« Russian students diversify a black college | Gene Expression Front Page | Fatty yellow peril? »
March 11, 2003

Are you white enough?

One of the things I've often mentioned is that I have an account at Stormfront.org (the neo-Nazi sympathetic "premier" white nationalist site) and enjoy watching the war of words between broad-church racialists (who would include phenotypically compatible non-European Caucasians in the movement) and narrow-church racialists (the most extreme of which limit the volk to Germanic peoples). Generally, they seem to end in accusations of homosexuality & requests for photographs to confirm that the other persons in the debate is a Jew (you see, in this case, Godwin's Rule will not apply, for obvious reasons!). But for a more tempered and measured debate in this vein (this between narrow-church and middle-church factions), see this debate in The Occidental Quarterly:

First, Richard McCullough's The Ethnic Gap presents the narrow-church Nordish agenda. Michael Reinzi responds with The Reality Gap & Tristan Torriani with McCulloch, Nordishism & Enlightened White Separatism. There are interesting points on both sides-but I think the key problem is that there isn't a sharp demarcation line for who exactly is white-so those expelled from the magic circle of racial purity but just on the other side of the fence are the loudest in their protests. Another thing I have noticed, and both southern European writers (by extraction) exhibit this, is to contrast themselves with those who are further out from the idealized form of the race which they wish to identify with-in this case, one of the writers attacks Persians as being unlike the peoples of the Mediterranean in physique and coloring. This is ironic because on Stormfront Persians & Turks do the same to Arabs, while no doubt an Arab "white racialist" would disparage Indians & Ethiopians.

Posted by razib at 10:47 PM




Check this out
http://www.white-history.com/hwr5c.htm
Godess Durga and Mahishasura a epic of Whites defeating blacks. However they do have a point, most Hindu gods are fairer than demons in Hindu mythology.

Posted by: Subrato at March 12, 2003 07:29 AM


Mr. Rienzi on Kevin Macdonald and John Derbyshire:

http://www.legioneuropa.org/Front/derbymx.htm

The "White history"book is a fraud!!

And a refutal about white history section on Portugal and Spain:

http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp

http://members.odinsrage.com/racofspain/MarchOfTheTitans.html

http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/paulswain.html

Posted by: L at March 12, 2003 08:53 AM


For other hand, I think that the rejection of Mr. Rienzi and other south europeans for the Turks and Arabs are based on the fact that that people are Muslim (a religion and culture very alien to the West), I don't think that this rejection is based merely on a phenotipic question because the Greeks and other peoples of the Balkan region are not different phenotipicly from the Turks ( in fact the Turks are not members of another race).

Posted by: L. at March 12, 2003 09:21 AM


other link about the thought (Pan-Europeanism) of Mr. Rienzi and other south europeans racial activists:

http://www.legioneuropa.org/Believe/pe1.html

"Pan-Europeanism (PE) does NOT:

3) Cover over real conflicts between Euro groups. No, We cannot do this. Instead, we insist that these conflicts be settled in a reasonable manner, in an amicable, family way. We do not obfuscate conflict; we wish to solve it.

6) Say that all "Caucasians" are Euros. This is not so. While we have nothing against any people, we must state that we have a definite ingroup, and that ingroup does not include peoples outside the Euro bioculture. These other peoples (Jews, Arabs, Hindus, et al.) have their own ingroups, biocultures, and organized activists. Nor does being pan-Euro mean that we do not have standards for human quality. Human quality is very important; our point being however that persons of high and low quality can be found within every Euro group.

7) Obsess over what Euro groups are "superior" or "inferior" to each other, or are "purer", etc. We are not interested in that, nor in creating "caste systems" of different Euro groups. Instead, for all those in our ingroup, we will have merit-based activism - those people who are the most intelligent, disciplined, and dedicated will be the ones who rise naturally to positions of leadership.

Thus, the pan-European perspective. Anglo-Saxons, Irish, French, Iberians, Germans and Austrians, Italians, Slavs, Balts, Scandinavians, Romanians, Hungarians, Greeks, Basques, Swiss, those from the "Benelux" nations - ALL are welcome."

Posted by: L. at March 12, 2003 10:06 AM


have you ever sent them a picture of yourself?

Posted by: scott at March 12, 2003 11:46 AM


scott-you asking me? why would i send them a picture of myself?

for what its worth, i do think the synthetic "biocultural" method is a more reasonable way to go that a strictly phenotypic one. but, it still leaves room for non-whites, white looking near easterners and high caste indians, to join by switching cultures (it would require subtrefuge)-and that is probably what the nordicists fear.

but it is ironic that rienzi et al reject muslims out of hand, as islam is spreading among a few neo-nazis in europe-i'm thinking especially about that guy in switzerland who is a major power-player....

Posted by: razib at March 12, 2003 12:46 PM


I've also noticed that a lot of southern euros/iranian/hindu nazis take great care to appear as anti-black as possible !
One example is this diabloblanco character on stormfront : He doesn't seem to even care about jews, just dreams all the time about "cleaning out blacks from the world"
One of the main neonazi black metal organizations in the states was founded by a hindu whose main dreams were about carrying genocide in africa. From what i've been told by his friends, he didn't even look white.
There's another sountern european with similar views : richard lowell from malta, "head" of Imperium europa. From what i've read on his site, he's ready to ally with arabs and any other group in order to exterminate black africans.
hmmm...
I also read on some iranian "aryan" website that iranians were much purer than europeans (yeah right!) because they never intermarried with blacks !
That's kind of funny coming from a people who are even less aryan than "semitic" people like the syrians and lebanese.

One wonders what drives such fanaticism .Is it because southern euros have been treated as "niggers" by northern euros for a long time now ?

Posted by: ogunsiron at March 12, 2003 01:46 PM


"but it is ironic that rienzi et al reject muslims out of hand, as islam is spreading among a few neo-nazis in europe-"

Mr. Rienzi is not a neo-nazi

Posted by: L. at March 12, 2003 01:55 PM


you are correct-but who forms the bulk of the self-conscious racialist movement in europe? not intellectuals like reinzi or alain de benoist after all....

Posted by: razib at March 12, 2003 02:26 PM


The most amusing thing about these sad, misguided and disturbing diatribes is that the authors have no understanding of the history of the place - Europe - that they prize so dearly.

Europeans hate each other, they always have. (The whole world suffers from the hate-your-neighbour disease). One need only look to British history to realise that in the sixteenth century, the English considered Africans to be superior to the Irish. In fact, most of the modern racist myths about African-Americans were first invented to be applied to the Irish, as well as to Native Americans. Europeans perfected prejudice at home.

The saddest thing? These often suposedly Christian white-supremicists contantly use the word gentile to describe themselves. Again, as anyone who has read early modern historical material knows, Europeans used the word "gentile" to describe non European and non-Christian peoples.

Their nonsense, aside from being distasteful, is ignorant even of their own history, good or bad.

Posted by: j at March 12, 2003 08:32 PM


THIS HATE FOR YOUR NEIGHBOUR "DISEASE" IS AN IMPORTANT SURVIVAL STRATEGY for groups I guess.

Posted by: Subrato at March 12, 2003 10:05 PM


In my study of history I've seen the hate-your-neighbour disease hurt the groups who practice it much more than it ever helps. WWI killed millions of French and Germans. The people in the Balkans have made their lives a living hell by hating their neighbours - and have not one benefit to show for it.

Oh, hatred of the neighbours definately comes from a sense of threat. I just believe that it is a misplaced sense of threat. Because the threat of my neighbour using my economic resources is so much less than the threat from their bombs after I start a war with them.

And I don't even know that I believe that they are my economic resources. What gave me the right to deny them to other people? What is the line between my neighbour, someone to compete against, and my family, someone to work with?

Posted by: j at March 12, 2003 10:14 PM


In general all "racial politicians", such as the ones mentioned in your entry need to define their in-group in order to advance their various agendas. For example, Americans are used to thinking in terms of who is "white", hence people of various backgrounds try to identify as "white", e.g., Middle-Eastern people. On the other hand, the northern European Americans tend to think of white as "Anglo", and have trouble accepting dark Southern Europeans and Middle-Easterners as white. In general, the quest is to define who is "white", because being "white" has a certain prestige in America.

There is also what I call the common denominator syndrome, whereby persons of mixed ethnic heritage (most white Americans) identify with the common component, i.e., people of various European ethnicities tend to think of themselves just as "white". In contrast, most Europeans see themselves as Greek, Russian, etc., and being white is just a secondary part of their identity.

Posted by: Dienekes Pontikos at March 13, 2003 03:22 AM


actually, many left-oriented mid-easterners want to reclassified as non-white. they feel that no one accepts them as white no matter what the CENSUS says and they don't get affirmative action either.

Posted by: razib at March 13, 2003 12:00 PM


I think that HATE FOR YOUR NEIGHBOUR "DISEASE" may be justified in some sense. I mean if I losemy Xenophobia and let outsiders come in, my genses and those of my kin will have to compete with foreign genes in the same space. Not a very good idea I feel.

Posted by: at March 14, 2003 01:09 AM


The saddest thing? These often suposedly Christian white-supremicists contantly use the word gentile to describe themselves. Again, as anyone who has read early modern historical material knows, Europeans used the word "gentile" to describe non European and non-Christian peoples.

"Gentile" also means "non-Jew". This is the primary definition given by Webster's.

Posted by: Oleg at March 14, 2003 11:50 AM


j. writes...
The saddest thing? These often suposedly Christian white-supremicists contantly use the word gentile to describe themselves. Again, as anyone who has read early modern historical material knows, Europeans used the word "gentile" to describe non European and non-Christian peoples.
...
Sure, and anyone familiar with the meaning of words in Shakespeare's time knows that 'brave' and 'nice' meant entirely different things then. Gee, I guess usage has changed. Should we use archaic meanings just to humor you? Oh, and another thing - your feigned intellectual superiority would be more convincing if you could spell 'contantly', 'suposedly' and 'supremicist' correctly.

Posted by: bbartlog at March 14, 2003 12:27 PM


Dienekesp: "On the other hand, the northern European Americans tend to think of white as 'Anglo', and have trouble accepting dark Southern Europeans and Middle-Easterners as white."

Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans have a shared genetic ancestry and belong to the same subspecies -- the Caucasian. Most Middle-Easterners are Armenoids.

Posted by: Telos at March 16, 2003 12:20 AM


well, old school morphologists will no doubt quibble with you, but the genetic evidence does not point to a yawning chasm between "europeans" and "middle easterners" as two subspecies.

see the two links below:

http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=870006740093

http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=48183619976

they disagree to the degree of early middle eastern neolithic instrusion into europe (20% vs. 50%)-but both imply that southeastern "europeans" might be closer to anatolians and levantines than they are scots or swedes (with clines to the west and north shift more toward continuity with the paleolithic populations of europe).

Posted by: razib at March 16, 2003 01:10 AM


Dienekes Pontikos:

There is also what I call the common denominator syndrome, whereby persons of mixed ethnic heritage (most white Americans) identify with the common component, i.e., people of various European ethnicities tend to think of themselves just as "white". In contrast, most Europeans see themselves as Greek, Russian, etc., and being white is just a secondary part of their identity.

______________

I don't think that is necessarily true and if it is : it's the result of state and media indoctrination. I am Irish/English/ and German mixture and I see my self as English. England being a celto-Germanic or anglo-teuton society in general.

Pat Buchanan who is a mixture of English and German sees America and himself as English more or less.

Also, what I find interesting to note is that Colin Powell (who is actually English, Scottish, Irish , Indian and Black) sees himself as an Anglo-Saxon of the dark skinned people in America.. a so called cut above the rest.

This to me points out a clear trend and cultural bias that I am not opposed to (for obvious nativist reasons).

Dienekes Pontikos I enjoy your work. However, when reading your work I always keep Arthur Schopenhauer's prime human motivators in mind skeptically . Chiefly "self gain". I do not see any unshrouded (uncryptograhic) banal malice in your work in the form of lazy skullduggery. which is to be applauded in my view.

Posted by: Burke at September 3, 2003 11:15 PM


Oh, my sincere apologies... I am writing this post (and the previous one) very late at night here on the east coast (New York).

Pat Buchanan isn't "English and German". Pat Buchanan is actually Irish and German. He does see himself and America as English more or less though. However the Irish/German mix was important to my point. Whether or not someone who is a mixture of Celtic and German actually show up Genetically whithin the "English" racial type empirically in DNA tests is besides the point.
________________


Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.

---Richard M. Nixon, in his White House farewell

Posted by: Burke at September 3, 2003 11:28 PM


Also, I think it is strange that
"Hispanics" are listed as a seperate racial category, don't you think? Being that they are descendants of Spainards. I heard that Mexicans use to be listed as 'white' in the past, but recently they created the category, 'Hispanics'.

I mean, most Hispanics I see look white. Most Cubans, Latin America and Puerto Rico look like Europeans. As well, the Irish were not considered 'white' when they arrived here in the USA.

Posted by: matt at September 28, 2003 02:17 PM