Category: indigenous

Political EGI, Part IV: Origin Myths?

Latest anti-racist lunacy.

The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration.  In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.”  Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.

Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about.  Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. – no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man!  After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming. 

A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement.  Good luck with that.

With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:

1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course).  It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,

2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.

3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory.  Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.

White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement.  They need to get more serious about it.  As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.

Part V will continue this discussion.

That Question Again

The age-old obsession with the Jews.
So, at the “dark enlightenment,” we see the peanut gallery once again debating that old and boring question: “are Jews White?” The juvenile mindset that the “movement,” and associated precincts of “race realism,” have on this question is based on the simplistic idea that:
1) If Jews are “White” we must accept them, which we do not want to do.
2) If Jews are not “White” then we can reject them, which we do want to do.
Therefore, the anti-Jew crowd wants to prove the non-Whiteness of Jews, while the philo-Semites wish to prove the opposite.
However, for practical political purposes, this is meaningless. We all can think of many individuals who we will all agree are “White,” persons of impeccable “Aryan” bloodlines, folks of whom ancestry is not in question, and these people we would (I hope) unambiguously reject, since they are despicable traitors to their race and civilization.  Think of many politicians and world leaders, businessmen and other wealthy celebrities – are they part of our ingroup?  Washington DC is full of such types; they can be found in the EU, Hollywood, the US Chamber of Commerce, among our population of “White” billionaires, our financial aristocracy.  We find them among celebrities who proudly race-mix.  We find them among “leaders” who promote Third World immigration and other aspects of White genocide, these are scum who sell out their people for their own selfish interests, or because their minds have been infected with anti-White memes. These are the types that Pierce would have wanted to have executed in his “Day of the Rope.”
Very well.  But if we can identify individuals who are “White” but who we reject, why can’t we do the same about an ethnic group that behaves in the most destructive manner of all?  So, we can all agree that “Jews are White” but at the same time reject them as a “White” ethnic group that has a historical animus towards Europeans, a group that selfishly pursues their own hyper-ethnocentric interests at the expense of the rest of the “White race,” a renegade treasonous “White” ethny that makes common cause with the “rising tide of color” against White and Western interests, a “White” group actively promoting White genocide because they don’t really identify as “White” in the same sense as other “Whites” do, and because they believe that the destruction of the greater White Race ensures their own narrow group survival as an unique population group with its own special history and identity.  We can state that the Jewish “White” group perceives itself as having radically different interests from Gentile “Whites,” so that the two groups are incompatible. We can point out that whenever an attempt is made to include Jews in “White” racial nationalism, they consistently promote destructive memes (e.g., a multiracial “White separatist state,” supporting the “racial status quo,” blaming our problems on “Protestants,” stating that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane,” and of course promoting the anti-White creed of HBD). We can therefore accept Jews as “White.” while at the same time also accepting them as an enemy and rejecting them from inclusion in our ingroup of the White family of peoples. After all, throughout human history, who has been more despised than the traitor? Given their behavior, one could consider that saying that Jews are “White” may actually increase, rather than decrease, the hostility of racially aware Whites toward that group.
Having said all of that, and explaining why the question of “are Jews White?” is practically unimportant to any serious racial nationalism, I’ll switch gears and say that if, for some reason, it was important to more objectively justify exclusion of Jews, then the “movement” could adopt my reasonable definition of “indigenous” and state that we consider as “White” those individuals deriving ancestry from one or more of the indigenous ethnies of Europe.  Thus, Jews are no more “White” than are Roma, despite the fact that some Jews may be genetically or phenotypically close to Europeans.
Even more basic: we can follow Yockey and accept that Identity is holistic, and cannot be strictly reduced to biological reductionism (although the biological is important; it just isn’t everything). Thus, regardless of whether a Jew looks like Dolph Lundgren is immaterial; their overall Identity is non-European and non-Western. When the Jews established a modern homeland, where did they choose?  Palestine, in the Middle East. That choice was not solely or even predominantly motivated by pragmatics – there were other spaces available, spaces that could have avoided the endless conflict with the Arab natives of that region. Palestine was chosen and, more importantly, as Israel holds such a fascination on Jews, because Jews in their total Identity passionately feel a close connection, at minimum historically and culturally, to the ancient Israelites; modern Jews identity with a non-Western, non-European, Middle Eastern “Magian” High Culture.  We see the Jewish settlers of today invoking Biblical scripture as their basis for claiming this land in the Middle East. They view this land as theirs as their birthright as Jews, as part of Jewish history, a history rooted in the historical Middle East, not in Europe.  Thus, Israel is their homeland, not Europe, and it matters not if a given Jew is genetically and/or phenotypically “White” in the European sense. They do not identify as such. They identify as Jewish, a separate and unique group, and there is genetic evidence supporting a biological link to those historical and cultural ties, even though the link has been attenuated through admixture. But again, we need not be reductionist.  Jews are a People, with a strong identity, and that identity is not “White” in the same sense as is the identity of English, Germans, Italians, Czechs, Swedes, Spaniards, or French.
So, Jews may be “White,” but they do not identify as such, when push comes to shove. They may be “White” but they are not indigenous Europeans; there is no historic European nation of “Jewia.” They may be “White” but they do not belong to the High Culture of the West; instead, they identify with the “Magian” High Culture of the Middle and Near East; they may be “White” but their passionate attachment to “blood and soil” is in the Levant, not in Europe.  Whether or not they are “White,” and regardless of how one wants to “crunch” the data on cephalic indices or gene frequencies, Jews are not European Westerners.  They are themselves, with their own interests, which they pursue with great efficacy.  Perhaps if we were equally concerned about our own identity and our own interests, rather than worrying about how to classify Jews, our own situation would be far less dire.