Why Race Matters and Why the Races Don’t

“Under close scrutiny, the division into races according to the colour of skin turns out to be quite the crudest and most obvious method, since there are noticeably inheritable characteristic racial differences among people of identically coloured skins.” - Alfred Rosenberg

Unquestioning acceptance of current racial terminology is the greatest obstacle to proper racial understanding. Happily dividing his species into three colours, or three geographical continents, modern man has produced an ignorantly convenient picture of ‘races’, self-identification along which has created more problems than it has ever solved. We can persist through this dirty mess of racial identity, or wash away the remnants of a bygone era and pursue racial idealism.

The common anti-racist claim takes the form: “Race is a social construct.” Racists, misinterpreting this as a claim that the races are identical, respond with extensive anthropometric differences between the races. This can be attributed to poor formulation of the claim, which we propose should instead take the form: “The races are a social construct.” Hence the article title: “Why Race Matters and Why the Races Don’t”.

Why the Races Don’t Matter

“Cruelty and kindness are of all lands and of all times, just taking different expression in different surroundings” - Savitri Devi

Dismissal of “the races” is not denial of heritable diversity between the races, but recognition that classification of heritable diversity can be done in so many informative ways that focus on one classification to the exclusion of all others is intellectually dysfunctional. What they call racial awareness or race realism, we call racial tunnel vision.

For example, much is made of studies that show ”the races” vary in average IQ, yet it is statistical regularity that when a realistic data set is divided along any marker-based criterion, the resulting subsets are unlikely to have equal averages. If (for example) we regrouped IQ data by somatotype, we would find different average IQ for each somatotype. But we don’t see ‘Endomorph Nationalists’ on a forum called ‘Gutfront’ talking about the horrors of ’mesomorph-on-endomorph crime’ (mesomorphs are in fact the most crime-prone somatotype), flaming ‘metabolism-traitors’ for reproducing outside of their somatotype, and chanting “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Fat children.”

The predominance of ”the races” over other classifications is due solely to political utility in the post-Renaissance West. While some European powers justified their colonialism by borrowing ancient greatness (such as France claiming Roman lineage when North Africa came under French rule), British Imperialism introduced a hierarchical concept of ”the three races” (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid), a classification continued by post-independence America in policies relating to slavery and other issues, and consequently embedded into modern thought. Social and reproductive segregation along such lines caused separate cultures along these same lines to develop even in a single nation, making the classification a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Racist Cartoon

Racist cartoon, promoted by Zionist agents to White Nationalists

This “three races” classification was considered coarse even by pre-WWII academia, which preferred a strict anthropometric classification that returned a much larger number of races (but was politically unacceptable due to such verdicts as some East African phenotypes being more progressive than some West European phenotypes). That post-WWII academia - which should have been capable of still better scientific precision - came to implicitly endorse the “three races” classification is immediately suspicious. The Zionist agenda to cause race-based hostility would seem best served by as coarse a racial classification as possible, both so that statistics can be manipulated conveniently, and so that people can internalize the prejudices fed to them without studying the subject themselves.

The final hypocrisy is that many who self-identify with one of “the races” oppose further classification within their race, lest they ever personally turn out to belong to an inferior sub-bracket. Racists seek only vicarious elevation of status by group association, an exercise which must be promptly discontinued before it has a chance to lead to unflattering results. Racial identity is vanity, nothing more.

Why Race Matters

“The decisive problem which alone remained was thus: What was the method by which one was to find these men who as successors of the former creators of the body of our people and therefore as their heirs could today maintain their work? Here there was but one possibility: one could not from the race infer the capacity but one had to infer from the capacity the racial fitness for the task.” - Adolf Hitler

But the point is not just to switch to self-identification based on a more honest or more detailed racial classification, because in so doing we remain passive to past evolutionary circumstance. All racial identity promotes acceptance of the defects in whatever race one has decided to belong to (and corresponding attachment towards the cultural expressions of these defects). Racism is most dangerous not by its intolerance towards the out-group, but by its tolerance towards the in-group.

The only positive response is to take control and redefine race as a product of our control. We agree that culture is significantly a product of genetics. Unlike the ethnopreservationists, however, we despise the cultures they support. Their aim is to preserve their cultures, and thus by logic the gene pools that produced them. Our aim is to start fresh.

The simplest way to understand racial idealism is to think of a race as a genetic folk. If a folk is a people that work towards a common purpose, then a race is a people with a biological tendency to work towards a common purpose. Indeed any folk that reproduces with sufficiently strong selective pressure concordant with its purpose will, given enough time (which can be drastically shortened by appropriate state initiatives), become such a race.

Spartans were a product of racial idealism in this sense, bred in a society that selected against physical weakness and emotional sensitivity, and thus racially distinct from their fellow Greeks despite a common starting stock. African-American slaves were also a product of selective breeding for useful slave traits, which made them racially distinct from the West Africans from which they had originated. Jews too - and despite their multi-stock origin (Levantine/Khazarian/etc.) - can be considered a race in this sense, though their selection process is much more complex.

From these examples, it is evident that the term “racial idealism” on its own does not imply that the ideal itself is necessarily a good one. One of the key missions of Aryanism is to strive - come the time when a racial ideal must be chosen - for a choice based on noble traits rather than merely expedient traits. But to even reach the stage where we as a world are ready to discuss which racial ideal to pursue, racial idealism must first replace racial identity as the standard perspective.

To this end, we demand anyone wishing to advocate the interests of any existing ‘race’ (actually ethnicity) first be able to supply precisely the purpose - which cannot be based on self-referential preservationism - for which this ‘race’ exists. Once the purpose is supplied, we can then question whether the given ‘race’ is optimized to serve this purpose.

“Race is a social construct” now takes on a new meaning altogether: that we have it in our power to construct the race to come.

Racial Idealism