Translation: Finnish, Ukrainian
An obvious line of attack against White Nationalism is the claim that the very concept of whiteness is problematic. I wish to deal with four such objections. First, the concept of whiteness is supposed to be politically unnecessary. Second, whiteness is alleged to be subversive of ethnic identity. Third, whiteness is said to be a social construct, not a real natural kind. Fourth, the viability of White Nationalism is said to depend on an airtight definition of whiteness, which is elusive.
Is Whiteness Necessary?
A common misunderstanding or misrepresentation of White Nationalism is to claim that the very concept is meaningless, because white people are not interested in “white” nationalism. We are interested in American or French or German or Italian nationalism. On this account, German nationalism is for Germans and White Nationalism is for generic white people. But there are no generic white people, so White Nationalism is an ideology without a constituency, a concept without a referent.
But White Nationalism is not nationalism for generic white people. White Nationalism just means ethnonationalism for all specific white peoples. White Nationalists wish to preserve, restore, or create sovereign racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all white peoples who aspire to self-determination.
There really is no such thing as a generic white person. All white people belong to specific ethnic groups. Even in edge cases, where the children of couples from different ethnic groups are brought up with two cultures, and even two mother tongues, we are still talking about blends of specific ethnic groups.
What differentiates white ethnic groups? There are subracial differences among Europeans, and some nations have well-defined “typical” subracial types, for instance, typical Norwegians and Finns. But other nations encompass a range of subracial types, for instance England and Italy. In short, some white ethnic groups are more biologically homogeneous than others. Thus what is essential to differentiating white nations are their distinct languages, cultures, and histories. Religion can also create ethnic differences. Even peoples who are genetically very similar and speak the same language—the English and the Irish, or the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats—can be deeply divided by religion.
It is often said that White Nationalism makes sense only in colonial melting pots like the United States and Canada, in which different European ethnic groups have blended together. This is untrue. The blending of Old-World nations did not produce generic white people. It produced new ethnic groups: Americans, Canadians, Quebecois, Australians, Afrikaners, etc. If Americans and Canadians were just generic white people, there would be no differences between them. But there are differences, and these differences are linguistic and cultural. Thus from a White Nationalist point of view, there is really no difference between European and colonial nations. We stand for the self-determination of all white nations, all over the world, not just in Europe.
Since there are no generic white people—at least outside Plato’s world of forms or wherever else one finds universals—why speak of “white” nationalism at all? Why not just speak of specific national groups and be done with it?
There are five compelling reasons why we cannot avoid talking about the white race.
First, let’s say we decide to avoid talk of whiteness and instead speak only of promoting the national interests of the French, Germans, Americans, Poles, etc., while studiously avoiding any discussion of such nations as Turkey, India, or China. One has to ask: what does the first list have in common, and why are the other countries left out? The answer to both questions is that we are concerned with white nations, as opposed to non-white ones. One might try to dodge this accusation of “racism” by speaking of “Western civilization” or “Christendom,” but not all European peoples are “Western,” and vast numbers of Christians are non-whites.
Basically, all attempts to avoid the word “white” are just euphemisms—ways of talking around sensitive topics, like sex or excrement, born from a fear of violating cultural taboos about polite speech. But people who can only speak of race in euphemisms are not yet ready for the struggle. It is noble to wish to save white people, but how can one muster the courage to save the white race if one can’t even bring oneself to utter the word “white”? In order to battle the forces promoting white genocide, we are going to have to be more than a bit impolite.
Second, if the only motive for white skittishness about speaking in terms of race is a cultural taboo against white “racism,” we need to understand the origins and functions of this taboo. All the other races can, of course, speak in terms of racial identity and interests. And to my knowledge, Black Nationalists who speak of black power and black interests are never met with the argument, “But Black Nationalism is meaningless, because there are no generic black people, just various black tribes and nations.” Furthermore, when non-whites—or self-loathing whites—lecture us about “white privilege” and recite endless litanies of white crimes, nobody ever says, “Your accusations are meaningless. There is no such thing as a generic white person.” It seems that whiteness is a completely unproblematic category when people wish to impute blame to us. It is only problematic when whites want to defend ourselves: when we wish to affirm our identity, take pride in our achievements, take stock of our interests, and take our own side in ethnic conflicts. This taboo against any self-assertive appeal to whiteness is blatantly unfair, and whites can only lose if we continue to honor it. Obviously, this taboo was devised to systematically disadvantage whites. Thus we would be fools to continue honoring it.
Third, even though there is more to being American or English or Swedish than simply being white, we still have to talk about whiteness, because the present political system insists that it is possible for people of all races to be American or English or Swedish. For a very long time, it went without saying that only white people could be part of any European nation. But multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to divorce European national identities from whiteness.
Thus to save our nations—and through them our race as a whole—we have to talk explicitly about whiteness. We have to assert that being white is a necessary condition of belonging to any European national group, although of course we acknowledge that a shared language, culture, and history are also necessary. We must assert that non-whites can be members of white nations only by virtue of legal fictions. Not every white man is a Swede, but every Swede is a white man.
Fourth, simple ethnic nationalism is not always sufficient to ensure either narrow national or broader racial interests. It is perfectly natural, normal, and right for individuals and nations to take care of their own people first. And when multiethnic empires or multinational bodies like the European Union work against the ethnic interests of specific peoples, then the “petty” nationalism of Scotland or Hungary or Poland is entirely legitimate. However, when petty ethnic nationalism or imperialism lead to wars between European nations, or prevent coordinated European responses to common threats, then a broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity becomes necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing.
Creating such solidarity is imperative. Thus we must emphasize all the things that Europeans have in common, and beyond all the differences of language, culture, and religion, the deepest root of European identity and solidarity is racial. All Europeans share common ancestors. We are one extended family. In order to ensure our common destiny, we need to overcome silly taboos about acknowledging and drawing strength from our common racial origins.
Fifth, colonial societies from the start involved racial distinctions between European colonists and indigenous non-whites. In some cases, African slaves and South and East-Asian coolies were added to the mix. In such an environment, it is natural for whites not to see different nations and tribes (Aztec, Mayan), but simply different racial groupings (Indians, blacks, etc.), and it is equally natural for non-whites to see Europeans of different national origins simply as whites. Indeed, in the colonial context of racial polarization and struggle, when whites must present a unified front, the remnants of Old-World ethnic differences are actually harmful to white interests.
But now that Europe itself is being colonized by non-whites, the same process of racial polarization is taking place there as well. Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see white men. And we simply see blacks and browns. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as white men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as white people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.
Is Whiteness Subversive?
The best critique of whiteness as a political category comes from Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was a supporter of German ethnic nationalism and thought that the National Socialist emphasis on racial whiteness subverted German ethnic interests. Heidegger understood that whiteness is a necessary condition of being German, but there is more to being German than just being white.
Heidegger believed that making whiteness a political concept, and subsuming Germans and other European peoples under it, laid the groundwork for the destruction of ethnic differences. For if we are all white, what would it matter if Germans decided to assimilate members of other European ethnic groups? Putting different ethnic groups under the broad biological genus “white” leads one to think that white people are equivalent and interchangeable. In biological terms, this fungibility means that whites of other nations are suitable breeding stock. And in cultural terms, fungible means assimilable: capable of losing one cultural identity and adopting another one. There’s also a dimension of pure power politics here. Why would Germans biologically and culturally assimilate Poles rather than vice-versa? Obviously, simply because Germans were politically dominant.
Furthermore, the Nazis were not just interested in assimilating other whites but specifically Nordic whites, regardless of their culture. A corollary of this is that the Nazis would not be particularly interested in perpetuating the bloodlines of genuine Germans who were not Nordic. This consideration certainly supports Heidegger’s critique, although there is no evidence that it occurred to him. But given that Heidegger himself was no Nordic Übermensch, it probably crossed his mind.
Heidegger’s argument makes a great deal of sense. One does not even ask questions like “Are Finns white?” or “Are Italians white?” unless one is thinking in terms of breeding with them or imposing one’s culture upon them. Such questions almost always arise in a colonial or imperial context. In a Europe of autonomous ethnostates, they would hardly arise at all, and only among the most rootless and cosmopolitan segments of society: academics, artists, businessmen, and the like who travel abroad and might fall in love with a foreign girl and wonder if she is “white enough” to bring back home. (One would hope that in European ethnostates, rootedness would be emphasized to those who aspire to political power.)
Fortunately, there are steps we can take to reduce the threat of European racial and cultural homogenization. We generally wouldn’t need to worry about whether other peoples are “white enough” if every people has a homeland, if immigration and intermarriage between white societies is kept to a minimum, and every person has a strong enough sense of his own ethnic identity to marry his own kind. These are all sensible policies to preserve the ethnic and subracial diversity of white peoples.
Just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader white racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that it preserves rather than undermines distinct white ethnic groups.
Is Whiteness a Social Construct?
White Nationalists are often met with the objection that race is merely a social construct, not a real biological category. In my essay, “Why Race is Not a Social Construct,” I argue that this claim is false. Basically, all social constructivist arguments ignore the distinction between races, which are objective biological facts, and thoughts about race—for example, racial taxonomies and scientific theories—which are socially constructed.
Here I wish to argue that whether the social construction of race is true or false, it does not pose an impediment to White Nationalism. It is simply irrelevant. We can still be White Nationalists even if race is a social construct. In fact, in some ways, it is easier.
First, one has to note that some of the very same people who treat the social construction of race as an objection to White Nationalism have absolutely no problem with advocating non-white identity politics. So if social constructivism undermines identity politics, perhaps our opponents should begin by abandoning their own. And if social constructivism is no impediment to non-white identity politics, it is no impediment to white identity politics either.
Second, White Nationalists think that identity is more than just a matter of race. Every Italian is a white man, but not every white man is Italian. Italian identity is a matter not just of common biological descent, but of a shared language, culture, and history, which are human constructs. These constructs are limited and shaped by our genetic heritage and objective historical events, but at the core of every culture are conventions which are free creations of the human imagination.
Social constructivists hold that if a group of people think of themselves as a nation, they are a nation. For White Nationalists, nationhood is largely a social construct, but not exclusively, since a nation also involves common descent. Nations do, of course, establish conventions for outsiders to become “naturalized” (a very revealing term), but there has always been a strong presumption in favor of making naturalization contingent on biological and cultural assimilability.
But for the sake of argument, let’s just grant the social constructivist thesis that identity is entirely conventional. That does nothing to stop a society from adopting the social convention that only white people can be members. If social boundaries are essentially arbitrary constructs, why not be ethnonationalists? For a social constructivist, nothing prevents a society from stipulating racial homogeneity. And since racial diversity—regardless of whether it is real or socially constructed—is a proven source of disunity and conflict, there are sound practical reasons to prefer homogeneity.
White Nationalists believe that our race is real. But mere race realism hardly matters if people don’t think of themselves in racial terms. White Nationalism is not just a scientific thesis. It is a political ideology. As such, it depends upon white consciousness, namely white self-consciousness. Indeed, white self-consciousness is the greater part of White Nationalism, for without it, whites are as politically inert as dogs or horses. Thus one of the primary activities of White Nationalists is raising white self-consciousness. Our people need to think that we are a distinct race, with a distinct identity and interests, which often conflict with the identity and interests of other races. And when such conflicts exist, whites must think it natural, normal, and right organize to protect our interests in the political realm.
The social constructivists wish to knock the biological prop from under White Nationalism. But removing race realism still leaves the greater part of White Nationalism, namely white racial consciousness, in place. And again, if social constructivism is true, there is nothing to stop White Nationalists from simply stipulating that we want racial and ethnic homogeneity.
The only thing that would stop us from enforcing such preferences is lack of political power. Thus if social constructivism is true, White Nationalists need not waste our breath convincing every last person that our societies should be homogeneous. As long as we can sufficiently raise white self-consciousness, pride, and self-assertiveness, we can attain the political and cultural power necessary to impose our preferences on the rest of society. Our enemies openly declare their intention to do the very same thing to us.
Do We Need a Definition of Whiteness?
White Nationalism does require an answer to the question: “Who are whites?” But it does not require an airtight definition of whiteness. There is an important distinction between a phenomenon and its definition. The white race is a phenomenon that exists in the real world. Our primary acquaintance with white people is sense perception. We know whites when we see them.
Definitions are attempts to verbally articulate the essential traits of what we see in sense perception, and since we can always perceive more than we can say, all definitions are inadequate. But the lack of a good definition does not imply that we don’t know who white people are, much less that white people don’t exist. It simply proves that when confronted with the richness of nature, words fail us again and again.
Most of us would be hard-pressed to give a verbal definition of cabbage that would allow us to distinguish it from lettuce. But can instantly tell them apart simply by looking at them. We always know more than we can say. Thus it is pure sophistry to argue that if we can’t offer an airtight definition of cabbage that we don’t know what cabbages are, or that they don’t even exist.
For the purposes of White Nationalism, white people are the aboriginal peoples of Europe and their unmixed descendants around the world. But inevitably White Nationalists are challenged to defend any such account of whiteness against certain edge cases.
- How much non-white blood is consistent with being a white person?
- Are Jews, Persians, Georgians, and Armenians white or non-white? Some clearly look white, others not.
- Are Balkan Muslims white or non-white? (The answer is that they are white people whose religion is a vector of non-white invasion into Europe. Sadly, we can now say the same about European Christians as well.)
Again, these questions don’t really matter in a world where all peoples have their own homelands. Jews might not be “white enough” for your taste, but they are all Jewish enough to live in Israel.
Of course, non-white nationalists are never met with the same challenge, and they wouldn’t be deterred if they were.
The underlying assumption of these objections that that if one cannot provide non-arbitrary rules for dealing with edge cases, then whiteness is a social construct, not a natural kind. But this is as absurd as arguing that, since there are shades on the color spectrum that straddle blue and green, pure instances of blue and green do not exist. There have been many different racial taxonomies, which divide up the races of the world in different ways. But none of these taxonomies fail to include a category for white people, because white people obviously exist.
But again, let’s just grant the social constructivists their point. If we embrace social constructionism, we are completely free to answer these questions with arbitrary rules of thumb. Social constructivists should be the last people to object to the idea of white nations being empowered to define their identities and determine who is in and who is out.
Finally, most demands to “define white” are offered in bad faith. The very people who claim that White Nationalism fails without an airtight definition of whiteness, have no problem singling us out when they wish to blame us for the world’s problems, discriminate against us in education and employment, or target us for genocide. So when one of these people asks you to define whiteness, smile and tell him that white people are the ones who are supposed to feel white guilt. But if whites are real enough to bear white guilt, we are real enough to build white nations.
Plato’s Phaedo, Part II
Plato’s Phaedo, Part I
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
The existence of the Caucasoid race is self-evident and does not need dwelling upon. We can’t say Caucasoid or Caucasian because those are quaint terms that are not widely understood outside North America (and literally mean Circassian). “Euro-American” sounds like a brand of fondue pot. Therefore we say white.
Generally 5-6% should be considered the maximum of permissible nonwhite background (about 1/16, or one great-great-grandparent). For someone who is old or non-reproductive, that can be raised to 12-1/2%, or one great-grandparent.
These should just be flat rules across the board, and not complicated with abstruse preferences for one nonwhite background over another— e.g., saying you can be 1/8 Japanese or Cherokee but only 1/16 Malay or Tamil, or that you can be 1/4 East Asian if you’re otherwise Scots or Irish. That would be just insane.
And these should be based on formal genealogical records, not by some 23andme-type genetic-testing hokum that simply purports to show possible haplogroup distribution. If a person does not have genealogical records going back at least three generations, that itself raises a flag about the person’s background.
I would lean against making specific exclusions for Lapps, Armenians, Lebanese/Syrian Arabs, Balkan Moslems, etc., and simply rely on the Eyeball Test, which has stood the test of time.
Ethnically European works best rest is autism
What about the term ‘European’?
As a European, in pretty much every sense, I feel that the notion of ‘whiteness’ is part of the construction that will be used to undermine our identities in our original homelands. It is a chilling precedent for the American ideological trajectory. I say that knowing that our situation is actually worse, demographically.
I like to use the word European because in some cases the ethnics would use the term when travelling, and so would the mixed races. Race traitors and politicians are particularly guilty of betraying the word to include everyone who has migrated to Europe.
Therefore, I propose we discuss the term ‘European’ or, if we really want to start blowing heads off and for special occasions, ‘Indo-European’. I fear that the term white is somewhat loaded with negative assocations, and the term European is altogether more natural and truthful for, ahem, Europeans, whilst also being mildly subversive in the current neoliberal context.
As an aside, I personally don’t mind those other races which have an Indo-European connection *in the more obviously-they-are-white-except-they-are-slightly-brown cases*. Contrary to what the reader above me says about purity, I think that these races should have an upgraded position in European states relative to the others. Saying that, I am something of a Pan-Europa advocate and do not mind so much the erosion of national identities, which have proven to be harmful more than once before.
The problem with using the term “European” is that numerous parties have already pointed to people who are not European in any meaningful sense and called them Europeans. “European” is a term that can be used for things as toothless as geography or even foreign residents, and this is the reason why it is a polite concept while “white” is not.
I remember being appalled when watching a kickboxing event and when the announcers kept referring to two sub-saharan Africans as European and even worse as frenchman.
In this time of safe spaces for young adults and legislation based on someone’s hurt feelings perhaps wholesome white feelings should be considered too? I once experienced it myself when being the only white on a particular shift another one was called in and her friendly greeting drained all the tension out of me. I hadn’t even realized i was tense then. Now I can’t help thinking that there is more to the children’s rhyme in Jack in the Beanstalk which goes, “Fee, fie, fo, fum. I smell the blood of an Englishman.” The giant in the story sensed the presence without even knowing he was there. I sense there is more to us than our mere physical characteristics and that sure has someone pissed off.
Whiteness is a problem because it gives foreign whites the impression that they get a say in how other nations should be. Europeans don’t like when Americans in their infinite wisdom take a marker to a map and tell them that they should become a pan-european state or divided into several multiethnic states – whether they like it or not! One could, if we were to follow the same logic of ethnicity respecting whiteness that wants to give Scotland “independence”, divide England or France or Italy into a dozen ethnic states. Except that the ethnic group pushing for independence in Scotland most fervently are largely those descended from Irish refugees taken in during their famine – perhaps it is time for them to go home – while in these other countries the different groups are mostly native. Though this might not even matter if we take the argument that Scotland should leave because there are more left wingers there, presumably some parts of Scotland and England would be shifting between joining the left-wing and right wing ethnostates every 4 years or so. Benjamin Franklin spoke for many – perhaps most – Americans of his day when he wrote that only the anglo-saxons were white. His object was that only anglo-saxons with few exceptions should be allowed to come in. But this tricky concept “white” allowed his America to be entirely negated by the white mish-mash that came flooding in, and when they came in they worked to deconstruct any notion of anglo-saxon ethnic identity as American identity. If he could see it today he would have recognised that ‘white’ is just as little help to an ethnic group as ‘humanity’ is to a racial one.
“Creating such solidarity is imperative. Thus we must emphasize all the things that humans have in common, and beyond all the differences of language, culture, and religion, the deepest root of human identity and solidarity is human. All humans share common ancestors. We are one extended family. In order to ensure our common destiny, we need to overcome silly taboos about acknowledging and drawing strength from our common human origins.”
See how it works?
This just reeks of butthurt. Foreigners don’t have a say in these matters. What they do have is opinions you disagree with. And you can’t take it, probably because you can’t support your views with arguments.
“Europeans don’t like when Americans in their infinite wisdom take a marker to a map and tell them that they should become a pan-european state or divided into several multiethnic states – whether they like it or not!”
I’ve heard objections similar to this from Europeans many times now, so I can’t help but offer my thoughts as an American.
I have been part of the alt-right and its precedents for the better part of a decade and have met many nationalists, most of them Americans. Fleetingly few of them (I can count them on one hand with fingers left over) have been professed pan-European ideas. If you look at the history of pan-European ideas, you will find a litany of Europeans, not Americans. It is unfortunate that the most public face of the American alt-right, Richard Spencer, promotes pan-Europeanism, as he not at all representative (and seems to get most of his own ideas from Russians, to boot).
I do understand and sympathize with the fact that the nationalists of many European countries are currently most concerned with opposing the European Union, but I think this is inspiring them into a kind of crude and unreflective anti-Americanism that ignores the local nature of many of the ideological problems plaguing their countries.
This sort of “white” reasoning is fine for whites but our opposition is “Jewish” lawyer speak and emotional railroading, injured screeching and the general tricks employed by spoiled children against soft hearted parents unable to draw a line between “friend” and parent. I beleive this is why we hear are the screeching and tantrum throwing when trump actually does a normal grown-up thing like open relations with a fellow world power. The spoilt kids have been in control so long they do not know what is happening. Trump does not reason and explain: he firmly but gently acts and draws lines. We have to be prepared too ignore the screeching and acting out. There is a great English show called “SuperNanny” that demonstrates how to turn spoilt brats into happy family members. It starts with the parents learning how to be adults and parents.
… and this is why we read counter currents. Excellent!!!!
Furher responses to the request for defintion should be encouraged. My humble offering:
White people are the ones you need to blame for your people having achieved nothing even remotely comparable to European culture and civilization.
(It should go without stipulation that, for instance, no Japanese or Han Chinese person — i.e. a self-aware member of a race which has achieved anything — would ever ask such a question.)
Greg, we on the banks of the mighty River Indus greatly admire your work.
Despite being non-white, I still believe that the decline of White race and its culture has been the greatest tragedy of our time. For all its ‘imperial’ and ‘colonial’ aggrandizement, White man’s contribution to our civilization has been enormous and highly praiseworthy. At least me and my ancestors can testify that British occupation of our lands brought much needed sobriety and poise.
Keep up the good work !!!
This was an excellent response to the ‘definition’ objection. If I could add a little bit more to it.
When you ask people a question of the form “What is an x?”, you get three levels of responses: examples, traits, and definitions; each more difficult than the one before. If you ask “What is an animal?”, you might hear:
Examples – “You know, like dogs and cats.”
Traits – “Animals have legs.”
Definitions – “An animal is a living organism capable of self-directed movement.”
Children and less intelligent (or curious) adults tend to give examples in response to such questions. Most adults remain forever stuck at traits. And an exceptional few adults are capable of formulating definitions.
And yet – and here’s the point – none of those children on a field trip to the zoo would be stumped by the instruction “Don’t feed the animals.” Humans get through the vast majority of life just fine without ever having to worry about airtight definitions. Race is one among a zillion other phenomena we can deal with perfectly adequately despite the lack of an airtight definition.
Since we’re interested in political efficacy, not just smart answers, another method of determining who is in/out is to point out that the farther back in time you go, the more homogeneous European nations were and that therefore nations could theoretically define themselves as consisting of all the people whose ancestors lived in a given territory before a given date. Eg, a German is someone whose ancestors lived in Germany before 1945. This method would sometimes give quirky results (a lot of Jews would qualify in the example given), but it has the benefit of letting people know where they stand by eliminating the vagueness and uncertainty inherent in other approaches. Just a suggestion.
How do we defend whiteness against the findings of population genetics? David Reich maintains that all currently existing races are mixtures of previous races. According to Reich, Whites are an internally differentiated mix of four separate populations.
Ten thousand years ago, West Eurasia was home to four populations as differentiated from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today. The farmers of Europe and western Anatolia from 9000 to 5000 years ago were a mixture of western European hunter-gatherers (A), Levantine farmers (C), and Iranian farmers (D). Meanwhile, the pastoralists of the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas around 5000 years ago were a mixture of eastern European hunter-gatherers (B) and Iranian farmers (D). In the Bronze Age, these mixed populations mixed further to form populations with ancestry similar to people today.
Furthermore, each of these constituent races were themselves mixes of previous groups. But this is the rule for all of human history. “The genome revolution has taught us that great mixtures of highly divergent populations have occurred repeatedly. Instead of a tree, a better metaphor may be a trellis, branching and remixing far back into the past.” And also this, “Seventy thousand years ago, the world was populated by very diverse human forms, and we have genomes from an increasing number of them, allowing us to peer back to a time when humanity was much more variable than it is today.”
And so I ask again, how do Whites deal with these findings? If Whites have existed for only 4000 years, give or take, is it any great tragedy if we were to now mix-out into a new hybrid race encompassing all humanity, save perhaps the East Asians who might have the wherewithal to remain largely separate.
My own reply is that we have no historical memory beyond, say, 1000 BCE, and that for us the existence of the White race is coeval with all history, culture and civilization. That the white race is a “recent” phenomenon is no argument against its continued existence insofar as all that we value is of recent vintage too. But I fear this reply is too weak.
If that is true, then those are the ingredients of white people.
Like hops, barley, yeast, etc. are ingredients of beer.
But wait, beer is a mix. So why not mix some arsenic in it?
“…According to Reich, Whites are an internally differentiated mix of four separate populations…”
Those “four separate populations” were all White. So Whites are a “mixture” of Whites.
That is no reason to mix them with non-Whites.
No, the 4 populations were not white. See the Cheddar Man controversy. By way of counter example, see today’s Sardinians. They are clearly white but have very little Steppe ancestry (though I believe they have some Iranian farmer input via different channels).
(((Also, it is likely that there is some East African DNA in most western & southern Europeans, as Y-haplogroup E is thought to represent a migration out of East Africa roughly 10k years ago. The percentage is perhaps 2% in Italy, less than 1% in, say, Norway. However, East Africans are themselves a complicated group, with some forager groups more closely related to non-Africans than to any other groups in sub-Saharan Africa.)
Reich’s research and that of others in the field suggests that there was much greater human diversity in the past than today. The further back in time, the greater the diversity, mainly because humans lived as small, isolated packs of hunter-gatherers subject to “genetic drift” and “isolation by distance.” Moreover, there was significant cross-breeding with other hominid groups, as recently as 50k years ago. The ancestors of today’s whites mixed with Neanderthals, the ancestors of East Asians with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, the ancestors of sub-Saharan Africans with still other hominids groups (but not including Neanderthals or Denisovans).
But the point to bear in mind is that the 4 ancestral groups that combined to create whites were as “distant” from each other genetically as today’s Europeans are from East Asians.
Whites as whites have existed for only 4,000 or 5,000 years.
And this is why I fear many will shrug indifferently at the prospect of white extinction. What does it matter, they will say, for humans have been mixing into and out of various genetic constellations thoughout their natural history.
Or as Reich comments on Piers Anthony’s sci-fi novel Race Against Time: “The premise is mistaken. The genome revolution has shown that we are not living in particularly special times (accelerated post-1492 race mixing) when viewed from the perspective of the great sweep of human history. Mixtures of highly divergent groups have happened time and again, homogenizing populations just as divergent from one another as Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans.”
1) The idea that Cheddar Man was “colored” is unproven and probably a “political correct” hoax.
2) The idea that as the Sardinians, who have no steppe admixture, are White that THEREFORE the steppe population must have been colored, is faulty reasoning. The steppe people could very well have been White too.
3) East Africans are a mixture of black Africans with Hamites in the case of Somalians, and with Semites in the case of Ethiopians. The languages of Hamites and Semites are related, forming the Afro-Asiatic linguistic family, which is remotely related to Indo-European. The original Hamites and Semites were White, as can still be seen from their unmixed descendants among the Berbers of Algeria and many Lebanese and Syrians. My idea is that the original homeland of both the speakers of Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European was in Anatolia, from which the Hamites emigrated to north and east Africa and the Semites to the Middle East. Another part of the proto-Hamito-Semites migrated from Anatolia to Europe and that accounts for some genetic similarity of Europeans with East Africans, but that doesn’t mean Europeans are descendants of East Africans (a typical “political correct” delusion).
4) Reich being a Jew might have an agenda : “we are all mixed, so it doesn’t matter if we mix more”, thus facilitating white genocide by promoting mixture of Whites with non-Whites.
Good lord, I never said that the Steppe population was colored. I merely said Sardinians were white despite having very little Steppe admixture. You provided the “therefore”!!! The Steppe people who “swept” into Europe 5000 years ago probably looked like today’s Russians. (I say “swept” because it was probably a gradual influx of many small groups, over a more than 1000-year time-span, cumulatively transforming European genetics.)
Endangered animals, e.g. the giant panda, are mixtures, just like people and other animals. By your logic it would be of no loss if they become extinct.
It isn’t my argument. I am a White Nationalist. I am simply presenting the manner of argument of people who study population genetics. Go visit a site like Eupedia. Or read the David Reich book. Or talk to informed people in real life who do not share your views.
All of these people are going to say currently existing races are mixtures of previous races, and none have been around for more than, say, ten thousand years. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if people now mix-out into new hybrid races. In fact, this has been the over-arching trend of all human history, from great diversity to great homogeneity.
White advocates need to develop arguments against this position, which serves to relativize Whiteness as a transient historical phenomenon.
Dominique, that is the most common argument I see right after “Whites aren’t going extinct that is a conspiracy” than when you prove them wrong, they resort too “well people have been mixing for thousands of years.” I think a good argument against that is “why do we protect endangered species of animals from mixing?” then say, “Are whites of lower value than X animal? is that your position?” Usually, people say “no,” then they argue it is not the same thing and they say nonwhites are being destroyed too so. “Are nonwhites more valuable or superior to whites? Nonwhites are not being mixed into extinction in their homelands. Are Africans projected be no longer black in 100 years?”
It is an obnoxious conversation and that is only one path of it. People who usually take that position just don’t want their good time to be spoiled so they tell themselves it doesn’t matter so they can go back to some level of comfort.
Respectfully, that is untrue.
There are mixed Whites, but unmixed Whites / Cro Magnid (whether existing in history or now) account for the universal human genetic donor. All prior species were hominid.
Beyond the clear message that the research sends in regard to this truth, the alternative is that “races” evolved from a singular Black African source.
Even when academia attempts to justify a homo sapien sapien evolution from Neanderthal only, who is the most modern hominid (excluding humans from that classification), to say nothing of any genetically earlier African hominid individual (remember there is little to no Neanderthal genetic code in Africans), they need to retreat to two million years before present for the proposed evolutionary divergence to justify the theoretical genetic science.
This implies at least two million years of homo sapien sapien (fully modern human) existence on Earth, for which there is zero archeological evidence, but also that we then went back and had sex with the species that we supposedly evolved from (Neanderthal) and within which individuals magically resisted any evolution whatsoever.
This is an obviously desperate theory. So much so that, even though it is all they have, they do not seriously defend it. We mated with Neanderthal, we did not evolve from them. Not only does the genetic research outright refute that we evolved from even earlier African individuals, gene mutations simply don’t happen that fast.
Blacks are part early hominid (Habilis, Erectus, etc) and mostly Cro Magnid. All races are a percentage of hominid mix.
We do not know where modern pure humans (ie: Cro Magnid) came from. We do know that they did not evolve from any known hominid. For any claim for such, read the claim and the supporting research carefully. It will be lacking, to say the least. We do not have any remotely plausible answer for the appearance of modern humans (Cro Magnid).
Cro Magnid (homo sapien sapien) migrated around the wold and fucked (actually the females were likely raped by) hominids, creating the differing races.
There are no non-human (hominid) mtDNA (female) lines in he human genepool. This means that there are only Y-DNA (male) hominid lines for races other than Cro Magnid’s race (Whites), and that hominid genetic entry into the human genepool ocurred through the female human genetic lineage (hence Jewish focus on maternal (human) lineage, and their circumcision ritual whose primary symbolism is to end male lineage (hominid for them) importance for the individual).
A White person is a homo sapien sapien with little or no hominid admixture, and no hominid admixture outside of Neanderthal.
The first humans were pure homo sapien sapiens lacking any hominid admixture. They were likely Cro Magnid or a genetically identical family member (Cro Magnon only referring to the region of an archeological find). They were White.
As Eurasian Neanderthal admixture increases in an individual’s genome, or becomes responsible for the Y-DNA lineage altogether (there is no hominid mtDNA in the human genepool), an individual moves toward looking Mediterranean (Southern) / Arab / Jewish / Turkish (though Turkish people likely carry the East Asian Neanderthal Genome, being descendants of the Mongols mixing with Central Asian “Caucasians”).
East Asian people are the result of this same Cro Magnid (pure human) mating with an Asian Neanderthal species, as well as mating with the Denisovan hominid.
Blacks are the result of the Cro Magnid mating with Homo Habilis, likely Homo Erectus, and likely earlier hominids still lurking in Africa at the time. This accounts for Africa having the widest known “human” genome. Check the feature similarities between African Blacks and earlier hominids from Africa.
Australian aboriginees and Dravidians may be the result of Cro Magnon (homo sapien sapien) mating with unknown or subspecies hominids. Non-White American Latinos, of course , are descendants of Asians and Africans (the latter for some groups).
Every race has high hominid admixture except relatively “pure human” Whites. Every other race can absorb white genetics and remain racially consistent yet improved as a result. This is because white genetics represent the pure genetic slate that is responsible for what we know as the human genome. Whites cannot absorb foreign genetics and remain White. This process is he process of taking on an increased hominid genetic load. If hominid genetic load is already higher, then diluting it with White genetics does not eliminate it (thus they remain racially the same) but it does seem to dilute it a bit.
Political strife, in terms of Whites versus others, is mostly the strife between hominid genetics attempting to survive against competing human genetics (the later accounting for most of their genome, but just slightly less than genetically pure Whites). This process is likely the story of the “human” race, with hominid genetic share in he human genome being reduced through natural selection from an original 50% share for any race to the 1-5+% share that it currently stands at (according to science). As the hominid genetic share decreased over time due to this natural selection process, these high admixture (racial) groups would have been increasingly difficult to compete against until their population eventually stabilized with a 1-5+% hominid genetic load.
Can you support claim that Mediterraneans have more Neanderthal admixture than Nordics do? I have read, on the contrary, that blue eyes and red hair could be legacies of Neanderthal genetics. Admittedly this theory would seem to be contradicted by fact that East Asians have roughly 20% more Neanderthal blood than Europeans, and they have black hair, black eyes, very little body hair. But of course they also mixed with Denisovans, and there was perhaps more genetic diversity among Neanderthals than among Homo sapiens.
In any case, I have nowhere read that Southern Europeans are “more” Neanderthal than Northerners. Perhaps you could point me toward some articles online.
As for your claim that whites are more purely “human” than other races insofar as they are less admixed with archaic hominid groups, this strikes me as a rear-guard action to save some notion of white genetic purity. Moreover, I know of no evidence to suggest that whites are any less capable of absorbing other groups than they us. If 1 billion Africans mix with 200 million Europeans, then yes, they will absorb us. But if 100,000 early European farmers encounter 2000 haplogroup-E-centric bands of East African foragers, then then former will absorb the latter. It’s a numbers game.
“Can you support claim that Mediterraneans have more Neanderthal admixture than Nordics do”?
Who said anything about “Nordics”? Don’t put words in my mouth. Moreover, the term “Nordic” is much less specific than Mediterranean when speaking about hominid admixture as most Mediterraneans, no matter the y-DNA haplotype, will tend toward higher admixture than people from Northern Europe. Their phenotypic features as well as the higher incidence of J haplotype subclades speak to this. In Northern Europe, very low admixture groups can live beside or with higher admixture groups (or y-DNA lines that may have originated with Neanderthal but that are extremely “nordicized”).
“Can you support that they do not”?
Hominin admixture percentage and type is phenotypically obvious. In future decades, and once PC culture reduces, science may move to map specific admixture percentages for smaller groups.
Admixture genetic analysis, down to individuals of any one group, has not been carried out widely enough. Hopefully it will be. However, Neanderthal admixture is extremely easy to spot phenotypically. It ty
“I have read, on the contrary, that blue eyes and red hair could be legacies of Neanderthal genetics”.
Read from where? Discover magazine? That’s pure conjecture. It may be true, but conjecture nonetheless. Red hair and blue eyes will be present in many European groups with both high and low hominid admixture. Remember, we are speaking percentages here. Although I suspect that there are one or two groups with undetectable hominin admixture, most groups will have some. It may be less or more than for a theoretical unmixed group, but it is now impossible and useless to identify these recessive traits with hominin origin. If I were to guess, I’d place red hair with a significantly mixed group who evolved a blond / black hair mix out to red over time, and blue eyes as originating with a pure human group. That, too, is conjecture.
The more significant features that you want to look for are prognathism, hair texture, skin tone, and nose structure. Once you get too far away, genetically speaking, the rest of the skull structure comes into play.
“Admittedly this theory would seem to be contradicted by fact that East Asians have roughly 20% more Neanderthal blood than Europeans, and they have black hair, black eyes, very little body hair”.
Although I disagree with your theory in the sense that there isn’t nearly enough foundation even to float it, this would not negate your theory. Asians are mixed with a different variety of Neanderthal than are Europeans. Small details like that matter. In addition, as you stated, there is Denisovan.
“In any case, I have nowhere read that Southern Europeans are “more” Neanderthal than Northerners. Perhaps you could point me toward some articles online”.
It wouldn’t be researched or floated due to PC pressure. However, once you learn to identify Neanderthal features than it is easy to do so. Northern Europeans have relatively few absent the effects of modern mixing, but as you go South and journey toward the Caucus and Levant the traits become more common. Study any Neanderthal reconstruction to hone your eye for it. Look at older examples of regional humans to confirm. Age takes the fat away from the face that hides these features in some while young.
In addition, I suspect that I and J y-DNA haplotypes originated with Neanderthal. I is uncommon but present in the North, and J is dominant in the South. I is heavily “nordicized” and will show only faint Neanderthal phenotypic traits. J is closer to the original Neanderthal phenotype as mixed with human genetics down to 1-5%.
“As for your claim that whites are more purely “human” than other races insofar as they are less admixed with archaic hominid groups, this strikes me as a rear-guard action to save some notion of white genetic purity”.
I wouldn’t dehumanize anyone as a result. However, percentages are what they are. Quality of hominid admixture is what it is. We have differing hominid genetic donors. If someone has a higher percentage of hominid admixture, then by definition they are genetically less human by a certain percentage. Your defensiveness as to this mathematical fact strikes me as “rear guard” action to blur the lines between races. The percentages are what they are, and moreover some individuals (races) have a more archaic type of hominid admixture that is less “human” than was Neanderthal (who I do not view as human, for the record).
Any attempt to use taboo phrases with me, such as “white genetic purity”, will fall flat. Just for the record.
“Moreover, I know of no evidence to suggest that whites are any less capable of absorbing other groups than they us”.
This type of appeal to “evidence” only communicates to me that you are faking any type of science education that you are attempting to imply.
What does “less capable of absorbing” mean, scientifically speaking? After all, you appealed to evidence. Right? So tell me how one would measure “less capable of absorbing”?
“If 1 billion Africans mix with 200 million Europeans, then yes, they will absorb us”.
Yes, and would be improved as a result. Though, not enough.
“But if 100,000 early European farmers encounter 2000 haplogroup-E-centric bands of East African foragers, then then former will absorb the latter. It’s a numbers game”.
“Abosrb” how? Genetically? Yes, all humans can interbreed. However, their group IQ will drop. They will lose their group phenotypic expression in favor of lingering hominid features. They will gain lingering (dysfunctional) hominid social patterns.
Earuopean farmers used to occupy both Central Asian and North Africa. Did the invasions and resultant mixing preserve those left behind or did it change them into something unrecognizable? Are Turks (in Turkey or East) the same as Saxons? Are Spaniards the same as the Irish? Are the Mongols the same as the Dutch?
There is no successful absorption except for higher hominid percentage groups who benefit from a genetic influx of lower hominid percentage groups. The inverse is destructive for the lower percentage group, in every metric.
This process is described, biblically, in the Book that I use for my username here.
Last, you treat this as an academic discussion where if you think that you’ve won a point that it will justify those Euro Farmers absorbing the East African foragers. That’s not how this works. How this works is that groups have a right to their genetic integrity and the right to protect it. Merely because they wish to.
Instead of nationalism of the Europeans, we need to have, French, English, Irish, and so on nations.
Instead of a French nation, we need Paris to be a separate nation.
Instead of Paris being a nation, we need the central district in Paris to be a nation.
Instead of the central district being a nation, we need streets in the central district to be a nation.
Instead of that, we need a family on that block to have the rights of a nation.
Instead of that, nations must be composed of the individual alone.
You forgot a global world state.
One of the things I want readers to get out of that post (although it was not clear) is that there is no such thing as “true” self-determination, rather, it is or should be pragmatic. If genuine self-determination were a thing, there would be nothing to in the way to prevent wealthy Parisians, for example, to vote to break away to form their own nation in an effort to reduce taxes, etc.–or even individual people for that matter.
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