Who is considered White?

Biology & Nature
1

Note that this issue is being approached from a Biological and Eugenic perspective, not merely social or civil. I will not ever consider somebody who is 100% Black or Arab or Indian to be an “Honorary White” in any capacity, because no matter how sound their character might be, they are still biologically incongruent and prone to producing dysgenic offspring.

However, we come across this question time and time again in our arguments. Marxists and other social thinkers will reduce biological or other physical realities down to mere social constructs as a means of discrediting a racial movement, or cite things for example like

“Italians and Irish weren’t considered White! Booyah!”
And though these criticisms are often childish deflections, it does raise a valid issue. How do we define ourselves? And who ought we to associate with?

If say for example, a person has 90% White Genetics, and 10% West Asian Genetics, should they be considered White? Is this dilemma altered if the 10% is South African instead of West Asian? Do we allow for these statistical anomalies, or make rules specifically regarding non pure-breeds?
(I think also of Lucy Thompsons description of the Wa’gas, who would take 75% Whites with them when they left Northern California. Could this be linked to the social and genetic decline of Whites in the ancient world?)

From a simple standpoint, somebody who is 50% White is thus measurably Less White than somebody who is 90-100% White, and should be considered as such.
Note also that a Eugenics perspective is designed to produce the most healthy outcomes for society and the individuals within it. You don’t have to be Tall or Healthy or 100% of anything to advocate for better more thoughtful reproductive strategies, and if we can perfect our own Eugenics protocol, then other groups whether White or of other Races might also be able to learn from this example and practice something similar themselves.

I imagine in the future with groups like RTTL and Orania popping up all over the place, people will have different consideration as to what genetics get included in their social makeup. Only time will tell which strategies are the most effective, but we can glean from the past what strategies might be better than others.

What consideration do you guys have in defining Ideal and Healthy reproductive Strategies?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18258915/

See also:Higher rates of infertility among Multi-Ethnic individuals.
And, higher prevelance of stillbrith, low birth weight, premature birth, etc, amongst Interace race Couples.

2

This mixed-race unhealthy stuff is just cherry-picking. Don’t we all expect there to be random health metrics where Wasians are better than whites?

The C-sections for WMAF couples might be purely due to height differences - 6’2" WM with 5’2" AF.

In the end, when all is controlled and accounted for, the dysgenics and eugenics of interracial marriage is probably small or on-net neutral. These races are not separated by millions of years, they are separated by a few tens of thousands of years (and a slow reproductive cycle of maybe 20 years) with a bit of genetic drift.

3

I think the infertility stuff seems the most plausible.

The female reproductive system is optimized to kill off most of the sperm for pathogenic and reproductive health purposes, but not all the sperm. The male reproductive system is strongly and quickly selected for causing pregnancy. It’s a complex system involving semi-adversarial evolution in both sexes and “honest”/“spoofed” signals. In some cases the female side is too strict, for a specific partner or in general. This is my earnest representation of the popular evolutionary explanation for infertility as I have read it.

It makes sense to me that the fashions of signals could evolve apart in separated populations, and that infertility could be related to some missing or misinterpreted signals.

Of course, this sort of feeds a guilt-by-association argument where the mixed race must be defective like some kind of disaster mutant because they can’t breed as easily.

Mental stuff was in second place in my estimates, but I didn’t have any big-picture or biological arguments for that.

It’s sort of dumb for us to post words about this. I’m was drawing more on what randoms online have said about hapas having shitty parents than I am on whether the study has a lot of statistical power. So I looked up the four or so sources that r/hapas posts to substantiate that they are more mentally ill than average.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180317193748/http://www.napafasa.org/resources/Multiracial%20AAPI%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Most Asians have evolved a broken enzyme that lets toxins accumulate in them when they drink alcohol. (asian flush reaction) I wonder if these hapa alcoholics have the European form of that enzyme …and maybe lack whatever the European solution for an alcoholic temperament is. It sounds plausible to me, but I haven’t dug into the statistic power of the 2000 census or contextualized other claims in the document.

This study mentions 2000 asian americans, but the critical hapas are only 125 of them. But, 34% mentally ill is 100% larger than 17%, so it seems at least worth noting.

Says black-white mixes have bad mental health too, but it sounds like they blame it on culture. I would expect a book like this to exist no matter what is true or false, so I’m discounting it.

Suicide risk as an indicator is interesting. It was harder to find than I thought it would be (a CDC page without mixed race listed) and there was even an official site for an organization from 2003 speculating a rate being higher than it actually is (the same as the white rate) while requesting anyone with data to correct them.

Asians are 6.4 per 100k, and mixed race are 10.1 per 100k. So if hapas are like other mixed races they would be 57.8% more suicidal than their asian side. That seems substantial, but there’s no telling how much is genetic vs their upbringing. It would also be nice to have actual data specific to whites/asians vs other mixes since they are the most plausibly compatible races. (well, except Hispanics and whites. But that’s different.)

4

I agree that purity spiraling is an issue, however a failure to set standards is an even greater threat.
The reason Asian Women have a 33% higher prevelance of C-Section with White Fathers is because they possess a smaller Pelvis on average compared to the Cranium of their offspring. This is just one of a multitude of genetic and fertility complications that mixed couples have to deal with, so the question is, why tolerate a decline in health and fertility by any Statistical Variation whatsoever when we can instead promote a healthier strategy by simply maintaining the mono-ethnic archetypes we already possess?

Further mixing lowers the IQ averages of genetically higher IQ groups. It reduces the success of their other climate adaptive traits: Bone Mineralization, Muscle Type, Temperature Regulation, Oral and Gut Microbiome health (I.e. their ability to more effectively derive nutrients from local food sources), disease susceptibility, and also the simple psychological fact of having a Society where people Resemble One Another more cohesively, which plays into our ability to create a high trust society.

Even a small amount of genetic variation will produce vast differences between populations, hence IQ differences. These difference ought to be preserved for the health and success of future generations. Icelandic Chicks for example have only 1000 years of separation from other chickens, and yet they are 78% genetically distinct from other Chickens. Human populations have spent much more time than that apart, and arguably the same amount of generations as compared to the short life spans of the Icelandic Chickens..

(Added Note of observation, it is perhaps Northern Europeans genetic diversity that makes it easier for them to associate themselves with other racial groups psychologically. We are accustomed to having a broad range of peoples and characteristics, all of which are fundamentally European in Genetics, while other racial groups are far more uniform in appearance. This probably plays into our suicidal empathy).

5

I don’t think Eugenics necessitates the invalidation of Mixed Race people with any totality, but it is measurable that they have more negative health and fertility outcomes, and thus aren’t As healthy as mono-racial individuals, meaning there is a moral cause to place restrictions on their existence for the sake of collective genetic health.

The arguments for these traits are most pronounced in 3 ways: IQ variations, Fertility, and the genetic compatibility for Organ and Bone Marrow Transplants. Though many other arguments do exist, they simply have not been subject to as much research due to the institutional bias wanting to re-affirm an anti-racist narrative, and create a One Race, One World order.

As shown in the Icelandic Kinship and Fertility Study, Fertility is optomized by a certain degree of genetic proximity. Any further relation would result in Inbreeding, but any further deviation could be defined as Outbreeding, because although the offspring are not entirely infertile, they are less fertile than their parents. So, is it moral to simply call it a neutral stance if we overlooking Miscegenation?

The IQ argument is simply, the offpspring will have a higher IQ than the lower IQ parent, but a lower IQ than the higher IQ parent. This of course applies to all children regardless of genetics, but on such a mass scale you’re lowing the genetic average of a population, and making individuals less intelligent in the long run.

The more you look into this data the more you’re going to find big lapses in knowledge, and even outright admissions that they don’t or refuse to research the topic. Germany and France for example refuse to collect any Ethnicity Data whatsoever, and in America classification is often so arbitrary that Hispanics get labelled as White, and so on.

Research also the first hand accounts of “Struggle of being mixed race” and you’ll get a multitude of Tik-Tok videos of people talking about it. Not being black enough, not being Asian enough, not being White enough, not really looking like or resembling anyone. The social argument I was trying to make is that you’re obviously created a world where identity is deconstructed, people feel more lost, they don’t look like one another, and then corporations can more easily step in and tell them who they ought to be. More often than not they only end up associating with the aspect of their identity that is more favorable in the public sphere, which of course in recent days is Anti-White, so most mixed Whites either don’t know anything about their White history, or they outright hate it and reject it.

Social Cohesion necessitates Biological Cohesion.