Category: white nationalism

What are the Chances?

Be honest.

Put aside all your hopes, what you want to happen, what you wish to happen. Imagine you have a powerful incentive to make the most accurate prediction possible.  Imagine that you must be absolutely, ruthlessly honest.

So, the issue here is – predict what the chances are for White racial nationalist victory.  What are the probabilities?  Choose from:

Zero – no chance of victory whatsoever; defeat and racial destruction is assured

Negligible – there is a theoretical chance of victory, it is greater than zero, but it is so small, it is like winning the lottery or being hit by lightning

Low – say up to 15%

Low to Moderate – 15-40%

Moderate – 40-60%

Moderate to High – 60-80%

High – 80-100%

Absolutely certain – 100% chance of victory, absolutely assured

For me, I’d say that if we stay on the current trajectory, and have Der Movement dominating racial activism, it is Negligible.  I will not say zero, because there is always a chance.

If a New Movement following my ideas arises that can effectively compete with Der Movement, perhaps we can move into the Low range. If this New Movement completely replaces Der Movement, and if things break our way, perhaps Low to Moderate. But, at this point, that’s it.  Even the most ludicrously optimistic evaluation, with EVERYTHING breaking our way, cannot pass Moderate.

And of all of the above, the scenario that is overwhelmingly most likely is the Negligible choice, the one in which Der Movement leads us to the grave.

Be honest.  Do this exercise yourself.

If you disagree with my pessimism, then, on your own blogs (if you have such), explain why – without falling into the Quota Queen dishonesty designed to maximize “D’Nations.”


The Basic Foundation of White Nationalism

Race as nation.

The Left (and the System in general) pretends to be confused about what White nationalism is – “there is no generalized White nation” they proclaim – or they stupidly and mendaciously conflate White nationalism with “White supremacy.” 

Putting aside all of the details and all of the various permutations of White nationalist thought, the concept is very simple and very basic – extending the concept of “nation” to incorporate the entire race (typically meaning Europeans as a whole), so that the concept of national identity and national allegiance, at its highest level, focuses on race, rather than on particular ethnic groups constituting that race.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation’s traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Thus, again, White nationalism is simply putting the race as a whole as the nation instead of nations based on particular ethnic groups. The latter certainly can still play a role, and those nations can continue to exist (and should),  but the highest form of national allegiance is to the race – Our Race Is Our Nation, the “ORION” theme. The idea that nationalism has to refer to a pre-existing nation-state is ludicrous and ahistorical; indeed, many current nation states exist because of the pre-existing nationalism of those who envisioned the state and actualized it into existence.

Everything described in the Wikipedia quote above holds with respect to White nationalism – self-determination, political power, identity, etc.

It is not easy to formulate an argument that whites, uniquely among the world’s peoples, lack any moral right to organize in defense of their interests or to maintain homelands of their own. So our enemies do not, in fact, attempt to formulate such arguments; they simply lie. The lying takes the form of name-calling, and consists in the discrepancy between the dictionary definition and the definition-in-use of devil terms.

Yes, and that lying includes dishonesty about the meaning of White nationalism, as discussed above.  Lying about White nationalism is simply a malicious racial attack against Whites and White interests.

Another Grand Ethnonationalist Victory!

Sieg heil!

“…inevitably backfired…”

Inevitably?  Sure.  What with all of this Nordic Celto-Germanic Northern Italian competence and all, amplified by ethnonationalist superiority, what could possibly go wrong?  Hail Padania!  Hail Ethnonationalism!  Hail Victory!  Hail!


Trump really is the quintessential Baby Boomer male. He made a lot of money, but will never have much to show for his time. Everything about Trump is wrapped up Trump the person, the selfish, boorish oaf living for the moment. When the wife got too old, he traded her in for a new one. When he hit middle-age, he bought a sports car and started dating young women. His story will be one of endless self-indulgence.

Zman’s buddy Greg Johnson argues that voters – including White evangelicals – voted for Trump purely based on his persona (as described here by Zman), and not his policies. The existential meaning of Greg Johnson is pure unadulterated dishonesty.

So much winning!  The future for White nationalism looks bright!  Following the brilliant guidance of our racially superior leadership, we’ve leveraged the 2016 election prudently to achieve a clear path to victory!  All that’s left for us is to dance through cemeteries wearing swastika-soled boots!  Hail!

It’s Not All One

Der Movement is not White Nationalism.

Imagine some deluded individual obsessed with promoting “conservativism.”  If you were to tell this conservative that “The Republican Party and conservatism are one and the same; they are the same thing,” what would be his response, assuming that he was of normal intelligence (albeit deluded)?  Something like the following, perhaps:

No, you are wrong.  Conservatism is an ideology, a worldview, what I and others like me are fighting for.  The Republican Party is just that – a political party, the current vehicle for achieving conservatism.  The Republican Party is simply a tool – a very imperfect tool – for actualizing conservative ideals.  True enough, today, it is the only practical vehicle for achieving conservatism, but if and when it ceases to be a suitable vehicle even in an imperfect sense, then conservatives must either retake the GOP or leave it and found a new party according to our principles.

No doubt a progressive liberal type would say the same thing about the Democrats.

Very well.  The principle is the same for Der Movement and White nationalism.  Der Movement is only a vehicle, and it is a failed vehicle that is doing more harm than good.

The last straw for me has been the Trump fiasco and its aftermath in Der Movement, the latest in an endless series of Man on White Horse humiliations for the Type I retards of racial activism.  I had correctly identified Trump as a fraud and a buffoon in the year leading up to the election, and had also identified the only reason to give him support – the public misperception of him as a “racist fascist” was – and is – an important driver for promoting chaos and balkanization and destabilizing the multicultural consensus.

But, no, Der Movement had other ideas.  Trump was The God Emperor, the Last Chance for White America, an American Caesar Who Shall Stabilize White Demographics, a sincere hero bestowing upon us some “safe space” to expand the ever-growing success of racial activism. Pepe!  Kek!

And upon the utter collapse of that narrative, none of these no-character defectives has the moral courage, the integrity, the internal strength and fiber, to admit being wrong and to take responsibility and be held accountable. Oh no, it’s just “Fuck Trump” following by endorsements of Chinaman King Andy Eggroll and semi-Samoan Princess Tulsi Coconut, it is snide cartoons of Trump as some sort of esoteric Lovecraft monster, it is endless feuding and airing of dirty laundry, etc.

And that’s added to the Unite the Right and IE/Discord fiascos, infiltrations, gossiping about perversions and drug use, the whole stupid litany of failure and embarrassment.

So, no, Der Movement and White nationalism are NOT one and the same.  Der Movement is not (and never was) any sort of even semi-effective vehicle for achieving racial nationalist objectives.  It’s a failure and needs to be replaced.

Advice for Young WNs: The Military


Some time ago I gave some advice here to WNs, particularly young WNs. I need not recapitulate that post, but it centered on advice you’ll never hear from the Quota Queen Grifters – that activists should prioritize themselves, their health, their education, their careers, and their families, etc., before investing in the “movement.”

Speaking of education and careers, what about the military? From a WN perspective, there are pluses and minuses to that choice, but the purpose of this post is not to analyze that perspective. If we assume that a young White man is interested in signing up, perhaps for the minimum duty period, to learn skills, earn some money, get set up for future education or career choices, then how should they approach the situation if they are also interested in White racial activism?

This is an important topic nowadays, as one sees many news stories about how the military is cracking down against WNs in the ranks, dishonorably discharging those identified, and is being egged on by politicians and activists to do even more to identify, punish, humiliate, and discharge White soldiers with politically incorrect views.  Why can’t proud White men have the opportunity to serve their country in an honorable fashion and improve their lives?  Don’t they have the same rights as everyone else?

Advice needs to be given. What follows is going to be so simple, so obvious, so much centered on plain common sense, that I am almost embarrassed to write it.  But, alas, based on recent news stories, it is all too necessary, as simple and obvious common sense evades many young Whites who find themselves in untenable situations when their very public activism collides head on with their military service.  Common sense is eschewed, prudence is unheard of, and all the heroic “movement leaders” – obsessed as they are with maximizing their “D’Nations” – fail to provide even the most basic of advice to their followers.


If you are a young White man with a growing interest in White nationalism, and if you are seriously considering joining the military, then you must absolutely eschew being any sort of overt activist before joining, and even more absolutely, avoid any participation in “movement” activity while performing your service. Do your time, learn your skills, earn your money and whatever other benefits, get your honorable discharge, and THEN if you so choose get involved in racial activism to the extent you wish, according to your particular circumstances (e.g., your post-military career may be one that necessitates continued secrecy and prudence).

FIRST you join up, serve your time, earn what you can, and get honorably discharged, and THEN, if you so wish, get involved in racial activism.  Do NOT be an overt activist before joining, and, please, do NOT ever engage in activism while in uniform.  

Note the last part. Obey the rules and regulations of the service. Do not proselytize, do not recruit, do what you are supposed to do.  Serve your country.  Do not cause problems. Put it all in suspended animation.

To put it another way – do NOT be a White nationalist while serving in the military. Completely forget about the ideology, adopt civic nationalism, reject Der Movement and all its works. Take a hiatus.  Rethink your views. Once you go back to civilian life, if you still have an interest in White activism, then, fine, do it.  But only then.  Don’t ruin things for yourself by being a retarded Nutzi.

Back in the 1990s, people may have been able to get away with a degree of overt pro-White racialism in the military, but not today.  Note that America lurches to the Left to a greater degree during the Presidencies of “extreme right-wing Republicans” (sic) like Reagan and Trump; what flew under the radar (to an extent, before it became too extreme and violent) under Clinton is not going to fly decades later under Trump. Again, if you choose to serve, you should respect the rules and regulations of your service and reject racialism while in uniform.

And what if you already have become an overt activist and you want to join the military?  I would seriously urge you to rethink that choice.  The chances of it ending well decrease with each passing day in the Far Left Dystopia that America has become, and is becoming to an ever increasing degree.

The same basic advice of this post applies to other early career choices that can be negatively affected by an overt connection to Der Movement – e.g., non-military government service, medical school, the corporate world, teaching, academia (e.g., Duchesne), etc.  

White Nationalism, Free Speech, and Legitimacy

Defending White nationalism.

Recent events paint a dark picture for White nationalism.  Censorship.  Deplatforming. The Left-Corporate Alliance.  Government persecution.  Congressional hearings attempting to label White nationalism as akin to domestic terrorism, part of a global terror threat. The ability of leftist thugs – supporting by Big Business and by the Political Establishment – to attack rightists with impunity.

Now, the paradigm equating White nationalism with terrorism is absurd, and others have cogently pointed out that the “data” supporting that paradigm is, at best, flawed, and, more likely, intentionally mendacious.

And, of course, this is all highly hypocritical, since the real violence mostly comes from the Left. Thus, while leftists assert that “words are literally violence,” they ignore the actual global leftist terror network that attacks rightists – even political candidates – and they are careful not to apply the same standards of guilt by association to Islam or to Black activists. 

Indeed, if the government wants to investigate a global terror threat, they’d be better off concentrating on Burger King – an international corporation that encouraged the use of its products for political violence in the UK – rather than on a small handful of relatively powerless and underfunded White racialists.

But we have to understand that this is all about criminalizing an ideology. All else is merely an excuse. That is why an insulting letter to an alien congresswoman is considered “terrorism,” while Richard Spencer being physically attacked in the street because of his political views is not.  Who?  Whom?

Yes, there have been some isolated instances of White nationalist violence. However, White nationalist terrorism – to the extent it actually exists – is due to White nationalists not being allowed to participate in the political process (politics broadly defined). The repression censorship, deplatforming, leftist attacks, etc., are the cause of Far Right violence, not its consequences.  Any objective and sane understanding of cause and effect and an honest appraisal of the order of events clearly demonstrates that manifold instances of political repression and social pricing, over decades, have left some White nationalists desperate and with no confidence whatsoever that their concerns can be effectively addressed via legal political processes.  Thus, some engage in foolish acts.

Thus, it is obvious that suppressing the non-violent expression of Far Right ideas will only cause more (not less) violence coming from that direction. Now, unintelligent Arab congresswomen and moronic Puerto Rican congresswomen are likely too stupid to understand this, but the Jews behind the scenes surely must.  The latter are callously setting the stage for more violence and more victims in order to justify further repression. The brown puppets blathering in public are just for show.

One can argue that Suvorov’s Law of History – the observation that revolutions do not occur during the period of greatest repression but when that repression is suddenly relaxed – is one reason why the System dares not let up on its repression of the Far Right (see more below).  Be that as it may, the point still holds that the sporadic outbursts of Far Right violence are due to the pre-existing repression. Relaxing the repression may cause “revolution” but that “revolution” can be social and political; it does not have to include violent terrorism.  If the concern is with terrorism rather than simply the success of Far Right ideas, then more repression will cause more terrorism (likely leading to more repression, etc.).  If the Left was sincere about avoiding violence and terrorism from the Right, then they’d lessen the repression. That they want to increase the repression reveals their true motives – at least the true motives of the wirepullers behind the scenes.

And we must also consider the association between legitimacy and political participation, a participation that requires free speech and free assembly, both of which are incompatible with the criminalization of any ideology. Even some mainstream and/or leftist commentators understand that free speech and open political participation are tied to System legitimacy.  If you want people to accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the political and social process, then you must allow them free and unfettered participation in that process. That includes them expressing their views, organizing (meetings, conferences, activist groups, political parties), engaging in the electoral process as candidates, and not having their views labeled as “terrorism.”  Let’s consider what a legal scholar with a Jewish surname has to say on the issue of free speech and legitimacy, emphasis added:

Ironically, however, hate speech restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of antidiscrimination laws, both in terms of their popular acceptance but even more crucially with respect to the morality of their enforcement. For instance, laws forbidding people from expressing the view, as is the case in several European jurisdictions, that homosexuality is immoral or disordered, can destroy the moral justification of enforcing laws against sexual orientation…Conversely, the ability of Americans to freely oppose antidiscrimination laws by publicly expressing bigoted ideas about groups protected by these laws strengthens the legitimacy of enforcing these provisions even when doing so infringes upon deeply held religious convictions….I have argued that by impairing the opportunity for dissenters to participate as equals in the public debate about such matters as race, ethnicity, immigration, and sexual orientation, hate speech laws and public order provisions in force in many liberal democracies have significantly diminished political legitimacy, in both the descriptive and normative sense. Specifically, for those inhibited by these laws from expressing their opposition to antidiscrimination measures, these upstream speech restrictions have diminished, and in some instances may have destroyed, their political obligation to obey these downstream laws. Even more troubling, these inhibitions on equal political participation may have in some cases rendered immoral what would have otherwise been a moral use of force to make these dissenters comply with these antidiscrimination laws.

Let me again remind you that the people talking about “domestic terrorism” have the real objective of criminalizing an ideology. They are not really concerned about “acts of violence,” such acts coming to a significant degree from their side of the political divide and of which they say nothing.  In the end, and as shown by the censorship and deplatforming, it is really an issue of free speech, public assembly, and the right to organize on the basis of White racial interests. Thus, what Weinstein writes is wholly appropriate – the issue has always been whether someone like Taylor, Spencer, or Johnson can have a public forum; whether or not shooting up a synagogue is “domestic terrorism” is merely a smokescreen. After all, let us follow this logic to its natural conclusion.  Mr. Inner Hajnal Nutzi shoots up a synagogue, claiming White nationalism as a reason.  Domestic terrorism!  Then anyone who supports White nationalism, writes or speaks in favor of it, donates to it, etc. is a supporter of domestic terrorism and, hence, a criminal.  An ideology criminalized.  QED. Of course, no one would apply the same standards to Islam or the Left, but we understand it is all about power and not about fairness or the rule of law.

And, speaking as a (law abiding) White nationalist myself, I can assure one and all that, yes, I consider the System and its edicts as completely illegitimate, and that I follow those edicts only under coercion.  I assume many Whites – including civic nationalist types and other on the Right – believe and act the same. There is a widespread legitimacy problem for the System and it will only grow as the repression continues.  In the short term, the System can simply use coercion to enforce its edits and ignore the issue of legitimacy.  That’s likely not sustainable in the long run. Keep in mind that by saying this I am not saying “victory is inevitable,” I’m not one of the grifters trying to “white pill” supporters in order to ensure that the “D’Nations” continue.  I’m predicting eventual chaos and collapse, not victory.  As the USSR demonstrated, a System that has lost legitimacy is headed for collapse, even with coercion.  As a last resort, they loosen the chains of repression to salvage what they can, and, according to Suvorov’s Law of History, that sudden relaxation of repression heralds the final disintegration.  Alternatively, an illegitimate System can try and maintain the repression, and find that significant fractions of the population adopt passive aggressive disinterest in response, undermining social cohesion and political effectiveness. In the case of the USA, it will be precisely the most productive elements of the population that will begin to exhibit a tacit withdrawal and subtle subversion, making eventual decline and possible collapse even more likely.

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists.  The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination.  And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

And we must remember that the concerns of White nationalists are real; in fact, not only are they real, but they are the most important concerns of all, dealing as they do with the ultimate interests of national existence and genetic continuity.  Whites are in demographic and cultural eclipse, and will become minorities even in their historic European homelands. The United Nations openly advocates “replacement migration” targeting White nations (while Whites are told, at the same time, that any mention of that is “conspiracy theories”).  Whites are the only people on Earth not allowed to organize on the basis of racial self-interest; indeed, in majority White nations this expression of racial self-interest is either already criminalized or subject to social pricing (that is not good enough, it seems for the American Left, as they are now pushing for criminalization).  How is this repression consistent with legitimacy?  Obvious, it is not.  The System simply has no effective argument against the basic premises of White nationalism; therefore, it must use coercion.  However, as argued above, political coercion in the context of “democracy” is illegitimate and will erode the basis for peoples’ willingness to invest in the collective good.

Finally, I have to note that one major reason why White nationalism has reached such a sorry state of powerlessness and repression is the utter failure of its leadership.  The inept affirmative action leadership coupled to defective followers have squandered endless opportunities, and smeared White nationalism with the stench of failure – made more laughable by the endless cries of some of them that we are “moving to victory,”

And some of the leadership have no sensible understanding of the animating mindset of the censors.  For example, it is hard for me to express in words how absolutely foolish Richard Spencer is being here.

How naive can you be to actually believe the System will ever definitively and carefully – much less permanently – clearly state speech codes that can then be worked around.  Let me tell you the obvious – the only speech they want from WNs is silence.  No matter how you try and get around their speech codes, they’ll just keep on changing them to justify censoring you. They will forbid more and more words, and once that becomes untenable, they’ll just forbid “tones” and “implications” – all decided upon arbitrarily to achieve their political goals. It’ll be the race of the Red Queen and you can never win – it’s the gatekeepers of access who will have the power to determine what is acceptable or not. Once there are speech codes that are accepted as a part of society, nothing stops those codes from being constantly fine-tuned to silence opposition.

The only speech code that you can “work around” is NO speech code. You need either a platform that cannot be or will not be censored and/or an extension of “protected class” to include sociopolitical beliefs – with the former being more realistic than the latter.  The idea that the System is going to finalize a set of speech codes that would enable anything other than mild civic nationalism (if even that) is absurd.  Of course, Spencer may claim he is only talking in theory, but advocating for speech codes in theory (however unrealistic) is not anything anyone on our side should be doing.

The future looks grim and I have no easy answers. But I do know that asking for a more snug fit for our memetic straightjacket is not the answer. This is not an athletic contest between gentlemen, with both sides playing by the rules.  The System will continue trying to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to win. The only weakness they have is that the game has spectators, the White masses, and while these are mostly inert, they are not all completely inert. The System’s ability to “cheat” is constrained by their need to appear to be playing fair, to trick the rubes into believing the “free democratic America” still exists.  Thus gives our side some room to maneuver. Begging for better defined constraints is not the direction our maneuver should be going.

Strom on the new wave of censorship.

And what has happened to Mr. Moderation, the wonderfully pureblood Common Sense Counselor?

This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.

Chastising extremists over how they talk about the Jews didn’t really help you, did it?

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.