively, Schmitt elucidated that it was the homogenizing components intrinsic to the modern notion of egalitarianism, and by proxy universalism, that are innate to democratic forms of government, and which has birthed a liberal order unable to legitimate itself – and by extension its political sovereignty – through a clear and absolute defining of the enemy-other. To Schmitt, the concept of the political was primordial in origin, existing in a distant and ancestral past, and as such existed prior to the codification of any modern legal-political framework. We White Nationalists recognize that the basis of any successful polity must be built upon the endogamous kinship which we share with those who are genetically similar to us. Thus, our very existence, and more broadly the existence of our movement, is perfectly in accordance with Schmitt’s definition of the political.
What Schmitt called the political is primordial in its origins in that it recognizes that the basis of any functional, successful civilization is the strength of its social bonds and of its kinship, similarity, and homogeneity. Population genetics have proven that individuals have both a vested genetic, and thus a racial, stake in both the propagation and prosperity of the interrelated co-ethnics in their wider racial-ethnic group, and White Nationalism explicitly recognizes this fact. The German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies differentiated between the Gemeinschaft (“community”) and the Gesellschaft (“society”), as well as between the primal interpersonal bonds of the genetic commonwealth versus the collectivity of atomized individuals, which are united more by geographical proximity and glib consumerism than by any cohesive, implacable racial-familial bond. As White Nationalists, we embrace Tönnies’ concept of the Gemeinschaft, of the organically formulated, genetically homogeneous racial state. Continuing the age-old European tradition of arête (“excellence”), we White Nationalists recognize that the basis of the nation-state, or of any polity past, present, and future, is the collective realization that not only is race a biological, universal fact, but is the underlying basis for any healthy and successful civilization. Truth by definition is that which corresponds to reality, and more saliently with fact, and when truth is obscured and falsity reigns, reality becomes a twisted aberration of itself, and as a result all people suffer.
Carl Schmitt was a jurist, but his conceptualization of the political has much in common with the field of evolutionary psychology, as both fields emphasize the competitive, agonal nature of life and the cycle of interactivity between humans, particularly of the interactions evidenced by both in- and out-groups. As Charles Darwin pointed out over 150 years ago, humans congregate in groups, and as such, group living is an adaptive strategy critical to the survival of the human species. Additionally, all humans form groups, and these groups are organized around similarity, specifically around dimensions of racial similarity, and by extension, kinship. From an evolutionary perspective, group living is predicated upon the successful utilization of intra-group sociality, and the more similar the members of a group are, the more affiliative and affirmatively agonistic it is, the more successful a group will be, evolutionarily speaking, in terms of inclusive fitness. A group which is similar, and thus homogeneous, is a group which is biologically healthy and civilizationally successful.
Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political presupposes the notion of sovereignty, and sovereignty operates at both the level of the self and the collective. In the most generalized sense, sovereignty denotes the rights and powers, or more aptly the authority, to govern oneself or others, and is integral to the evolutionary notions of in-group favoritism and out-group exclusionism. Human beings exercise sovereignty, and by extension the political, by forming social groupings of their own devising in the service of their own unique genetic interests. Social groups which are the most successful are those which function along organic lines, and thus racial nationalism, being wholly organic and autochthonic in nature, not only endows we White Nationalists with a competitive evolutionary edge, but also clearly provides us with a graphically illustrated vision for the future. Regardless of whether one resides in North America, Europe, or any other Eurosphere territory, or whether one is a racial or ethnonationalist, our shared long-term objective is the survival of our people, and the best way to achieve this objective is the creation of the ethnostate. Individual interests are dependent on the collectivity of genetic interests because of the inter-competition innate to the human species. By forming an ethnostate devoted solely to the propagation and elevation of the white race, fierce agonal competition with out-groups will bolster our racial strength and act as a catalyst to accelerate our evolution.
In relation to the white race, destiny is tantamount to strategic direction, and strategic direction is contingent upon evolutionary strategy. As a race, as a people, united quite literally by blood (i.e. endogamous kinship) and by our belief in the importance of blood (i.e. racial nationalism), and more precisely of our desire to maintain and perpetuate a racially homogeneous civilization, it is important that we begin to contemplate the trajectory of our future. The white ethnostate is central to this future, but what can be done in the interim to ensure that it will be manifested? The fecklessness of postmodern democratic politics, and the myopia undergirding the specious notions surrounding universal enfranchisement, must be replaced with a political reality which is both racial and practical. The beginning of the white ethnostate starts now with the formulating – or reformulating – of white racial solidarity and culture.
Firstly, as Nicholas Wade wrote, “race may be a troublesome inheritance,” but it’s a concept that we must embrace unequivocally and wholeheartedly, and more importantly taking pride in one’s racial inheritance is something that we must pass on to future generations. Genetic interests are based upon reproductive success, and I would argue that reproductive success is the passing on of the genes necessary to perpetuate a specific culture via the nexus of the interrelated individual. In short, culture can only replicate itself if the people who created it exist, genetically speaking, in the future.
As a scientific concept, race isn’t some neatly delineated grouping of precisely ordained boundaries or parameters, but rather the clinal distributions of genetic diversity which translates into shifting allele frequencies. In laymen’s terms, this means that racial classification, or more aptly categorization, is a matter of genetic, and by extension phenotypic, similarity. As such, in order for future generations to be in a position to construct a white ethnostate, or perhaps a series of ethnostates, the purity of the white race must be kept intact. Human genotypes, and thus phenotypes, are extremely polygenic, i.e. genetic traits are controlled by the interactions of two or more genes, and thus miscegenation at the individual level, and more deleteriously the heterogenization of the population at the macro level, will lead to nothing but the dissipation of the shared taxonomic traits of a given race through various processes of mutation. In order for the white race to survive, it must remain racially homogenous and genetically pure.
Secondly, from a cultural and thus civilizational perspective, race is the ultimate variable presupposing identity, and thus culture is the existential medium through which collective racial identity is manifested, and more importantly modulated. More simply, racial heterogenization leads to cultural transformation, and in the postmodern world, cultural transformation is analogous to bastardization, hybridization, and alienation. At present, the radical, transformational Left has been able to transfigure white-European civilization, largely because racially speaking, white-Europeans constitute a dwindling demographic group who are reproducing at less than replacement levels. Race and culture manifest through the nexus of the individual, and should the nature of the individual as a nexus or conduit change or disappear entirely, the canvas of civilization will have nowhere to manifest.
More saliently, the various maladaptive evolutionary fitness strategies which plague the white race have allowed the forces of an insidious Gramscian “march through the institutions” to occur throughout the entirety of our civilizational superstructure. Biologically speaking, culture is the extended phenotype of race, and this “march” through that which is, in the end, a manifestation of our racial-cultural core has been nothing but tragic for the white race, leading to an increasingly diversified and incrementally heterogenized composition of the white population. The more diversified our population becomes, the more susceptible we become to manipulation “from above.” More markedly, the more diminished our racial returns in terms of quantity and quality, the more perilous our genetic situation becomes.
Prof. Eric Kaufmann, in his excellent work chronicling Anglo-America that is appropriately titled The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, posited that the greatest enemies of Anglo-Saxon, or more generally of the Anglo-American, ethnic hegemony, were and are in fact Anglo-Americans themselves. In general I agree with this, with two caveats. First, Anglo-American ethnic homogeneity was both actively and sometimes intentionally disrupted by members of the Jewish intelligentsia, utilizing cosmopolitanism as an adaptive strategy, specifically as an offensive-defense mechanism to mitigate any perceived group threats arising from anti-Semitism, real or imagined, and as such these actions exerted a dissolutive effect upon Anglo-American racial unity. Secondly, and interrelatedly, many of the early Anglo-American reformers and early “social justice warriors” were aided, much to the chagrin of many of their racial contemporaries, by Jews and crypto-Jews, who conducted campaigns of ethnic rent-seeking, again in the service of their own group interests. To this very day, it is the legacy of the original Anglo-American “reformers,” like Jane Addams and John Dewey, whose racially dehomogenizing and culturally deconstructive practices have been furthered to their natural extremist ends by the radical dissolutive Left. White European culture has been shattered from within and without, and any future ethnostate must rectify this wrong by seeking an ethnogenic regeneration of both the white racial genotype and of the extended phenotype which is European culture.
As enumerated above, culture is the real-world manifestation of the racial identity of a specific people, in a specific place and time, and as such it stands to reason that European cultural survival is predicated upon white racial survival. Race and culture are inextricably linked. More to the point, as it relates to the creation of the ethnostate, the physical and metaphysical vestiges of the genetic patrimony of the white-European race, i.e. our people’s racial-cultural legacy, must continue to be transmitted to future generations, and this happens through literal biological reproduction. As such, we in the White Nationalist movement are the vector for this transmission, and as such we must continue to endure and struggle for the survival and prosperity of future generations not yet born. Our objectives are long-term and our suffering in the present is for the betterment of future generations. White Nationalism is essentially a type of genetically-based racial altruism, and as such we struggle today for genetic representation in the future.
The postmodern Western world rests on a flimsily constructed, one-dimensional materialistic worldview, and as such is only concerned with that which is tangible. The enemies of our race have exploited our various maladaptive evolutionary weaknesses, and the seemingly hollow nature of contemporary European culture is a product of design rather than organic evolution. Pleasure and practicality rule the day, while as a people, and as beings-in-the-world, we ceaselessly find ourselves unsatisfied and restless, futilely seeking fulfillment in a material world cleaved from our ancestral patrimony. We yearn for a culture and history long dead, but derive strength from the notion that racial and cultural regeneration is a distinct possibility if only we possess the fortitude to endure. Our goal of white racial preservation and prosperity is not only a noble one, but an evolutionarily sound strategy, and as such we should take comfort in this fact. By establishing a framework for future generations to follow, one of blood and soil, we are endowing ourselves with the ability to see beyond the materialistic haze of this world, and in fact are fighting for a higher purpose: the genetic and racial future of our people.
In Plato’s Republic, the great sage argued that pleasure must be delayed and desire postponed in service to the interest of that which is greater, that which is higher than one’s self, and for millennia this idea lay at the foundations of the unyielding Weltanschauung of the European world. But since then, the enemy has succeeded in destroying all but the shallowest vestiges of our racial-cultural patrimony from within the once-mighty stronghold of white-Europe. The byproduct of this destruction is our collective racial inability to exercise the political, to delineate between friend and enemy, between insider and outsider; and this weakness has been both the harbinger and the method of our collapse.
In order to restore European civilization to a point of homeostasis, we must work towards regaining our sense of racial Self, and by extension our collective sense of the political. To achieve this end, we must reassert our sovereignty and once regain dominion over the political by continuing to recognize the importance of race in all things. The Greco-Roman biographer Plutarch phrased it best when he wrote, “those who aim at great deeds must also suffer greatly,” and I can think of no greater, more arduously worthwhile struggle than that for the preservation of the white race.
 Eric Voegelin, Race and State (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 1997).
 Frank Slater, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (London: Routledge, 2017).
 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
 Ferdinand Tönnies, Community and Civil Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001).
 Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (Westminster: Penguin Books, 2015).
 Eric P. Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).
I have wondered if “Race is a social construct,” then isn’t “Racism” a social construct?
Shazam! Nicely done–there’s much here that I daren’t attempt to improve on.
The Schmitt corpus I believe is only rivaled by the Strauss-Kojeve for it stunning clarity in distillation of the political.
And if I may risk an indulgent addendum to your two part demur re Prof. Kaufmann> It seems to me the WASP elite was riven and ultimately undone by its ‘fair-play’ ethos. A typical figure–traitor to his class si vous plait– like E. Digby Baltzell could passionately make the case for Jewish initiation into the elite but had nothing to say at the end of his tenure when it became clear that the Jews were taking over…they did this without first penning him a festschrift.
That spirit of fair play in the name of meritocratic individualism turned out to be a fatal projection–noblesse oblige as both race and class suicide (two Byrds with one Stone?) a de facto capitulation to ethnocentric group-motivated individuals unencumbered by fair-play ethos. Jews instinctively took over the elite institutions without apology. What’s good for the Jews is what’s good for America. The corollary to this is that whether fully understood or admitted it demoralized WASP men. There is no longer a group ethos for whitey.
The Women? Just as the Jewish moguls of the entertainment industry went after the shiksas a generation before (the way conquering warriors go after the native women) Jewish intellectual men took Gentile wives. Think Martha Nussbaum, Barbara Ehrenreich and many more talented gentile women attracted to this group on the rise. And as you hint there were numerous other alignments consolidating this new WASP-Jew elite. But it was Jewish hegemony at play the whole way. And so dominant were the Jews and JASPers in all spheres of cultural import that no one could question the obvious takeover without being exposed as a Nazi.
But what seems to me the most insidious aspect in this silent revolution (as revolution in silence) is the fact that regular white people have no idea that their elite is Jewish. The Jews perfected the art of passing not in order to appease the natives but rather to pass undetected. But they really do seem to be in denial about this. How else could these ubiquitous (((activists))) be so unironically yet ostentatiously concerned with white over-representation in positions of power & influence.
Without torturing this further I really think the white race traitor problem is bound up with the problem of justifying oneself as an elite in a democracy–in our heretofore implicitly white democracy. With tensions rising elite antebellum Southerners and Yankees could regard themselves as almost distinct races while at the same time many Planters & Brahmins had more regard for the Negro in their respective ways than for ‘commoners’ or low whites. It was a badge of status.
But I think today if white people in the street could be made aware of Jewish domination and strategic Hebraic ensconcement in every sphere of cultural influence there would be a sea-change. And in our glorious return to fair play we shall rechristen it play of the fairs…
In biological terms, a race is pretty much the same as a breed.
So while all domestic dogs belong to the species Canis familiaris, it would be ridiculous to suggest that all breeds of dog are essentially the same. Or that dog breeds are a social construct.
In the same way, all human beings belong to the species Homo sapiens, but races (breeds) are clearly definable, through an observed phenotype and measurable genetic differences.
Dog breeds also have noted behavioural differences. The placid pug and the pit bull terrier have different temperaments that are inherited, not learned. As such, mixing different breeds in the same environment can be a mistake.
Notwithstanding all that, I rarely hear an argument anymore about races being imaginary. Even the most enthusiastic of race mixers, in my experience, accept that races exist but think that with the right policy settings the differences can be managed to produce a ‘harmonious, vibrant society’. I don’t believe it. The former state of Yugoslavia kept a lid on the simmering ethnic divisions in that country (with illiberal social controls that’d outrage today’s libertarian snowflakes) but, ultimately, could still not eliminate them.
The other point which seems to escape globalists today is that the end result of this mixing is the end of the very diversity they value. The word ‘diversity’ is widely (mis)used to refer narrowly to racial, ethnic and ethno-cultural diversity in society. But the logical end to mass immigration and open borders is a homogeneous, race-less world. All speaking with the same American TV accents, all focused on the same non-issues and without the kind of genuine international diversity that has – I think – really been a good thing in the past.
Real diversity means preserving the breeds by keeping them separate to a large degree.
“Notwithstanding all that, I rarely hear an argument anymore about races being imaginary.” –
Go to visit any college campus or turn on the television. Race is apparently only skin-deep.
You may be correct. I haven’t been on a university campus in decades and Australian TV is so atrocious it defies description.
Reading your comment, I searched the internet for articles which allege that race isn’t real.
I found an interesting one written by an Australian philosopher who cites a biological study (link below) ‘proving’ that races don’t exist. Problem is, the study doesn’t really prove that at all. Yes, the abstract says that ‘chimpanzees are divided into races, but humans are not’.
But the detail in the report tells a different story. The study used two methods to compare variation in human and chimpanzee populations.
The more objective method (AMOVA) measures the variation in molecular DNA in population groups. The author says that the ‘main disadvantage’ of this method is the ‘arbitrariness of the threshold value of 25%’ variation used to define racial difference. Indeed. Without labouring the details, the AMOVA study does show genetic variation between human races, but that these differences are not nearly as pronounced as those existing between chimpanzee races. So, it is fair to say that human races exist, but that they are not as genetically different as in some animal species. If the threshold was arbitrarily set at 4% rather than 25% (who’s to say it shouldn’t be?) then the study would have produced evidence for the existence of human races.
Note how this is easily interpreted by our ‘philosopher’ as proof that races don’t exist. By the same logic, I might argue that species don’t really exist, there being insufficient difference in the DNA of groups within a family or genus to warrant a lower order of classification.
The second method, which looks at adaptive evolution, compares adaptation to environmental conditions among physically isolated groups as a means of separating races. Given the mobility of human beings throughout the broad sweep of history, this seems like a scientific cul-de-sac from the outset. Characteristics evolved in one location may carry forward to populations in new areas, even if those features no longer serve an evolutionary purpose. So, the author finds resistance to malaria in human groups located away from the disease – and a lack of similar consistency in chimp populations. What does this prove? Humans have moved around the globe more than chimps. Startling. But hardly sufficient to disprove the existence of race.
I know that demographers and economists (especially) are notorious for drawing selective conclusions from their studies. It’s no surprise that philosophers do too. But it is disappointing that a biologist who has conducted an apparently objective study should summarise their findings in such a subjective way.
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.