Category: White identity

A Message for Eric Kaufmann

A brief message.

Following up on this, we read this:

Eric Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. His ancestry is mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent…

So, the person advising on how to ease the anxiety of Whites so that they can be more easily (slowly) dispossessed and, eventually, race-replaced by mixed-race individuals, is himself mixed-race and half-Jewish. I’m shocked, shocked, I say.

So, here is a brief message for Kaufmann:

Dear Sir,

I do not know your level of sincerity concerning your work on White interests. Regardless, taken to its logical conclusion, and from your own words, the ultimate outcome of Whites following your advice is their slow but inevitable demographic eclipse and their race replacement by a mixed-race population.

I note that your own ancestry is described as “mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent.”  Even if we were to assume that the “Latino” is Euro-Iberian, then that still leaves 75% of your ancestry of non-European descent. Therefore, by the standards of those who most closely exemplify the pursuit of White interests you pontificate about, you are not “White.”

Very well, you have the right to express your opinion.  So do I.  And my opinion, expressed here, is the same that I have expressed toward other non-Whites attempting to interfere with the expression of White interests by Whites.  

Whites have their own internal debates, their own conflicts (ethnicity, sub-race, religion, etc.), their own consideration of different strategies, and their own concerns. These are OUR affairs, not yours.  These are OUR conflicts, not yours. These are OUR debates, not yours.  And these are OUR interests, not yours.

How Whites relate to each other, how Whites decide to work together (or not), how Whites decide to strategize (or not) in defense of their own interests, that is something for US to do, not you.  Ultimately, WE have to be the arbiters of OUR fate. OURSELVES ALONE.

And, no, we do not need, or want, non-Whites with their every “helpful” advice, telling us that our best option is to slow down our displacement, replacement, and destruction; that we are “dying of Whiteness;” promoting intra-White division; that we need alliances with Asians in which Whites must grovel before their Yellow and Brown masters; that we must have a multiracial “White separatist state;” that we are akin to child molesters and are “latrine flies;” that we must accept the “racial status quo;” that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane;” that we must have a “Red State nation” that accepts “conservative Blacks;” etc. 

Maybe, sir, you can take your advice to Israel, and suggest to the Jews there how they can accommodate their eventual race replacement by Arabs through an increased short-term focus on Jewish interests (hard to say how they can go beyond what they already have), or you can go to China and spread a similar message there – although, contra Frost and the “Arctic Alliance” crowd, the Chinese are hardly in any danger of race replacement.  But, wherever you go and whatever you do, we can do without your proffered chalice, dripping as it is with carefully concealed poison.

Whatever the outcome of the White racial problem, I do not believe the outcome is going to be pleasant for the likes of you. If you are wrong, and Whites quietly go to extinction without any expression of self-interest, then the resulting Colored dystopia will ultimately not be of benefit for the Coloreds themselves.

What if you are correct about the situation? That you are correct that it is untenable to suppress the expression of self-interest by a group whose demographic majority is disappearing? Let’s say I agree with you – even the White omega race may well become ever more demanding of their racial self-interest.  Where I disagree with you is with the idea that this discontent can be effectively managed through a safety valve release of controlled, moderate expression of racial self-interest. 

As Suvorov wrote – revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.  Louis XVI learned that, as did Gorbachev. Once the expression of White racial interests is legitimized, once the pent-up fury of a wronged people begins to be released, how can it be safely controlled? Once the genie is out of the bottle, and the toothpaste is out of the tube, can everything be safely be put away again once things begin to spiral out of control?

The future is chaos. And your stage-managed attempt at orderly White extinction will only add to that chaos. Enjoy.

Best regards,

Ted Sallis

Advertisements

Questions for Eric Kaufmann

Questions.

Read here.

…the second meaning of whiteshift is this longer-term one. You’re going to get this very rapidly rising mixed-race population that will become the majority and will take over the consciousness, memories, and myths of that current ethnic majority.

Questions: What if Whites do not want to be replaced by “this very rapidly rising mixed-race population that will become the majority?”  What if they do not want to “expand Whiteness” to include people who are, by definition as “mixed-race,” not White?  What if they want to preserve themselves, and their genetic interests, as they are today?  What is wrong with that?  Other than your own preferences, of course.

Like the Jews, for example, have different DNA in them.

Questions: Why do you lie about this?  Yes, there are minor groups like Ethiopian, South Asian, and Chinese Jews that do indeed “have different DNA in them.”  But the major Jewish groups are quite similar, genetically, with similar lineages.  What’s your lineage, by the way?

There’s no question whites are advantaged economically, politically.

Questions: If Whites are so “advantaged” economically, what about Jews and Asians? You agree that Whites are being demographically replaced. You agree that Whites, unlike other groups, are not being allowed to express and defend their racial interests.  Thus, how are they really “advantaged” politically?

For example, a lot of those individual measures, like I don’t want my kid marrying an African-American, or I’m against interracial marriage, or I don’t want a black boss, in the survey data, it’s very low now. It’s not perfect. It will take a little bit more time before we get rid of it entirely.

Questions: Why do you define perfection by getting rid of these attitudes?  Aren’t you displaying your hidden anti-White biases by defining perfection in terms of White dispossession and White liberalism?

However, I don’t say that in every case the mainstream parties should go there. Like George Wallace, for example, on segregation.

Question: Why?

General question: Isn’t your book all about just slowing down White dispossession so as to make it more palatable to Whites, to accommodate them to their own demise?

Secondary question: Given Suvorov’s Law of History, don’t you understand that your “throw them a bone” strategy may backfire against your leftist interests? 

Another issue:

Ron Unz?

Reductio ad Absurdum

Identity and separation.

Aside from all my other criticisms of the testing companies, and the idea of using imprecise data with wide error bars for “cutoffs,” there is a more fundamental problem with the idea of any definitive defined cutoff, and one shared with phenotypic rankings such as McCulloch’s “Nordish scale.”

Any ranking cutoff – typically arbitrarily determined – that would result in “blood” members of the same monoracial family being “binned” into different polities is logically absurd and untenable and would almost certainly (and rightfully) be rejected by the population. Let’s indulge in a bit of reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point.

Imagine a White family, an extended family wholly of European descent. Let’s make the example even starker – let us assume they are all of the same ethnic group.  But, alas, brothers Jim and Tom differ by 1% on some component of an (likely imprecise) ancestry test,  and this crosses a cutoff threshold, so Jim goes to one ethnostate and Tom to another – and these are full brothers of a monoracial and monoethnic family. The same principle applies if Jim has a “Nordish rankling” one point different from Tom. And what about the rest of the family?

Mom goes to one state, Dad to another. Siblings, parents and children, husbands and wives – all could be placed in different ethnostates based on arbitrary cutoffs on rankings derived from genetic ancestry testing or based on someone’s subjective analysis of physical appearance.

The (weak) counter-argument would be “Well, the same principle holds for racially mixed families – under any racialist plan, they would be separated, they would object, and if they wish, they can go to the outgroup ethnostate, away from us.”  

How can you compare the two sets of circumstances? They are qualitatively and quantitatively different.

On the one hand, you have Mary Sue Mudshark marrying Tyrone Carjacker; on the other hand, you have two full brothers of a monoethnic family who differ by percentage points on an ancestry test.  On the one hand, you have John Omegashire marrying a Chinatrix; on the other hand, you have someone deciding that two family members of the same ethny differ by one point on their “Nordish ranking” and so must be separated – or the “in” person has to decide to follow the “out” person and leave the ethnostate. It’s not the same thing at all. Racial identity is at the core of racialism, it is its entire meaning, and racial intermarriage abrogates that – but arbitrarily drawn cutoffs on fuzzy genetic testing or on subjective phenotypic rankings do NOT define racial identity.

You can make exceptions based on family relationships – but then that conflates to ethnic ancestry.  So, the only logical, consistent, and reasonable policy – and one that has the greatest chance of acceptance by sane people – is to “bin” people based on their ethnic ancestry and overall racial identity, and only use those other determinations for cases in which ethnic designation is unknown (e.g., adoption).

It is one thing to separate people based on their racial and ethnic identity; i.e., separating different races and ethnic groups from each other. It’s another thing entirely to separate members of the same race or even the same ethnic group from one another based on arbitrarily determined criteria. This latter situation leads to the absurdity of separating members of a monoracial or even monoethnic family from each other based on those criteria. Solving the problems inherent in the latter situation inevitably leads to the former situation – simply separating people based on determined identities based on historically established ethnic groups and the major racial groups to which those ethnic groups belong.

I imagine that some would then try to invoke a leftist argument here – “Ethnic and racial groups are also arbitrary,” but that is objectively false and goes against the entire meaning of racial activism (and ethnonationalism for those interested in that). There are historically determined ethnic groups that have a biological basis, and race can be similarly determined.  Some may argue that looking from a purely genetic and biological basis that there are some “fuzzy” boundaries for race and ethnicity.  But this is the nature of biological reality – and even non-biological reality as well (define color, define location, etc.).  But, even so, particularly at the level of continental-scale population groups (races), there is good clustering, and, even more importantly, racial and ethnic identifies have components in addition to the purely biological (although that is the most important), and all of these components together create distinctive ethnic and racial identities even if any one component in isolation is fuzzy.  Read more about all of that here.

This would seem to be common sense, but I’ve been arguing against the idea of arbitrary cutoffs that would cut across racial, ethnic (and family!) lines since the early 2000s, and it is still necessary to do so today.

Sallis vs. Sailer on the Census

Sailer’s HBDite stupidity.

Those who read Sailer often see his “Flight from White” ramblings about the US Census.  Steverino is opposed to Middle Eastern North African (MENA) being a separate category from “White” – he wants the MENA folks lumped in with Euro-Americans.  He has also criticized the fact that South Asians have already been removed from the “White” category due to South Asian ethnic lobbying (similarly, the MENA crowd are actively lobbying for the same).  Sailer notes that these groups in the past wanted to be counted as “White,” but now that Whites are a subaltern “untouchable” group in today’s Jewish-Colored Supremacist America, the NECs want to flee as fast away from “White” as possible.”

However, the point has to be: what is best for America and more specifically what is best for Whites – Euro-Americans?  I do not remember Sailer ever clearly stating (at least at VDARE – I don’t care about the Unz site) why having NECs counted as White is something desirable.  Trying to parse Sailer’s “writings” I conclude that he believes that if MENAs and South Asians are “binned” as “White” then they will (be forced to) identify politically with Whites and White interests, reinforcing the power of the majority and its interests.  The fact that these groups were (South Asians) or are (MENAs) grouped with Whites and certainly reject any sort of “White” identity, political or otherwise, somehow escapes Sailer.  That the Jews have always been politically counted as “White” and have been the greatest enemy White Americans have ever had also escapes Sailer’s HBD brilliance.

Sailer confuses cause and effect.  He apparently believes that how people are categorized in the census affects how they consider themselves in a racial-social sense.  This is clearly not the case.  Instead, the reality is that how people consider themselves in the racial-social sense determines how they want to be categorized in the census.  There’s also crypsis involved: while Jews do not consider themselves “White” in the same sense Euro-Americans do, Jews also have an instinctive urge for crypsis, to want to hide their alieness, made easier for most Ashkenazi since the typical mind-benumbed White gentile cannot identify obvious Jews (but usually can identify gentile Middle Easterners, South Asians, etc.).  So, for the most part, Jews are content to be legally “White” despite not really considering themselves so; on the other hand, (non-Jewish) MENAs and South Asians have no desire for crypsis and for the most have part no chance of being successful at crypsis even if they were so inclined.

So, Sailer’s wrong-headed ramblings on this subject are his typical “look how clever I am posturing” in which he usually ends up looking like a pompous idiot (in other words, an HBDer).

There are real costs to Sailer’s agenda here, costs for Whites.  Binning MENAs (including Jews by the way) as “White,” never mind doing the same for South Asians, obfuscates, masks, and hides the degree of real demographic change, artificially inflates White numbers, and dampens down something that any White racialist (as opposed to an anti-White HBDer) wants to see occur: a strong White reaction against demographic displacement.  Here Sailer is on the same page as the System, as the Left, which wants to calm White fears, promote an “anyone can become White” storyline, and postpone White political reaction to race replacement reality.

We need to know the real demographic facts on the ground, no matter how harsh, instead of indulging in deadly fantasies that say that if a previously White town becomes transformed into a holding pen for Syrian refugees, then no demographic change has taken place.

Euro-Americans should have their own category.  Indeed, we should drill down even deeper.  Even with intra-White mating blurring ethnic boundaries, it would still be useful to know how many White Americans identify as various ethnic groups, etc.  Knowledge is good, as they say.  And contra Sailer, asking people if they identify as German-American is not going to lead to a revival of the Bund.  

Short summary: observe what it is that the HBDers recommend and support the opposite.

An Interesting Counter-Currents Comment

On White Identity:


I am inclined to agree with Jonathan Bowden and others: white identity has to be given and must claim an upper edge and must be seen as an advantage, as more robust and meaningful than merely holding to a classical segregationist argument (my impression of Taylor). A segregationist’s mentality is crucial, no doubt, but the real power in white identity is our link with Europe’s intellectual and cultural projects and achievements. It is part of the tragedy we are facing that fewer and fewer can define value in this way.


All true, but there also must be the underlying biological/EGI component as well.  But, yes, actualizing a High Culture, as Yockey would say, is one foremost forward-looking identity-building project.

European Ingroup

Answering anti-White trolls.

I note that certain concern trolls are starting their usual song-and-dance on certain blogs. In response, I’d like to make a few comments.
One can say this about a European ingroup: Europeans form a broad continental population group with respect to genetics/biology andthey share a core civilizational history/High Culture.
That “and” is crucial; it is not one or the other in isolation, but both aspects of Identity in combination.
Let us consider the history of the EU. Let us put aside the fact that the EU as it exists today is a viciously destructive anti-White tool of Right and Left Globalists. Instead, let us consider the idea of a European Union, and how EU membership is viewed by the masses.
As regards the various diverse nations of Western Europe (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. – all the nations Yockey considered “the West”) there was never any racial or cultural concerns about including any of these nations. The only concerns were economic (e.g., underperforming “PIGS” countries) and political (grumbling about sovereignty and “diktats from Brussels”). 
With respect to expansion into Eastern Europe, apart from concerns about Roma and Muslim groups, there also were no racial or cultural concerns – the problems were economic (the idea that large numbers of Eastern European migrants would flood Western European countries and take jobs) and political (corruption, etc.). Concerns about Slavs, Hungarians, and Romanians were never essentially (or existentially) racial or cultural, and the legitimate concerns about economic migrants could be dealt with by ending the idea that EU citizens can freely travel between nations (a stupid idea to begin with).
In contrast, when potential expansion moved outside of Europe – Turkey being a major example (but even North Africans and other NECs have been mentioned) – then even mainstream politicians and the general population began strongly objecting, with racial and cultural undertones to arguments about “the death of Europe” and “the end of European civilization” and “they’re Asian (or African) and not European.”  Even the general population implicitly understands the line dividing Europe and non-Europe.  Even the mainstream implicitly understands the foundation of a European ingroup.