The following was posted on a Maltese discussion site.
Leftists and other critics of racialism typically like to make the argument that past admixture in a group is a reason why it is “silly” and “unreasonable” for that group to wish to maintain its existence as a distinct biological and cultural unit, eschewing immigration and admixture with alien peoples today and in the future.
In the essay linked to above I explain why racial purity is a myth and why it is wrong to claim that a group purported to have past “admixture” cannot avoid immigrant influxes and further admixture. That claim is nonsense; every group, whatever its origins, has a right to defend its interests, has a right to repel unwanted outsiders, and has the right to determine its ethnic future. The possibility of past admixture – real or imagined – does not obligate any group to open its borders to any comers, and does not obligate a group to let itself become dispossessed by foreigners and admixed out of existence.
Every group – going back in the mists of time – is composed of other past groups, mixtures of ancient tribes and more recent incursions – that does not alter the fact of the existence of these different current groups, each with their own histories, their own characteristics, and their own interests. These past mixtures are part and parcel of what today’s groups are and this past cannot be changed even if we wanted to. But groups can determine their future. Ethnic genetic interests are thus always forward-looking, groups today have their genetic interests based upon what they are today, looking forward to their posterity in the future. Past admixture, to the extent it occurred, was a concern for the peoples of those times. The people of today have their own concerns, for the present and the future.
Ultimately, what is important is not a non-existent purity but the existence of difference and distinctiveness. That groups are different and distinct from each other is sufficient reason to wish to preserve those differences and to safeguard that distinctiveness; purity has nothing to do with it. A family unit that strives to pursue its interests does so because it is a family, not because someone has labeled that family as “pure” or “impure.” It is enough that the family exists, different from others. As for families, so similarly for nations and races.
Consider a nation like the Dominican Republic. Genetic studies suggest that ~ 40% of the Dominican gene pool is derived from sub-Saharan Africans (with about 52% European and 8% Amerindian). The typical Dominican, on average, is therefore a mulatto with some Amerindian mixed in as well. What does this mean politically? Should Dominicans then welcome an invasion of millions of, say, Nigerians or Haitians? No. Does it obligate them to further admixture? No, it does not. The Dominican people have the right to control the ethnic and racial makeup of their nation and decide what they want for their racial and cultural future. Past admixture does not obligate future admixture nor does it obligate for or against any type of immigration policy.
Now, if that holds for a nation that exhibits a large degree of admixture, then it certainly holds for the nations of Europe where any admixture is going to be at least an order of magnitude less and most typically of ancient origin.
In any case, the Maltese are a European people. In PCA analyses (for whatever they are worth), Maltese are found in the same general genetic location as Southern Italians and Greeks. The Maltese, like all other peoples, have the right to safeguard their biological and cultural uniqueness and to determine the future direction of their ethnic evolution.
Moronic suggestions that “you are already admixed, so why not mix more” are thus revealed as empty sophistry. Indeed, by that logic, humans should take no pains to prevent microbial infection or even to practice basic hygiene – after all, aren’t our bodies already infested with various microbes and mites? We have intestinal bacteria – so why not the bubonic plague as well?