You are not logged in.

WAWA CONSPI - The Savoisien

Exegi monumentum aere perennius

Announcement

#24 13-12-2013 16:54:15

Lou Som Pau II
Member
Registered: 06-03-2011
Posts: 554

Re: The Racial Compact

Issue of Racial Intermixture and "Impurity"

The Issue of Racial Intermixture and “Impurity” Correspondence and commentary on claims that the Nordish peoples are racially mixed and “impure”

Subject: South African types
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:56:05
From: “A. P.” in South Africa

I would like to ask ….about… the claim by a
geneticist from Cape Town (I don’t remember the name) that genetically the
South African whites are 7% Africans (ie Capoid and Congoid). I think that
it’s mostly propaganda and that the african strain in the white, and
especially Afrikaans, SA folk would be negligible, if one considers the
historical and social conditions of that country.
Regards
A.P.

Subject: Re: South African types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:16:39 SAST
From: “G.P.” in South Africa

On discussing South African White racial composition, I take interest in the
point mentioned by A.P. about Congoid and Capoid intermixture. Since I am
not a genetic expert, it is difficult for me to argue on genetics. What I
can say, is that a 7% influence is definitely on the extreme side. For
instance, historians claim a 7% French Huguenot ancestry. They had a
profound influence on the cultivation of wine, and other cultural aspects of
the Cape. To claim the same amount of coloured contribution sounds a bit
absurd. I have, for instance, genealogical records of my family
dating back to the 1580′s.
Another point to mention is that there have been made many attempts by South
African genealogists like Cor Pama to map the Afrikaans ancestry. To make
any ‘new’ claims seems to me like apartheid-abolishionist propaganda, of
what there have been no shortage since the 1980′s.

Regards
G.P.

Subject: S.A. types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:27:41
From: “A. P.” in South Africa

I have a theory about that 7%. I read on an interview to an Afrikaans woman
married to a Zulu man that their light skinned daughter was registered as
white, while their darker skinned son as coloured. Of course, that’s
nonsense, because both are mulattoes, disregarding their skin colours. But,
if in the recent past light mulattoes in SA were classified as whites, then
that 7% is not surprising after all.
Regards.
A.P.

Richard McCulloch’s reply,

Regarding the claim mentioned by “A.P.” that white South Africans are 7% Congoid or Capoid, I include below a rather lengthy edited excerpt from my book Destiny of Angels (1986) that addresses this very subject in the American context. (Funny how the same multiracialist tactics keep popping up in different countries.)

The growing effort to discourage resistance to interracial mixture by asserting that the Nordish race is already thoroughly mixed beyond hope of correction — thereby also disparaging Nordish racial integrity and identity — has a tendency to grow bolder, and more reckless and irresponsible in its claims, as its prior false assertions go unchallenged in the dominant multiracialist intellectual environment.

An example of how far this process has gone — to the point where almost “anything goes” and any exaggeration is accepted, provided it is consistent with the designs and interests of multiracialism — appeared in an article in People Weekly magazine (Dec. 6, 1982, page 156.) about a Louisiana woman whose ancestry was one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) “black,” but who regarded herself as “white” and had been raised in, and accepted by, the white community. Her mother and her mother’s sister, both “octoroons” (one-eighth or 12.5 percent black, having the equivalent of one black great-grandparent), had gone by different paths, the mother “passing” as white while the aunt remained part of the black community. The woman was challenging a Louisiana law (since repealed) which required that any person more than one-thirty-second (3.125 percent) of black ancestry be classified as black in the state’s legal records.

According to the article, Dr. Munro Edmonson, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University appearing as an expert witness on the woman’s behalf, testified that “modern genetic studies show that blacks around the country average 25 percent white genes and whites five percent black genes. By these statistics, said Edmonson, and assuming the one-thirty-second law prevailed, the entire native born population of Louisiana could be considered black!”

The first criticism of Edmonson’s above claim is obvious. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the “average” white person in the United States had five percent black genes (more on this assumption later) only a few would actually be the exact “average” of five percent or one-twentieth black ancestry. (Hybridization requires many generations after its total completion before achieving a level of stabilized uniformity even remotely approaching homogeneity.) Many would have no black genes at all, while many others would have far more than five percent in order to counterbalance the effect of those who had no black genes and still achieve the five percent average. If half of the white population had no black genes, the other half would have to average ten percent black genes in order to maintain the five percent overall average. Of the half with black genes some, again, would be far less than ten percent black, while others would have to be proportionately more in order to sustain the group’s ten percent average. If three-quarters of the white population had no black genes, the remaining quarter would have to average twenty percent black genes to uphold the overall five percent average, and some would have to be considerably more than this. If nine-tenths of the members of the white population had no black genes, the remaining tenth would have to average fifty percent black genes (that is, be half black, or mulattoes) to keep a five percent overall average, and many would actually have to be more than half black to compensate for those who were less.

At this point we confront the definition of what is “white.” The phenomenon of partial blacks “passing” as white is a complex one. Passing is a form of deception, and whether it will succeed depends on both the racial knowledge and sensitivity of the person being deceived and the detectability of the black traits, which varies greatly even when the degree of intermixture — or percentage of black genes — is the same, as among siblings (see the above example of the Louisiana woman’s mother and aunt). The same partial black may successfully deceive some whites while failing to deceive others whose level of racial knowledge and sensitivity is greater. Under present levels of racial knowledge and sensitivity, an octoroon generally cannot successfully pass as an unmixed or full-blooded white, while a person who is one-sixteenth black generally, but not always, can. However, when they do succeed in passing as white, it is usually as a marginal and indistinct type of white under the broad, less sensitive and discriminating definition of the term. They usually do not pass as a distinctively Northern European type of white. A white who was five percent black in ancestry would, in nearly all cases, know it. For him not to know it would require that he not know his parents or grandparents, and even then he would probably still know or suspect it. That so few whites, including Louisiana whites, have knowledge of any black ancestry indicates how rare and uncommon such ancestry actually is.

The second objection to Edmonson’s assertion is twofold. If 6.25 percent black intermixture is the maximum level that can generally successfully pass as a marginal white, how is it possible for the claimed average degree of intermixture — five percent — to be so close to the maximum permissible degree for passing, when the upper end of the range should far exceed the average in order to counterbalance the lower end and the large number who have no black genes at all? Also, since persons who are one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) of black ancestry tend to bear a physical resemblance to less distinct, borderline or marginal whites, such as the typical inhabitants of Andalusia or Tunisia, why is it that the white population of the United States bears no resemblance to those two peoples? In fact, the Northern European population of America — which in 1980 constituted about 79 percent of the white population — shows no identifiable sign or trace of black intermixture, and remains essentially indistinguishable racially, physically and esthetically — showing no significant difference — from the other members of the same branches of their race who remain in northern Europe, free from any evident black interracial mixture. If the Northern European population of America were five percent, or even one percent, black it would obviously show. It would not look the way it does. The physical-esthetic difference would be definite and undeniable, especially among the more recessive, fragile and distinct traits — whose frequency of occurrence would be greatly reduced and quality of expression and realization distorted and diminished, suffering severe losses in both quantity and quality. If the population of northern Europe from which Nordish-Americans came is accepted as a control group, it must be admitted that there is no significant racial-physical-esthetic variation between the two, and the percentage of fractionally-black hybrids in the Nordish-American population must be so small as to escape attention.

Genetic studies of hybridization are based on variations in blood group frequencies. Like paternity tests they cannot actually prove intermixture, but only establish the possible limits of it, unless the frequency variations are so large that they cannot be accounted for by any other explanation. For example, if a black population has a frequency of fifty percent for a blood group trait and a white population has a frequency of ten percent for the trait, while a second white population has a frequency of twelve percent for the same trait, it may be inferred — depending on certain variables, such as the dominant or recessive nature of the trait — that the second white population has a possible degree of black intermixture as high as five percent. But the natural variation which occurs within populations in the frequency of such traits (due to genetic drift and other reasons other than intermixture), and the margin for error inherent in such studies, are both large enough that any indication of intermixture below ten percent could in fact be zero — too small to provide certain proof or evidence of any degree of intermixture — and we could therefore be discussing something which is virtually nonexistent except in the minds of men. Even in a population as comparatively homogeneous — and with as little variation — as that of Japan, the variation which will unavoidably exist between different groups (such as the populations of different islands) will be sufficient to establish a possibility of some small degree of intermixture with any other population on earth. Only a population which exhibited zero variation — and none such exist or can exist — could prove the impossibility of any degree of intermixture.

Here again there is the problem of definition to consider. A wide spectrum of racial types in the population of the United States — Northern Europeans, Armenids, Mediterranids, Orientalids, Irano-Afgans, and even some groups (such as the Puerto Ricans) who exhibit an obvious degree of black intermixture — are commonly defined and classified as “white.” The degree of variation existing between the diverse racial types in this broadly defined population is so extreme that it defies as absurd any attempt to classify it as a coherent whole in relationship to any other race.

The final answer to Edmonson’s testimony is historical in approach. Scholars and anthropologists in the earlier part of this century, or in the previous century, never suspected or indicated a significant absorption of black genes into the white population. There is no record of racially mixed offspring being raised by, or accepted into, the white community to any measurable extent. Before the middle of this century, interracial marriage between white and black was socially unacceptable (and often illegal) and so rare as to be almost nonexistent in statistical terms. Thus the overwhelming majority of racially mixed children (mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons) were illegitimate and were virtually always raised by — and absorbed into — the black population. Nearly all the black-white intermixture which occurred before this century involved white males and black females (unlike the present situation, where three-fourths of the wives in black-white marriages are white). Then, as now, the children overwhelmingly tended to stay with the natural mother and her family rather than with the father. The practice of racism acted to protect the white race from intermixture and prevent the acceptance of racially mixed children into its ranks.

That nearly all the mixed offspring were absorbed into the black population is indicated by the high proportion (25 percent) of white genes in its genetic composition. Assuming that for most of American history the white population outnumbered the black by a ratio of about ten to one, the above percentage indicates that the black community, over the course of about eight generations, absorbed the equivalent of one-fortieth or 2.5 percent of the white population into itself. For whites to average five percent black genes while blacks average 25 percent white genes — a mixture ratio of five to one, when the population ratio as given above was ten to one — would require that twice as many of the racially mixed offspring were absorbed into the white population as were absorbed into the black population (or that two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the mixed children were absorbed into the white race and one-third into the black). A five percent average of black genes, assuming the ten to one population ratio, would indicate that the white population absorbed the equivalent of one-half or 50 percent of the black population into itself (50 percent divided by ten equals five percent), and that the white race absorbed twice as many black genes as the black race absorbed white genes. But this contradicts the fact, which ordinary observation should qualify as common knowledge, that as a result of the “color bar” created by white racism the racially mixed children were almost invariably raised by and absorbed into the black community, and that the proportion who were absorbed into the white population, rather than the 67 percent required to create a five percent degree of intermixture, was probably much less than one percent.

For the Nordish race, existence in a multiracial society, in close and unnatural proximity to other races, has always resulted in interracial mixture by wayward and irresponsible members who endangered the future integrity and well-being of their kind. In this racially unhealthy environment, fraught with danger to racial survival by the ever-present threat of absorbing dominant alien genes, only the practice of racism protects the integrity, identity and continued existence of the race — and its vulnerable recessive traits — by isolating it from the effects of intermixture. Until recently the practice of racism has preserved the Nordish race, so that it still exists in unaltered form with its identity still intact. The recent trend toward multiracialism is stripping the Nordish race of its defense and protection from intermixture, and its consequent destructive effects of extinction and racial death. (With the resultant intermixture of Northern Europeans with virtually every other race on earth, through both marriage and adoption.) The apologists and proponents of intermixture — who presently enjoy such dominance that the once great academic disciplines created by the white race have been enlisted in the cause of its destruction — employ every opportunity to disparage and cast doubts on the racial integrity, uniqueness and value of the Nordish race, thereby weakening its will to resist by depriving it of belief in itself. The goal of their misleading distortions is to prevent Northern Europeans from learning the truth until it is too late to do anything about it. Their hope is that if the Nordish race falsely believes it has already fallen, then it will fall, when it really falls, without a struggle.

Richard McCulloch

Subject: Disillusionment
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2000
From: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>
To: archon@racialcompact.com

The Myth of Northern European Racial Purity

White supremacists, white separatists, and white pride groups in general are
quick to acknowledge racial impurity in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe,
and, in some cases, even Central Europe, but they continue to operate, not
accidentally, on the assumption that Northern Europe–namely the British
Isles, from where most white Americans are descended–is 100% Nordic, or, if
not that, then 100% “Aryan” (recent Third World immigrants notwithstanding).

However, centuries ago, the British Isles were settled by Phoenicians, a
Hamito-Semitic people of the Middle East and North Africa, who left their
genetic and phenotypic imprints on the current populations of those lands.

Furthermore, it’s estimated that, as a result of white settlers in America
raping their slaves and prisoners, and of the offspring of such unions often
passing for white, some 10-15% of Americans who think of themselves as
entirely descended from Northern Europe in fact have some black or Indian
blood, which can manifest itself as a dark complexion, kinky hair, a broad
face, wide nose or almond shaped eyes, or, sometimes, it doesn’t manifest
itself at all. For instance, such apparently Nordic people as Heather
Locklear, Chuck Norris, Gary Busey, and Anna Nicole Smith are purported to
have Indian ancestry.

Thus, the native populations of the United Kingdom, and their descendants in
America, like all other European populations, are the products of centuries
of racial and ethnic admixture, and are thus composed of individuals
belonging to the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean physical types, as well as
every conceivable intermediate.

To illustrate this, here are some celebrities who are descended from either England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and who clearly exhibit non-Nordic or non-”Aryan” physical traits which attest to obvious non-European ancestry : VICTORIA ADAMS, JOHNNY CASH, TOM BOSLEY, SEAN CONNERY, ROBERT FORSTER, TERI HATCHER, BOB HOSKINS, PHYLIS LEE ISLEY (Jennifer Jones), TOM JONES, JOE NAMATH, JOHN OATES, STEPHEN PEARCY, STEPHEN REA, MEG TILLY, CATHERINE ZETA-JONES

Got a problem with that?

Subject: Why disillusionment?
Date: Thurs, 23 Feb 2000
From: archon@racialcompact.com
To: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>

I don’t know of any historical or anthropological source that states that Phoenicians settled in Britain, as you state. There is a possibility that they traded for the tin of Cornwall, but this would not constitute a settlement of the racial significance that you imply. It is likely that a Middle Eastern element arrived during Roman times, but they didn’t have a lasting impact on the population.

While the individuals listed above all show signs of non-Nordic ancestry, none of them show obvious signs of “non-European” ancestry, contrary to your claim, with the possible exception of Bob Hoskins, who is of Jewish rather than British ancestry. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones both show strong influence of the Atlanto-Mediterranean type that settled in Britain during Mesolithic times and has been an important element in the population ever since. Neither Joe Namath nor Tom Bosley are of British ancestry — Namath being Hungarian in ancestry and Bosley Jewish. As for those who “are purported to have Indian ancestry,” this information is of little value without the proportion of Indian ancestry. Many Nordish-Americans have some small proportion of Indian ancestry. If it is 1/8 or less it usually has little racial effect, although the psychological effect on racial consciousness and loyalties may be significant. (President Clinton claims to be some small fraction Cherokee Indian, and although this isn’t obvious in his phenotype, which is Nordish, it may have contributed psychologically to his lack of loyalty to the vital interests of the Nordish race.)

Regarding the allegation of extensive intermixture with blacks, Carleton Coon — in The Living Races of Man (1965), page 307 — cites Glass and Li to the effect that the proportion of black genes in the American “white” population is negligible. Nearly all the gene flow between races from the intermixture of the last several centuries has been from the European races into the non-European races, and very little of the reverse has so far occurred (at least as of 1965). But there has been some assimilation of Alpine and Mediterranid genes by the Nordish-American population.

But what is your point? Is it to oppose Nordish (Northern European) racial preservation and continued existence on the grounds that the Northern Europeans are not 100% pure, and anything not 100% pure is not worth saving? If so, this is an old argument that I’ve always considered to be very illogical, in that the people who most strongly oppose and hate racial “purity,” and want to destroy it, are the ones who make such a fetish about it by holding it to such an arbitrary and extreme standard as to define it out of existence. In my essay “Racial Average is Racial Destiny” I propose an objective means of measuring the extent to which Northern Europeans can assimilate other racial elements and still remain Nordish in racial type. Obviously, this means that 100% Nordish ancestry is not required for a people, or an individual, to be Nordish in racial type.

Personally, I love the Northern Europeans just as they are, and want to preserve them that way, just as I want to preserve all the races that now exist essentially as they are. That’s “purity” enough for me.

Richard McCulloch

Richard McCulloch comments,

Perhaps the most relevant genetic study to date on the issue of Nordish or Northern European racial “purity” versus mixture was reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of the periodical Nature. “Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome” (p.199) had findings suggesting “that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans,” and asked, “What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently recolonized by a small number of founders.” This report received considerable publicity in the popular press. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:

    “All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men — perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 — researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA.The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa.”

This study leaves little room for significant mixture from other sources over the last 15,000 years, or even the last 30,000 years. It points instead to a separate “Adam and Eve,” or more precisely a very small group of Adams and Eves, at least 15,000 years ago who were essentially the sole and exclusive ancestors of all modern northern Europeans.

One comes across many reports that some celebrity is part Indian (James Garner, Val Kilmer, Cathy Lee Crosby) but without knowing what part (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32?) it is not really very meaningful or helpful. Kim Basinger and Farrah Fawcett are both purported to be 1/8 Indian, which again indicates that a proportion of 1/8 or less is not always phenotypically significant.

In fact, I knew a very attractive sandy-haired, blue-eyed girl who was 1/4 Cherokee, but bragged about how people mistook her for Swedish when she traveled in Europe, something I found very believable, although her high cheekbones, of which she was very proud, were too angular to be typical of the Swedish type, and were really the only trait that indicated her Indian ancestry. Her complexion was similar to Kim Basinger (who really is Swedish, at least her non-Indian part). I met her family. Her half-Cherokee mother looked very Indian, while her father was a very big and very blond Borreby type. Her sister apparently got the obvious Indian genes, with blackish brown hair and coppery skin, yet attractive Europeanized facial features.

I came across a PBS Frontline website that purports to reveal the mixed racial ancestry of historical figures and celebrities, with the obvious ulterior motive of normalizing and thus promoting racial intermixture. It asserts that England’s Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, who was of Portuguese ancestry, was part Congoid. It also implies that Heather Locklear is of part Indian and Congoid ancestry because the name Locklear is associated with certain “tri-racial isolates” — communities of mixed Congoid, Indian and European elements that existed in North Carolina two or more centuries ago. It doesn’t specifically state that she is part Indian or Congoid, and gives no indication what part Indian or Congoid she might be (1/32, 1/64, 1/128?), but she is pictured, and the implication in the text, which almost gloats as it describes her as a paragon of blonde Anglo-Saxon beauty, is unmistakable.

One is reminded of the absurd claims that Beethoven, Hannibal or Cleopatra were Congoid, the latter two apparently for no reason other than that they were born on the continent of Africa (by which reasoning Syrians and Lebanese should be the same race as Chinese, as they were also born on the continent of Asia). Cleopatra, of course, wasn’t even Egyptian, but Macedonian, the last of the Ptolemaic dynasty founded by one of the successors of Alexander the Great, spoke Greek as her native language (although she did know many other languages, including Egyptian, being reportedly the first of her dynasty to learn it), wore Greek clothing, was surrounded by the Greek culture and Greek architecture of her mostly Greek capital, and was no more Congoid than a modern Afrikaner. Yet political correctness prevents timid academics from correcting the racial fallacies about her that repeatedly appear in the popular culture. Even Michael Grant, a don of ancient history who should know better, asserts that she was probably dark because she was of part Syrian ancestry. But her “Syrian ancestry” was an ancestress from the Seleucid dynasty, another Macedonian successor kingdom of Alexander that had its capital in Syria, and who was thus no more Syrian than Cleo was Egyptian. (The Seleucid dynasty was however part Iranian or Persian, as its founder, another of Alexander’s generals, had taken his wife from the old Persian nobility, as did Alexander himself, who took several.)

The ultimate purpose, or ulterior motive, for the above and similar claims of racial intermixture, whatever their validity or relevance, is to normalize and legitimize it, and thus promote such intermixture by making it seem harmless, right and socially acceptable, and the avoidance of intermixture seem less vital, necessary and important, and even as wrong or illegitimate. Such seemingly disparate figures as President Clinton and evangelist Billy Graham have endorsed interracial marriage as a means to lessen racial divisions. James Toback, director of the motion picture Black and White, shares their vision, minus the focus on marriage. As reported in Entertainment Weekly (April 14, 2000; pp.41-44)

    …Toback suggests “mass interracial sex” can eliminate racism….[T]alk to Toback, who also wrote [the film], and you realize he’s celebrating the power of hip-hop [black music] and interracial sex to conquer bigotry….”I think it is completely changing the whole social order in a way that makes even passive bigotry totally unacceptable to anyone who isn’t kind of a professed Neanderthal. It’s changed the sexual culture completely, which is the key to race, because as soon as you have interracial sex to a degree where it isn’t even an issue and you start with mass interracial sex, then the races become indistinguishable.”

This is, of course, the very thing that opponents of racial integration in the 1960s predicted would happen as a consequence of integration, and which the proponents of racial integration denied would happen. As its opponents feared, and are now being proven right, racial integration is just a euphemism for racial intermixture. Unfortunately, in the 1960s the proponents of racial intermixture were not as open and honest as its proponents such as James Toback are today. If they were Nordish-Americans would have been better informed about the real consequences of their policies at a time when they would have been much more resistant to them. Several decades of racial nihilist indoctrination were necessary before such openness and honesty could be expressed without fear of provoking strong Nordish-American opposition.

Richard McCulloch

Offline

#25 13-12-2013 16:56:40

Lou Som Pau II
Member
Registered: 06-03-2011
Posts: 554

Re: The Racial Compact

The Ethnic Gap

A Rejoinder to Torriani & Rienzi
by Richard McCulloch (From The Occidental Quarterly, Summer, 2002; Vol. 2, No.2)

Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani make some specific criticisms of my article “The Ethnic Gap” in the Fall 2001 issue of The Occidental Quarterly and some broad criticisms of my work in general as found on my website (http://www.racialcompact.com). Before addressing the specific criticisms, I think I should address the fundamental issue that underlies their general criticism and disagreement with my work.

I am an American of Northern European ancestry and race. I love my race and I want it to continue to exist. In normal times this would not need to be said. But these are not normal times. After over 5,000 years of existing without any danger to their existence the peoples of Northern Europe, and the populations of Northern European ancestry and race in America and Australia, are being destroyed. I do not want them to be destroyed, so my efforts have been directed toward their preservation.

Racial preservation has to be based on racial reality. It has to face the facts, ask the right questions and provide the right answers, however difficult they may be. What is destroying the Northern European peoples? How can they be saved from destruction? How can they be preserved? What is required for their preservation and what needs to be done to achieve it?

The Northern European peoples are being destroyed by multiracialism, the condition of different races existing together in the same territory and society. Their destruction is an unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. They simply cannot continue to exist in a multiracial society. This is a fact of racial reality, a reality of race, of what a race is.

The traits by which we define and identify race are not just individual traits but the traits of a population. A race is a stabilized breeding population, consisting in each of its generations of different individuals who are the passing components in the continuum of its potentially immortal existence. So long as each generation passes on its genes proportionately to its next generation the gene pool, and thus the race as a whole, does not change, but remains the same in each generation, although the individuals composing its population will vary. So long as the genes remain the same and other genes are not introduced from outside the population to change it — either by changing the proportions of the existing elements or, more drastically, by adding entirely different elements — the race will remain the same and be preserved in its entirety.

The concept of racial environment is critical to the understanding of racial reality. The racial environment consists of the types and proportions of racial elements within a stabilized breeding population. It is presumed that the different racial elements in a given society, sharing the same space, will eventually intermix, forming a single breeding population and gene pool. A race is created and preserved in a certain racial environment, a range of certain racial types in certain proportions, and this is the environment required for its preservation or continued existence. If the racial environment is changed the gene pool is also changed and the race cannot continue to exist in the same form, but will be transformed or shifted in the direction of the new racial environment. A change in the racial environment eventually causes a corresponding change in the racial gene pool, and this in turn causes a corresponding change in the race, a racial shift toward the traits of the new elements.

As my critics note, I use the term “Nordish” to refer to Northern Europeans, which I will begin to do at this point, for stylistic reasons that should be obvious. (I do not, however, use Mr. Rienzi’s term “Nordishist.”)

The Northern European or Nordish racial types evolved and have existed for over 5,000 years in a particular racial environment in which certain proportions of a certain range of racial types have maintained a stable balance or equilibrium. This is the racial environment in which the Nordish racial types evolved, and it is the racial environment that is required for their continued existence or preservation. If the racial environment is changed by the introduction of outside elements the racial proportions within the population will be changed, upsetting and destabilizing the racial balance. The introduction of less distinct Nordish types will cause a decrease in the proportions of the more distinct types and — if the change is great enough — their eventual extinction. The introduction of totally new and incompatible non-Nordish, or even non-European, racial types upsets the balance in the population even more drastically, destroying the racial environment that is required for Nordish racial preservation. This results in the extinction of the more distinct Nordish types first and eventually the general extinction of the entire Nordish population. This is what is now happening to the Nordish peoples of Western Europe, America, Canada and Australia. Their racial environments, which they require for their continued existence, are being destroyed — or have already been destroyed — by the introduction of different racial elements. They have been changed into multiracial environments in which the Nordish racial types cannot continue to exist. The destruction of the Nordish racial environment by multiracialism eventually means the destruction of the Nordish race.

The underlying reason for the general objection of Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani to my work, if we cut to the chase, is that I make a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. If not for that I suspect they would find little to disagree with in my work, but for that they broaden their criticism to include almost the entirety of my work.

My reason for making this distinction is basic Nordish racial preservationism, as plain and simple as it gets. Racial reality is either-or. You cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. You can either preserve the Nordish race or mix it with other races, but you cannot have both. Extensive intermixture with Mediterraneans will have consequences that cannot be responsibly evaded or denied. The consequence is a racial shift away from the Nordish types and toward the Mediterranean types. The greater the extent of intermixture the greater will be this shift. The most distinct Nordish phenotypes would be the first lost as a result of this shift, followed by the less distinct types. Eventually, if the extent of intermixture and the resulting racial shift is great enough, only the more generalized Nordish types might survive in any significant numbers. There are no studies detailing the specifics of this process (at least not in humans), and no figures are maintained on the Nordish phenotypes in the population. Thus there are no means to rigorously track, document or study any racial shift, including the shift that has already occurred due to the blending of Northern and Central Europeans, and to a lesser extent Southern Europeans. But any person with a modicum of racial sense and sensibility must be sensible to the fact that it would occur.

My own racial sense and sensibilities inform my belief that a general intermixture of Northern and Southern Europeans would be sufficient to make the more distinct Nordish types effectively extinct, and the less distinct types much less common. As a Nordish racial preservationist I therefore want to prevent a general intermixture of Northern and Southern Europeans, and as a racial realist I know that the only effective way to prevent intermixture is separation. And that is the rub, the heart of the matter, the general point of disagreement between Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani and myself. And it is one that I cannot change consistent with racial reality, and cannot yield on without surrendering the very essence of the Nordish race, and defeating the very purpose of Nordish preservation.

Admittedly, the racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans seem minor, some would say even trivial, compared to the differences between Europeans and the races of sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia. Certainly they are only a fraction of these differences, and certainly there is even a degree of racial overlap between the native populations of Northern and Southern Europe. But the racial reality is that the differences are great enough, even more than enough, to cause the extinction of the more distinct Nordish types if there is sufficient intermixture between them. The denial of those differences, and their effects, would prove fatal for the distinct Nordish types.

What is the extent of the racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans? Would anyone have difficulty distinguishing the native population of Stockholm from that of Naples, of Copenhagen from Madrid, of London from Seville? As indicated above, there are varying degrees of racial overlap or similarity in the individual members of the different populations of Europe. Some members of the Austrian and Italian populations — for example — resemble each other, yet the populations as a whole do not overlap, but are clearly distinct. If you took a group of 100 individuals from each European country, with each group being representative — in types and proportions — of their respective populations, the average person would have no difficulty distinguishing between the Italian group and the Austrian group, as each group would have a large proportion of individuals of racial types that are either completely absent or very rare in the other group.

However, if the two groups were mixed together the average person, or even an expert, would be less than 100% accurate in sorting the 200 individuals into their respective population groupings. This is because there is an overlap in the racial composition of the two populations. There is also an overlap between the Italian and British populations, only the differences are greater and the extent of overlap smaller. There is even less overlap between the native Scandinavian and Italian populations, so that a mixed group of representative individuals could probably be sorted with well over 90% accuracy. Each population forms a breeding group in which the proportions of the different types are stabilized in a balance that can continue indefinitely, maintaining the racial continuity of the population, so long as the proportions are not changed by the introduction of elements from outside the stabilized population.

The chart below is my attempt to provide an admittedly rough estimate of the phenotypic composition of the native European populations. The reader may disagree with my estimates, and I assume they are not precisely accurate, but I believe the concept is valid, and I assume the estimates are sufficiently accurate to give a valid illustration of the concept.

Phenotypic group A consists of the most distinct Northern European phenotypes found only in Northern Europe (represented on this chart by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, and northern and central Germany).

Phenotypic group B consists of the most common Northern European phenotypes which can still be regarded as distinctly Northern European although they are also found as minority elements in Central Europe (represented by southern Germany, Austria and northern France).

Phenotypic group C consists of generalized phenotypes that are common throughout Northern and Central Europe and are also present as a minor element in Southern Europe (represented by Italy, Spain and southern France).

Phenotypic group D consists of more generalized phenotypes that are found throughout Western Europe but are most common in Central Europe.

Phenotypic group E consists of phenotypes that are common throughout Southern and Central Europe but are absent or very rare in the native populations of Northern Europe.

Phenotypic group F consists of phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present in small numbers in Central Europe, but absent from Northern Europe.

Phenotypic group G consists of distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present as a minority element in North Africa, but absent from the native populations of Northern and Central Europe.

Phenotypic group H consists of more distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes that are common in both Southern Europe and North Africa.

Phenotypic group I consists of the most distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes found among the native populations of Southern Europe, but more common in North Africa and the Middle East.

In my partition proposal phenotypes not normally found in the native populations of Northern and Central Europe would be separated from the Nordish population. This racial dividing line would run through the F group of phenotypes in the above chart. Yet even in this proposal the long-term survival of the more distinct Nordish types in the Nordish-American population would be far from certain, and if they did survive they would certainly be much less common. The resulting racial environment would represent a considerable racial shift away from the one in which they existed for the last 5,000 years. There are always racial costs involved in any significant racial shift, and those costs have their greatest effect on the most distinct side of the racial range.

In Northern Europe itself, the racial dividing line should be based on the native populations themselves, and be stricter than the standard applied in the U.S. The immigration of additional generalized C or D phenotypes from Central or Southern Europe into Northern Europe would upset the balance of the racial environment, lowering the proportions of the more distinct Northern European types and, if sufficient, threatening their continued existence. This is true even though the native populations already contain those phenotypes, as a change in the proportions of phenotypes causes a change in the racial environment and gene pool, and thus a racial shift away from the more distinct types. Also, it should be noted that the generalized C and D phenotypes of Central and Southern Europe are not genotypically equivalent to the C and D phenotypes of Northern Europe. The native C and D phenotypes in Northern Europe usually carry recessive A and B genes in their genotypes, whereas this is usually not the case with C and D phenotypes in Central or Southern Europe.

Unfortunately, there are political costs incurred by racial separation, just as there are racial costs incurred by the lack of separation. The groups selected for separation from the Nordish population can generally be expected to oppose the separation. That is why I separated Northern and Central Europeans (NCEs) from other ethno-racial groups in my discussion of the prospects for building a pro-Nordish political movement in “The Ethnic Gap,” as it could not be assumed that the non-NCEs would support the ultimate Nordish interest in separation. And that is why Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani oppose my proposal, and the reason for their general criticism of my work.

Both political and racial costs should be minimized to what is absolutely necessary, but if costs there must be, as a racial preservationist I am much more willing to incur political costs than racial costs, which involve a racial shift away from what I wish to preserve. Racial costs involve our being, what we are, and once incurred the political costs of reversing them (if it is still possible to reverse them) are usually prohibitive, and certainly far greater than the costs of preventing them. Should we sacrifice part of ourselves, lose the most distinct parts of our race, for political reasons? For me there is no political interest so compelling as to justify the extinction of the most distinct Nordish types, and no political cost so great as to compel me to accept racial policies that would have that result.

Is there anything we could offer the groups selected for separation that would significantly lessen their opposition to it? What could be done to accommodate those groups, to lessen their opposition to separation, and possibly even gain some measure of support? Certainly whatever could be done within reason, that does not defeat the purpose of Nordish racial preservation or sacrifice the legitimate interests of the Nordish-American population, that would be worthwhile and not in vain, that addresses legitimate concerns without catering to obstructionism, should be done.

It is my hope that we could be partners rather than adversaries in this enterprise, and that the interests of all could be adequately served and protected. But to the extent that interests do conflict, the primacy of the Nordish peoples in North America should be an established principle. Their interests should have priority and be given precedence. They have a much greater interest in North America, having committed a far greater part of their existence and being to the continent, than any other people. Until a little over a century ago it was clearly their country, and in spite of the ongoing process of their dispossession since that time they still have far more at stake in it than do any others. As a Nordish-American, my ancestors’ vision and realization of a transcontinental nation is still my vision of what Nordish America should be, and what I want a post-partition Nordish America to be.

Turning to some of the specific criticisms, the term “Nordish” simply means “Northern European” when used in the racial sense. The racial term “Northern European” in general usage refers to all the native peoples of Northern Europe, not distinguishing between Nordics, Borrebys and Brünns, but, in Mr. Rienzi’s terms, lumping them all together as I do with the term “Nordish.” That said, I have found that the people who object to the term “Nordish” are those who object to any distinction being made between Northern and Southern Europeans, or to any semantic tool that makes it easier to make that distinction. The same people also tend to object to the use of the racial term “Mediterranean,” in general usage referring to all the native peoples of the Mediterranean region, as it also makes a distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans.

Regarding the contention that modern Nordics are more closely related to Mediterraneans than to their Brünn and Borreby countrymen, general usage — including anthropology and genetics — does distinguish between Northern and Southern Europeans, but does not distinguish between the Nordic, Borreby and Brünn types of Northern Europe. There is a very simple reason for this. Most people, including most scientists, have never heard of the Brünn and Borreby types, are unaware of their existence, and do not know how to distinguish them from each other or from Nordics. Some who are aware of them do not believe they represent different racial types but only normal individual and regional variation within the Northern European population.

Certainly John Baker was aware of them, yet he makes no mention of them in his 1974 work Race (pp. 217-220), referring only to “Nordids” in Scandinavia and northern Germany, although he does clearly differentiate between “Nordids” and “Mediterranids.” And there is good reason for this, for whatever the prehistoric origin and derivation of these types might be, the overriding fact is that for the last 5,000 years they have been part of the same populations, blending together to the extent that few people can distinguish them either by phenotype or genotype. I think almost everyone, including Mr. Rienzi, would be able to distinguish the predominantly Nordic populations of Oslo and Stockholm from the Mediterranean populations of Naples and Madrid very easily, but would have considerable difficulty distinguishing them from the predominantly Borreby populations of Stavanger, Malmö and Copenhagen.

In my opinion Carleton Coon’s classic 1939 work The Races of Europe presents the most accurate and detailed description and classification of the modern races of Europe that I have seen, but I have never thought of it as the last word on European prehistory and racial origins. This area of study is still very open and the subject of considerable debate. In the past few years several genetic studies have contributed some insights. For example, a genetic study reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of Nature, “Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome” (p.199) had findings suggesting “that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans,” and asked, “What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently re-colonized by a small number of founders.” This report received considerable publicity in the popular press, often distorted and falsified with a multiracialist bias. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:

    All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men — perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 — researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA. The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa.”

This genetic study clearly does not differentiate between Nordics and other Northern Europeans, but assumes a common ancestry for all Northern Europeans going back 15,000 years or more. It also indicates a much earlier date of divergence, and more distant relationship, between Northern and Southern Europeans than is often supposed.

The following quotes might help to clarify Coon’s opinion on the relationship between modern Nordics and Mediterraneans. From Coon’s 1951 work, Caravan: the story of the Middle East, (p. 154):

    Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations. In a dark-skinned and finer-boned form they are also found as the major population element in Pakistan and northern India.

(It should be noted that the modern Nordic homelands are not included in this description of the geographic distribution of the Mediterranean race.) From Coon’s 1965 work, The Living Races of Man, (p. 54):

    Mediterranean and Nordic populations may be distinguished both in Europe and in West Asia during the span of the Mesolithic. It is a moot point whether the Nordic skeletal type of Neolithic Northern Europe came from the West or the East, or from both.

This indicates that Nordics and Mediterraneans were already distinguishable from each other at least as early as the Mesolithic, and that Nordics were already in Northern Europe at least as early as the Neolithic. And given that, with regard to the racial affinities of the modern Nordics I think that we can join Coon in saying that it is really a moot point where they came from, because they have been Northern Europeans for at least 5,000 years.

One of the most serious problems facing racial preservationism is ignorance of the consequences of multiracialism, and specifically of the effects of racial intermixture. Not only do many people still believe in the fantasy that multiracialism will not result in large-scale racial intermixture, they and many others are unaware of what the results of intermixture would be, and believe in the fantasy that even with large-scale intermixture the different races, including the Nordish race, will still continue to exist without significant change. In this common fantasy, which seems to be the dominant — and politically correct — senseless mindset of the popular culture, racial intermixture would not cause a racial shift and would not result in any racial types being lost or even becoming much less common. This ignorance of the most basic racial reality is so serious that it could prove fatal to the racial preservationist cause, a fatal fantasy that prevents awareness of the racial destruction that is even now taking place in front of our eyes, to which we are all witnesses, by denying its possibility.

I believe that anything that exists in physical reality can be measured and calculated. Real world physical actions have real world physical effects and results that can be accurately described. Acting on this belief, I developed a scale of Nordish racial assimilability to calculate the results of racial intermixture on the Nordish race. (http://www.racialcompact.com/averageisdestiny.html) The scale is much more accurate with population averages than with individuals, and the larger the population the more accurate the average. But after the first generations of interracial crossing have passed, and the blend becomes more stabilized with each generation, with ever less individual variation, the scale would become increasingly accurate in calculating individual results as well. Mr. Rienzi objects to my scale, not on the grounds that my calculations, estimates and predictions are inaccurate, nor that my scale is flawed in design, but on the grounds that the very concept of being able to calculate or predict the genetics of racial intermixture is invalid. In attacking the validity of the concept he basically adopts the obscurantist position that the effects of intermixture are unknowable. This is inconsistent with our long experience with the genetics of animal husbandry and stock breeding, in which the genetic and phenotypic effects of intermixture can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy. Though there is a normal aversion to admitting it, the same genetic principles that govern the mixture of animals govern the mixture of humans as well, and the results can be calculated with the same degree of accuracy. This too is part of racial reality. The effects of racial intermixture are governed by physical reality, not fantasy.

Messrs. Rienzi and Torriani object to my use of phenotype to define race. Phenotype is the totality of our physical or morphological traits or characteristics. As the definitions of race in most dictionaries show, physical traits are the recognized and customary means of determining, identifying and defining race. As the great anthropologist E.A. Hooton wrote in Up From the Ape, “The classification of organisms has to begin with phenotypes (p. 439).” Phenotype is nature’s method of racial and species identification. It consists of everything we experience with our senses — odor, feel and sound as well as sight. Every living creature, from insects to man, distinguishes and recognizes its own kind based on phenotype, by what they experience with their senses. This is most critical in the selection of mates, and in general nature has been very successful in enabling every species to almost unerringly identify its own kind by phenotype in the selection of mates. It is also the means we all use to identify race.

All of us, in our everyday lives, beginning in childhood, have racially classified or identified many tens of thousands of persons, most of it automatic, unconscious and involuntary, taking no longer than a split fraction of a second, including people we pass in the mall or on the street, in our schools, in social settings, in every event we attend and everywhere we go. For nearly all of us, every single one of those classifications was by phenotype, using an important ability with which we are equipped by nature. How many people have any of us racially identified by genetic sequences? How many by anthropometric measurements? For nearly all of us, the answer to these two questions, regarding the other recognized methods of racial identification other than phenotype, is zero. Mr. Rienzi disparages phenotype as a method of racial identification. How many thousands of people has he racially identified by phenotype? How many by other methods? Has he ever racially identified anyone by methods other than phenotype? If so, he is one of a very few, as only biologists and physical anthropologists with specialized training and equipment are able to identify race with means other than those with which nature equipped us, and those other means are not necessarily more accurate.

Mr. Torriani suggests cultural artifacts as a means of racial identification, but culture is not race and the two should not be confused. A person of any race could adopt the culture and artifacts of any other race, as many millions of Africans and Asians have adopted the culture of the West, but they are still not of that race.

I do not ignore genetics or ancestry as a means of racial classification, but consider them to be supplemental to phenotype, not a replacement for it. I think my critics create a false dichotomy between phenotype and genetics and ancestry. In my opinion, phenotype is normally consistent with genetics and ancestry, being their physical expression, and indicating them with a high degree of accuracy. Phenotype is adequate for racial classification. There is no need for genetic testing that would impose such huge political costs that suggesting them is likely to be a common obstructionist tactic.

And what would genetic testing and ancestry research reveal? Actresses Kim Bassinger and Farrah Fawcett are reported to be 1/8th Amerindian in ancestry. They are distinctly Nordish in phenotype, so the genes that determine their phenotype have been almost totally inherited from their seven Nordish great-grandparents, although some other genes they inherited from their one Amerindian great-grandparent might be the ones measured by genetic testing, classifying them as Amerindian. There are probably other persons who are 1/8th Amerindian in ancestry whose genes for phenotype are predominantly Amerindian (an example of the individual instability of early generation crosses), but the genes that would be tested would be European, classifying them as European. According to the Nei and Roychoudhury study cited by Mr. Rienzi in note 7 the Finns are essentially the same genetic distance from the Mongoloid Japanese (.054%) as are the Italians (.055%). Yet Mr. Torriani agonizes over the implications of a study that finds a “substantial” (?) portion of Finnish Y chromosomes are of Mongoloid origin. What importance should we give to the origin of Y chromosomes, or any other single genetic sequence that might be measured, as a determinant of racial identification if inconsistent with phenotype? I say none, and thus see no need to develop policies to deal with them, so Mr. Torriani can stop agonizing over hidden genes and their implications and focus on what can be seen, as nature intended.

Phenotype is central to race. It is racial identity. A race is more than phenotype, but it is nothing without its phenotype. A race is not a disembodied thing without face or form. Phenotype is its physical body, its face and form. The devaluation or denigration of phenotype is a devaluation and denigration of race. The delegitimization of phenotype as a matter not worthy of concern is a delegitimization of racial preservation as a matter not worthy of concern. The belittlement of phenotype and the denial of its importance are a central part of the logic and argument of anti-preservationists, and a clear indication of opposition to racial preservation.

We live in a world of phenotypes, of tangible physical being. Phenotype is what we directly experience and perceive with our senses. It is what we are attached to. It is what we love. It is what we want to preserve. And its preservation is consistent with, and necessary for, the preservation of everything else associated with our race and every other part of its being. So as a racial preservationist, seeking to preserve the Nordish race, I will continue to work for the preservation of the Nordish phenotypes and advocate the measures required for their preservation.
References

Baker, John R. Race, Oxford University Press, 1974.

Coon, Carleton Caravan, Henry Holt & Co., 1951.

Coon, Carelton The Races of Europe, MacMillan, 1939.

Hooton, Earnest A. Up From The Ape, MacMillan 1931 (Revised 1946).

Offline

Board footer


Minds - VK - GAB - RSS

Balder Ex-libris - Histoire Ebook - Free PDF - Aryana Libris - PDF Archive

Aldebaran Video - Viva Europa - Le Gentil - Un grain de Sable

WAWA CONSPI
WAWA CONSPI
The Savoisien
The Savoisien - Lenculus
Exegi monumentum aere perennius