Great work Keith! Know creating this must've taken a really long time to formulate, source, and write. This should serve as a comprehensive guide to all questions about race and nationalism for a long time.
Many of the topics mentioned on that page are already mentioned in the Race FAQs or on external pages that the FAQs link to.
I might add or link some of the ideas listed there, but I'm not adding all of them because many of those studies are cherry-picked and/or are too one-sided.
on race mixing,Western European Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Proto-Indo-Europeans are all the same race, they are a distinct sub clade of the European race. if you were to out breed to another race you will reduce your races genetic diversity, but if you were to procreate to your own kind your children will keep the unique genetics of your race as well your children will be more genetically similar to you.
The whole reason why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place as an alternative to asexual reproduction is because it increased the genetic diversity of the descendant organisms, which increased their fitness. This allowed all sorts of adaptive, interesting, and creative organisms to arise during the Cambrian Explosion and its aftermath that otherwise never would’ve spawned into existence. Organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction only pass on ~50% of their genes, whereas organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction tend to pass on ~100% of their genes. It doesn’t matter that sexually reproducing organisms pass on a smaller percentage of their genes because the objective goal and meaning of life is to reproduce, not for an organism to spread genes by producing exact copies of oneself. Modern humans would not exist today if organisms were supposed to care about having offspring that have as close to ~100% of their genes as possible, instead of caring about reproduction. Race idealists don’t understand this because they don’t fully understand evolution.
I wasn't saying you will pass down 100% of your genes, i was saying that you will keep more of your unique genes if you have a mate that is from the same stock, my family breeds horses and doges so i'm familiar with sexual selection.
Really well-executed article. Important topic, very neatly arranged, all the most important points covered in detail, with clarity.
I see race as more or less relevant to some, specifically those of us still belonging to distinct racial groups. As we should be, the more I travel the world the more I see people and think 'this person is indistinguishably Arab/Indian/Pakistani/Mestizo/Indigenous of 1,000 varieties; there is so much similarity in height, skin-tone, eyes, hair, facial features, height (or lack thereof) that a massive swathe of humanity is essentially indistinguishable from the rest.
Surely those with unique characteristics, especially characteristics that are desirable, should not be willing to be shamed for A.) recognising their uniqueness in the grand scheme of things, B.) wanting to represent that as comparing favourably to the endless brownoid hordes of the majority of the world (bless their hearts, and all due respect to them).
Joel Davis is always promoting 'racism', which in a sense I understand -- other than the willingness to use Trotskyist language. But, I do agree that it is time for race realism to take centre-stage culturally, and think that it is necessary that there is a rebirth in how we consider human anthropology, human biology, human neuroscience, and the science of race, ethnicity, and genetics. If there is not a revolution in thought related-to how we conceive of, and are able to discuss race: it will be used as a weapon against us, and means of turning everyone against everyone else.
I appreciate you bringing-up Ignatiev. I am thinking that maybe that is where E. Michael (Boomer) Jones got his ridiculous idea, that he was espousing recently, that the Irish are not White. What a ridiculous claim... 'Whiteness' is probably best characterised in genetics in the expression of the R1b halpogroup; the most common for Western Europeans. The Irish specifically have the highest ratios of R1b out of any population on Earth. So, we are not only White. We are literally as White as White can be.
There are too many people trying to confuse the issue of race and ethnicity, and stigmatise its discussion. We must do all we can to make clear sense of this issue, as it is vital -- and, I believe, one the understanding of which spells victory or loss for our people in the culture war; and the genetic war for the ages through the proliferation of our genetics. Again, thank you for your effort clarifying the issue, Keith!
The Jones type people are often just making that silly argument about the need to reject the enemy’s framing which is really nothing but the Democrats are the real racists idea. In a limited sense I can see the logic, “why should Latvians identify as white, that will make them coresponsible with white slave owners in the American South which will be used against them” but it’s not like any white ethnic group will be allowed to escape Bantufication through a sleight of hand like that. Colonized and oppressed Ireland is a fantastic example of how Europeans can’t escape their whiteness by refusing to acknowledge it and hoping that their enemies spare them. Ireland must pay for the real or imagined crimes of the British Empire too because they are intuited as being the same race as the Brits
Your point about the treatment of the Irish as far as identity politics and our very particular history. It is something I have covered in my own Substack content:
"I am an Irishman, and the fact that native Irish people are essentially forbidden from coming together, or to speak out about the interest of native Irish people without some keyboard warrior NPC or local resentful SJW poser decrying them as ‘racists’, ‘bigots’, or ‘white supremacists’ is beyond absurd. Sure… us patriarchal Irish oppressors! Because of our gruesome, murderous imperialist encroachments into Africa and South America that we must now atone for by relinquishing our homeland and identity! Oh, wait… That wasn’t us who did that!
But, what about our shameless involvement in all those wars of aggression against the innocent brown cherubs of the Middle-East, the carpet bombing of all those poor, huddled-masses to exploit their natural resources??? That wasn’t us either, lads! Well, I guess we were heavily involved in the slave trade for few hundred years(7), and I can’t deny that. But, then again, we were actually the slaves, so… we don’t owe anybody anything — other than owing to our ancestors who fought and died for our independence that we not allow our country to be once again taken over by nefarious foreign imperialists (I am talking about the illegitimate Federalist EU)."
I'm convinced a lot of the prominent whites are saying things just to get noticed. Saying the Irish "aren't white" will get him a lot of publicity, even if it's negative.
I think race is everything. I agree that a lot of mixed people look alike. Very hard to distinguish a Filipino from a Mexican, for example. But genetics is our programming, and it determines who and what we are, and moreover, how we move as a group. People like to point out someone doing this or that, as if it's a big thing for their race, but that's more the exception, than the rule, if you look at how their group moves.
But race IS the very foundation of what built our world, and how we advanced as a group. Our brains were honed in the Alps and our ancestors learned to survive four seasons, by their wits and creativity, and were probably smarter than most people today.
He conveniently did not explain himself or provide any supporting arguments/evidence. I even made a video about it he annoyed me so much with that stupid point.
Thanks for the kind words. I haven't done a book club for a while, but paid subscribers get sent a link to participate in the discussion in advance, then I upload the replay as an audio file. May announce one again soon.
Just subscribed Keith:) Hopefully you can continue to grow.
Yes, would love to get involved in some discussions and would be willing to help in any way that I can especially as I am close to graduating.
Lastly, here is a quote which may surprise you. The most prominent Sunni jurist, Imam Abu Haneefah (RA) said: “A non-Arab is not suitable in marriage for an Arab, nor is a non-Qurayshi Arab (suitable) for a Qurayshi.”
'Racists use this data to garner support. If this really is true, don't you worry what effect dispersing this knowledge would have in multiracial societies? From children bullying each other to hate crimes. I think we shouldn't talk about this.'
Essentially the Coleman Hughes Charles Murray debate.
I have an even more comprehensive Race FAQs on my website (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs), but I can certainly address that question directly on the page when I have time. I'm mixed-race myself btw (1/2 European, 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Cantonese) and so are both my parents and most of my family.
Thank you. We've needed an overall summary like this for quite a while. I have had this discussion with several people over the years, using the general arguments you make here, and it really works. Where things get most emotional though is when we include the Jews and their behaviors. Baby steps.
Thank you, Keith. I would also really appreciate it if you could spread the word too.
Although I'm good at writing concise and comprehensive essays and FAQs similar to that one, I have autism and social anxiety, so I'm not very good at sharing or spreading my essays around on social media, which kind of defeats the purpose of me writing them.
I am considering re-releasing my essays under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license to make it easier for other people to contribute and expand them. Please let me know if you're interested in this idea.
"White nationalists believe that race differences in crime and IQ are due to genes (genetic determinism), but they also believe that white people are completely controlled by Jewish propaganda. So they also believe in a very strong form of cultural determinism too, which is a contradiction."
If you're not going to give a rational rebuttal against anything that I've written, then stop wasting my time. The Race FAQs page that I've written is more phenomenal than anything that you could hope to create yourself. People who are truly successful in life don't go around insulting others on the Internet.
if you breed outside your racial group you are depleting it, it reduces biodiversity within group, if you breed to your own group you will preserve your lineage in whole
That is a wonderful resource when it pertains to the science. Congratulations on that effort, it's truly impressive. I have to add that once you transition away from the science and hard facts into ideology and beliefs, it is just your own opinions and no longer objective. It would make more sense if you separated the facts sections from the personal opinions and unverifiable representations.
Thank you, but I think the webpage is good as it is, and I can put whatever I want on my website.
I don't believe I've said anything in the Race FAQs that is false, unreasonable, or overly opinionated.
And for the few opinions that are sparse throughout the essay, I think most rational people can identify them and disagree with them if they choose to.
For that matter, if irrational people read the webpage, they'd probably say that the whole thing is either opinionated or false. Not everybody can agree on what is "true or false" or "fact vs opinion", so I don't think it matters much if I give my two cents in a few places as long as I've reasonably justified my perspective.
But if you don't like it, then you're welcome to create your own, as long as it respects copyright laws.
Fascinating read which guarantees a lot to think about. If this is right (and Woods seldom misses), it refutes a lot of the dogmas central to the political order across the western world. Right or wrong, these arguments must be heard. Make sure to show this article to your friends!
The distinct European groups are Germanics ( includes Nordics, Aryan), Celts, Gauls, Romans, and Slavs. Hellenics were once really white, but Greek is mixed now, but you still have some pure Greeks there. It's important to know what a white is, and I'm not going by the whole government thing. The gov classifies people as "Hispanic or Nonhispanic" and yet, their definition of "Hispanic" is incorrect. They classify Amerinds and Mestizos as "white", when "Hispanic" actually means someone of Iberian peninsula descent. Amerinds, aka Native Americans, are of Asiatic descent, and have NOT been breeding with the Spanish nonstop since 1492. They took their language and names, but this doesn't make them Spanish.
On a legal basis, Italians have certainly always been considered white. They were always allowed into white schools, permitted to intermarry with other white ethnicities, held full voting rights, served in white military units, and were allowed to hold positions of military command over other white soldiers — all of which would have been unthinkable for black and Asian citizens at various points in U.S. history.
Regarding miscegenation, Italian intermarriage with other white ethnicities was not only legal but rather common, to the point that the majority of marriages involving second-generation Italian immigrants in New Orleans around the time of the 1891 lynchings were with other white ethnicities.
Regarding their treatment within the military, there were even a number of Italian-American generals who held command over other white soldiers on both sides of the American Civil War, such as Edward Ferrero, Francis Spinola, and William Taliaferro. At the same time, during the American Civil War, the idea of using black soldiers, even in their own segregated units under white command, was extremely controversial.
It could be argued that social classification and legal classification are not necessarily equivalent. However, during times when differential treatment under the law was a significant aspect of American racial culture, it needs to be explained why these groups wouldn't simply have been classified or reclassified as non-white if they were genuinely perceived that way by the majority of Americans.
It's also worth noting that the Immigration Act of 1924, primarily motivated to restrict Italian immigration, nor any other immigration acts passed in U.S. history, explicitly targeted Italians or any other European ethnic groups specifically. The same cannot be said of non-European groups, who were explicitly targeted in a number of different immigration acts, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act. Again, this indicates a fundamental difference in the way non-Protestant European ethnic groups like Italians, and others who faced similar treatment like the Irish and Poles, were perceived within broader American culture compared to non-white groups.
None of this is to deny the social mistreatment these European immigrant groups received, but it is anachronistic to claim that this was the result of being perceived as part of a different racial category. Rather, during this time period, attempts to argue that these groups were non-white were post-hoc justifications for anti-Catholic/Orthodox sentiments and anti-immigrant sentiments more broadly, since questioning someone's whiteness was one of the gravest insults in 19th and early 20th-century America.
Yes, the written "law" and social practices are distinct. Nobody thinks Saudi Arabians are white and yet they are classified as white in the US Census (MENA).
Whites were known to bar Italians from white schools. Italians were lynched, as Italians. Booker T Washington said Southern Europeans might "create a racial problem in the South more difficult and more dangerous than that which is caused by the presence of the Negro." (p. 169).
I would also caution the idea of "white race" as a distinct category in the early 20th century – against Keith Wood's wishes – as the US Immigration Commission (1907-1910) counted "45 races or peoples among immigrants coming to the United States, and of these 36 are indigenous to Europe."
If you think most Italians are not white, then you must think Spaniards and some French are not, too. Olive skin, dark hair and eyes, does not make one "not white". Whites have a range of skin, hair, and eye colors, and it's the genetics that make one white.
Greeks, aka the real Hellenics, were true whites, but not now, as their nation has a lot of Middle Eastern, Turkish, etc., in it. Perhaps that's what you think of Spain, France, and Italy, but the original peoples were very much against mixing with nonwhites. But all of Europe is "changing" and you have pure Aryans mixing with nonwhites in current times. It only takes one mixing, one generation, to undo thousands of years of evolution, and to ruin one's heritage, yet people think nothing of it. Most Americans are vehemently concerned with eliminating racism, and won't even get excited when one of their own kind is savagely murdered in a true anti-white hate crime. They never speak up, and are only concerned about any backlash or bad feelings toward the nonwhite group. Most Americans worry about being perceived as racist, and they parrot what they've been taught in schools.
I have a few questions about your writing and would appreciate it if you could answer them. Thank you!
Question 1 - In the first several paragraphs of your writing you have attempted to describe the concepts of "race, ethnicity, nation,nationalism, a nation-state, etc..".
My first question is whether there have been some relevant and reliable books and resources authored by distinguished academics that you have used or quoted from directly while you attempted to explain each topic; or whether your work is merely based on your own opinions. It would be nice to see some statements backed by prominent intellectuals offering arguments for and against any of the topics. You presumably know that if you have used any academic resources, you must set out references and cite them correctly! If you have not used a combination of resources from well-known academics, you probably know your writing would not be considered an "essay", and if it was submitted as an essay, it would fail.
Q2- Please give me a definition of "white" objectively!
Q3- A large number of Iranian people, including my own mother, are exceptionally blond with blue, green, grey or hazel eye colours- much whiter and blonder than you. On what basis do you call yourself white and those who are blonder and whiter than you, not white?
Q4- Why weren't the Irish always considered "white"? ( 'No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs').
It’s no myth that the Irish looking for a room to rent in London in the early 60s could see this sign: 'No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs', which were common additions to rental adverts (often posted outside tobacconist shops). This racial discrimination was finally made illegal some years later.
Being "white" is a subjective Western concept that started from Imperialism and to Postcolonialism, and its political agendas are amplified by the Western propaganda machines.
Thank you, Keith, for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. However, I find myself in disagreement with one particular aspect.
But first, I find common ground with your assertion that if racial genetic differences can manifest in varied physical abilities among ethnic groups, as seen in sports, it follows that there might be distinctions in cognitive abilities and IQ across races. Further research on this topic should be explored and should not be a taboo or stigmatized subject.
It's crucial to recognize the existence of multiple types of intelligence, such as linguistic, musical, social, and emotional intelligence. Different races may excel in one area while lagging in another. Consider the proficiency of certain races in freestyling rhymes, which is notoriously challenging for other races.
In certain situations, social intelligence or physical abilities may be pivotal for survival. Nonetheless, in the contemporary era, a high IQ often correlates with success in the sciences, contributing to technological and scientific progress, societal advancement, and wealth accumulation. Presently, certain races, particularly those of European descent, tend to lead in this aspect.
Reflecting on history, I question whether perceptions of advanced races were fluid. Did less technologically advanced societies view ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians as a superior race?
However, where I differ or seek a more nuanced understanding is in the race/crime relationship.
1. While it's true that immigrants in Europe are associated with higher crime rates, If such a correlation were rooted in the inherent criminal tendencies of certain immigrant races as a whole, one would expect higher crime rates in their countries of origin. Yet, this is not consistently observed.
If the crime rate were 10x higher among a specific immigrant group compared to the indigenous population, one would logically anticipate the countries of origin for those immigrants to exhibit 10x the crime rate of that European country.
For instance, Senegal does not experience a crime rate that is 10x higher than that of France. In fact, for various offenses such as murder and robberies, Senegal exhibits lower rates than certain predominantly white countries like Estonia and Poland.
Morocco's reputation for safety is a key factor contributing to its popularity as a tourist destination. Moreover, many other African countries demonstrate lower crime rates, depending on the specific offense, when compared to predominantly white countries. It's noteworthy that the British government's stance on Rwanda as a safe destination for deporting illegal migrants is not unfounded.
2. One might anticipate that countries with substantial immigration would experience elevated crime rates, yet this is not the case. Contrarily, the UAE and Qatar, consistently recognized as among the safest countries globally, have extensive immigration, with up to 90% of their populations comprising immigrants from South Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan etc, Only 10% are indigenous. The question arises: Why do Algerian immigrants for eg seemingly contribute to a 10x increase in crime in Germany but not in the UAE?
3. The focus on traditional crime statistics overlooks white-collar crimes that can have profound societal impacts. A single large-scale white-collar crime may have repercussions equivalent to numerous petty offenses.
For instance, a million-dollar crypto fraud might register as a single crime in official statistics, yet its effects could be equivalent to 1000 instances of small-scale shoplifting.
white-collar crimes like tax evasion and sophisticated fraud, causing millions in losses to the system, often result in the ordinary working man bearing the financial burden, albeit going largely unnoticed.
It has taken us more than ten years of endless discussions, streams, articles and search for hidden knowledge to get to this excellent article. This is it, no reason to hate, no reason to be fooled, only reasons to move forward. Everyone from every race should read this.
I really appreciate this article because, though I lean on the race realism side of things, anything E. Michael Jones says I usually take seriously. I think this article very concisely and honestly rebuts his arguments regarding race.
Good academic type paper available which fits nicely in this discussion. It is an interesting mix of history, linguistics, and genetics to trace where a certain group have likely originated from.
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
Authors: Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik
Great work Keith! Know creating this must've taken a really long time to formulate, source, and write. This should serve as a comprehensive guide to all questions about race and nationalism for a long time.
Thank you. That's my hope.
It's more of a short term strategy to promote ethnicity over race for effectiveness, but long term, race is going to be the real stable factor.
I have a Race FAQs that is even more comprehensive, and it's still continuing to expand: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs.
you should add this to your page https://archive.vn/LPnXH
Many of the topics mentioned on that page are already mentioned in the Race FAQs or on external pages that the FAQs link to.
I might add or link some of the ideas listed there, but I'm not adding all of them because many of those studies are cherry-picked and/or are too one-sided.
You can often find a study that says whatever you want it to say. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-most-academic-research-is-fake.html
on race mixing,Western European Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Proto-Indo-Europeans are all the same race, they are a distinct sub clade of the European race. if you were to out breed to another race you will reduce your races genetic diversity, but if you were to procreate to your own kind your children will keep the unique genetics of your race as well your children will be more genetically similar to you.
The whole reason why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place as an alternative to asexual reproduction is because it increased the genetic diversity of the descendant organisms, which increased their fitness. This allowed all sorts of adaptive, interesting, and creative organisms to arise during the Cambrian Explosion and its aftermath that otherwise never would’ve spawned into existence. Organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction only pass on ~50% of their genes, whereas organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction tend to pass on ~100% of their genes. It doesn’t matter that sexually reproducing organisms pass on a smaller percentage of their genes because the objective goal and meaning of life is to reproduce, not for an organism to spread genes by producing exact copies of oneself. Modern humans would not exist today if organisms were supposed to care about having offspring that have as close to ~100% of their genes as possible, instead of caring about reproduction. Race idealists don’t understand this because they don’t fully understand evolution.
See: [Misconceptions About Race-Mixing](https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#misconceptions-about-race-mixing)
thank you, your research is very in depth.
I wasn't saying you will pass down 100% of your genes, i was saying that you will keep more of your unique genes if you have a mate that is from the same stock, my family breeds horses and doges so i'm familiar with sexual selection.
Really well-executed article. Important topic, very neatly arranged, all the most important points covered in detail, with clarity.
I see race as more or less relevant to some, specifically those of us still belonging to distinct racial groups. As we should be, the more I travel the world the more I see people and think 'this person is indistinguishably Arab/Indian/Pakistani/Mestizo/Indigenous of 1,000 varieties; there is so much similarity in height, skin-tone, eyes, hair, facial features, height (or lack thereof) that a massive swathe of humanity is essentially indistinguishable from the rest.
Surely those with unique characteristics, especially characteristics that are desirable, should not be willing to be shamed for A.) recognising their uniqueness in the grand scheme of things, B.) wanting to represent that as comparing favourably to the endless brownoid hordes of the majority of the world (bless their hearts, and all due respect to them).
Joel Davis is always promoting 'racism', which in a sense I understand -- other than the willingness to use Trotskyist language. But, I do agree that it is time for race realism to take centre-stage culturally, and think that it is necessary that there is a rebirth in how we consider human anthropology, human biology, human neuroscience, and the science of race, ethnicity, and genetics. If there is not a revolution in thought related-to how we conceive of, and are able to discuss race: it will be used as a weapon against us, and means of turning everyone against everyone else.
I appreciate you bringing-up Ignatiev. I am thinking that maybe that is where E. Michael (Boomer) Jones got his ridiculous idea, that he was espousing recently, that the Irish are not White. What a ridiculous claim... 'Whiteness' is probably best characterised in genetics in the expression of the R1b halpogroup; the most common for Western Europeans. The Irish specifically have the highest ratios of R1b out of any population on Earth. So, we are not only White. We are literally as White as White can be.
There are too many people trying to confuse the issue of race and ethnicity, and stigmatise its discussion. We must do all we can to make clear sense of this issue, as it is vital -- and, I believe, one the understanding of which spells victory or loss for our people in the culture war; and the genetic war for the ages through the proliferation of our genetics. Again, thank you for your effort clarifying the issue, Keith!
The Jones type people are often just making that silly argument about the need to reject the enemy’s framing which is really nothing but the Democrats are the real racists idea. In a limited sense I can see the logic, “why should Latvians identify as white, that will make them coresponsible with white slave owners in the American South which will be used against them” but it’s not like any white ethnic group will be allowed to escape Bantufication through a sleight of hand like that. Colonized and oppressed Ireland is a fantastic example of how Europeans can’t escape their whiteness by refusing to acknowledge it and hoping that their enemies spare them. Ireland must pay for the real or imagined crimes of the British Empire too because they are intuited as being the same race as the Brits
Your point about the treatment of the Irish as far as identity politics and our very particular history. It is something I have covered in my own Substack content:
"I am an Irishman, and the fact that native Irish people are essentially forbidden from coming together, or to speak out about the interest of native Irish people without some keyboard warrior NPC or local resentful SJW poser decrying them as ‘racists’, ‘bigots’, or ‘white supremacists’ is beyond absurd. Sure… us patriarchal Irish oppressors! Because of our gruesome, murderous imperialist encroachments into Africa and South America that we must now atone for by relinquishing our homeland and identity! Oh, wait… That wasn’t us who did that!
But, what about our shameless involvement in all those wars of aggression against the innocent brown cherubs of the Middle-East, the carpet bombing of all those poor, huddled-masses to exploit their natural resources??? That wasn’t us either, lads! Well, I guess we were heavily involved in the slave trade for few hundred years(7), and I can’t deny that. But, then again, we were actually the slaves, so… we don’t owe anybody anything — other than owing to our ancestors who fought and died for our independence that we not allow our country to be once again taken over by nefarious foreign imperialists (I am talking about the illegitimate Federalist EU)."
I'm convinced a lot of the prominent whites are saying things just to get noticed. Saying the Irish "aren't white" will get him a lot of publicity, even if it's negative.
I think race is everything. I agree that a lot of mixed people look alike. Very hard to distinguish a Filipino from a Mexican, for example. But genetics is our programming, and it determines who and what we are, and moreover, how we move as a group. People like to point out someone doing this or that, as if it's a big thing for their race, but that's more the exception, than the rule, if you look at how their group moves.
But race IS the very foundation of what built our world, and how we advanced as a group. Our brains were honed in the Alps and our ancestors learned to survive four seasons, by their wits and creativity, and were probably smarter than most people today.
So odd he would say Irish are not white! What race does he claim the Irish to be then?
He conveniently did not explain himself or provide any supporting arguments/evidence. I even made a video about it he annoyed me so much with that stupid point.
Doesn't want to go against the bible. Why religion will not save us.
100% agreed with you on that!
God bless you, Keith.
This is exactly the kind of coverage I've been looking for on the issue of race and ethnicity.
P.S. May I ask how the Book Club works? Do you plan to do some in-person events/discussions in the future?
Thanks for the kind words. I haven't done a book club for a while, but paid subscribers get sent a link to participate in the discussion in advance, then I upload the replay as an audio file. May announce one again soon.
Just subscribed Keith:) Hopefully you can continue to grow.
Yes, would love to get involved in some discussions and would be willing to help in any way that I can especially as I am close to graduating.
Lastly, here is a quote which may surprise you. The most prominent Sunni jurist, Imam Abu Haneefah (RA) said: “A non-Arab is not suitable in marriage for an Arab, nor is a non-Qurayshi Arab (suitable) for a Qurayshi.”
Great consolidation of all the keys arguments. Good to share with normies.
You should add a question like:
'Racists use this data to garner support. If this really is true, don't you worry what effect dispersing this knowledge would have in multiracial societies? From children bullying each other to hate crimes. I think we shouldn't talk about this.'
Essentially the Coleman Hughes Charles Murray debate.
I have an even more comprehensive Race FAQs on my website (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs), but I can certainly address that question directly on the page when I have time. I'm mixed-race myself btw (1/2 European, 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Cantonese) and so are both my parents and most of my family.
Thank you for recommending that question.
Thank you. We've needed an overall summary like this for quite a while. I have had this discussion with several people over the years, using the general arguments you make here, and it really works. Where things get most emotional though is when we include the Jews and their behaviors. Baby steps.
Jews are semitic, even when they've mixed (ashkenazi).
I've written a similar, yet longer FAQs about Race: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs
This is really comprehensive, will bookmark it
Thank you, Keith. I would also really appreciate it if you could spread the word too.
Although I'm good at writing concise and comprehensive essays and FAQs similar to that one, I have autism and social anxiety, so I'm not very good at sharing or spreading my essays around on social media, which kind of defeats the purpose of me writing them.
I am considering re-releasing my essays under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license to make it easier for other people to contribute and expand them. Please let me know if you're interested in this idea.
your arguments listed suck
"White nationalists believe that race differences in crime and IQ are due to genes (genetic determinism), but they also believe that white people are completely controlled by Jewish propaganda. So they also believe in a very strong form of cultural determinism too, which is a contradiction."
If you're not going to give a rational rebuttal against anything that I've written, then stop wasting my time. The Race FAQs page that I've written is more phenomenal than anything that you could hope to create yourself. People who are truly successful in life don't go around insulting others on the Internet.
if you breed outside your racial group you are depleting it, it reduces biodiversity within group, if you breed to your own group you will preserve your lineage in whole
Your arguments were already addressed in the Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#misconceptions-about-race-mixing
That is a wonderful resource when it pertains to the science. Congratulations on that effort, it's truly impressive. I have to add that once you transition away from the science and hard facts into ideology and beliefs, it is just your own opinions and no longer objective. It would make more sense if you separated the facts sections from the personal opinions and unverifiable representations.
Thank you, but I think the webpage is good as it is, and I can put whatever I want on my website.
I don't believe I've said anything in the Race FAQs that is false, unreasonable, or overly opinionated.
And for the few opinions that are sparse throughout the essay, I think most rational people can identify them and disagree with them if they choose to.
For that matter, if irrational people read the webpage, they'd probably say that the whole thing is either opinionated or false. Not everybody can agree on what is "true or false" or "fact vs opinion", so I don't think it matters much if I give my two cents in a few places as long as I've reasonably justified my perspective.
But if you don't like it, then you're welcome to create your own, as long as it respects copyright laws.
Fascinating read which guarantees a lot to think about. If this is right (and Woods seldom misses), it refutes a lot of the dogmas central to the political order across the western world. Right or wrong, these arguments must be heard. Make sure to show this article to your friends!
Italians were not considered white. This is well covered in John Higham’s book Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925.
I think you missed the 'race' and 'ethnicity' distinction.
I didn’t. Wood wrote about it well.
The distinct European groups are Germanics ( includes Nordics, Aryan), Celts, Gauls, Romans, and Slavs. Hellenics were once really white, but Greek is mixed now, but you still have some pure Greeks there. It's important to know what a white is, and I'm not going by the whole government thing. The gov classifies people as "Hispanic or Nonhispanic" and yet, their definition of "Hispanic" is incorrect. They classify Amerinds and Mestizos as "white", when "Hispanic" actually means someone of Iberian peninsula descent. Amerinds, aka Native Americans, are of Asiatic descent, and have NOT been breeding with the Spanish nonstop since 1492. They took their language and names, but this doesn't make them Spanish.
On a legal basis, Italians have certainly always been considered white. They were always allowed into white schools, permitted to intermarry with other white ethnicities, held full voting rights, served in white military units, and were allowed to hold positions of military command over other white soldiers — all of which would have been unthinkable for black and Asian citizens at various points in U.S. history.
Regarding miscegenation, Italian intermarriage with other white ethnicities was not only legal but rather common, to the point that the majority of marriages involving second-generation Italian immigrants in New Orleans around the time of the 1891 lynchings were with other white ethnicities.
Regarding their treatment within the military, there were even a number of Italian-American generals who held command over other white soldiers on both sides of the American Civil War, such as Edward Ferrero, Francis Spinola, and William Taliaferro. At the same time, during the American Civil War, the idea of using black soldiers, even in their own segregated units under white command, was extremely controversial.
It could be argued that social classification and legal classification are not necessarily equivalent. However, during times when differential treatment under the law was a significant aspect of American racial culture, it needs to be explained why these groups wouldn't simply have been classified or reclassified as non-white if they were genuinely perceived that way by the majority of Americans.
It's also worth noting that the Immigration Act of 1924, primarily motivated to restrict Italian immigration, nor any other immigration acts passed in U.S. history, explicitly targeted Italians or any other European ethnic groups specifically. The same cannot be said of non-European groups, who were explicitly targeted in a number of different immigration acts, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act. Again, this indicates a fundamental difference in the way non-Protestant European ethnic groups like Italians, and others who faced similar treatment like the Irish and Poles, were perceived within broader American culture compared to non-white groups.
None of this is to deny the social mistreatment these European immigrant groups received, but it is anachronistic to claim that this was the result of being perceived as part of a different racial category. Rather, during this time period, attempts to argue that these groups were non-white were post-hoc justifications for anti-Catholic/Orthodox sentiments and anti-immigrant sentiments more broadly, since questioning someone's whiteness was one of the gravest insults in 19th and early 20th-century America.
Yes, the written "law" and social practices are distinct. Nobody thinks Saudi Arabians are white and yet they are classified as white in the US Census (MENA).
Whites were known to bar Italians from white schools. Italians were lynched, as Italians. Booker T Washington said Southern Europeans might "create a racial problem in the South more difficult and more dangerous than that which is caused by the presence of the Negro." (p. 169).
I would also caution the idea of "white race" as a distinct category in the early 20th century – against Keith Wood's wishes – as the US Immigration Commission (1907-1910) counted "45 races or peoples among immigrants coming to the United States, and of these 36 are indigenous to Europe."
If you think most Italians are not white, then you must think Spaniards and some French are not, too. Olive skin, dark hair and eyes, does not make one "not white". Whites have a range of skin, hair, and eye colors, and it's the genetics that make one white.
Greeks, aka the real Hellenics, were true whites, but not now, as their nation has a lot of Middle Eastern, Turkish, etc., in it. Perhaps that's what you think of Spain, France, and Italy, but the original peoples were very much against mixing with nonwhites. But all of Europe is "changing" and you have pure Aryans mixing with nonwhites in current times. It only takes one mixing, one generation, to undo thousands of years of evolution, and to ruin one's heritage, yet people think nothing of it. Most Americans are vehemently concerned with eliminating racism, and won't even get excited when one of their own kind is savagely murdered in a true anti-white hate crime. They never speak up, and are only concerned about any backlash or bad feelings toward the nonwhite group. Most Americans worry about being perceived as racist, and they parrot what they've been taught in schools.
I suggest reading March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp.
J P Rushton's books are great too.
Based book. My absolute favorite. I second this.
I have a few questions about your writing and would appreciate it if you could answer them. Thank you!
Question 1 - In the first several paragraphs of your writing you have attempted to describe the concepts of "race, ethnicity, nation,nationalism, a nation-state, etc..".
My first question is whether there have been some relevant and reliable books and resources authored by distinguished academics that you have used or quoted from directly while you attempted to explain each topic; or whether your work is merely based on your own opinions. It would be nice to see some statements backed by prominent intellectuals offering arguments for and against any of the topics. You presumably know that if you have used any academic resources, you must set out references and cite them correctly! If you have not used a combination of resources from well-known academics, you probably know your writing would not be considered an "essay", and if it was submitted as an essay, it would fail.
Q2- Please give me a definition of "white" objectively!
Q3- A large number of Iranian people, including my own mother, are exceptionally blond with blue, green, grey or hazel eye colours- much whiter and blonder than you. On what basis do you call yourself white and those who are blonder and whiter than you, not white?
Q4- Why weren't the Irish always considered "white"? ( 'No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs').
It’s no myth that the Irish looking for a room to rent in London in the early 60s could see this sign: 'No Blacks, no Irish, no dogs', which were common additions to rental adverts (often posted outside tobacconist shops). This racial discrimination was finally made illegal some years later.
Being "white" is a subjective Western concept that started from Imperialism and to Postcolonialism, and its political agendas are amplified by the Western propaganda machines.
Thank you, Keith, for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. However, I find myself in disagreement with one particular aspect.
But first, I find common ground with your assertion that if racial genetic differences can manifest in varied physical abilities among ethnic groups, as seen in sports, it follows that there might be distinctions in cognitive abilities and IQ across races. Further research on this topic should be explored and should not be a taboo or stigmatized subject.
It's crucial to recognize the existence of multiple types of intelligence, such as linguistic, musical, social, and emotional intelligence. Different races may excel in one area while lagging in another. Consider the proficiency of certain races in freestyling rhymes, which is notoriously challenging for other races.
In certain situations, social intelligence or physical abilities may be pivotal for survival. Nonetheless, in the contemporary era, a high IQ often correlates with success in the sciences, contributing to technological and scientific progress, societal advancement, and wealth accumulation. Presently, certain races, particularly those of European descent, tend to lead in this aspect.
Reflecting on history, I question whether perceptions of advanced races were fluid. Did less technologically advanced societies view ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians as a superior race?
However, where I differ or seek a more nuanced understanding is in the race/crime relationship.
1. While it's true that immigrants in Europe are associated with higher crime rates, If such a correlation were rooted in the inherent criminal tendencies of certain immigrant races as a whole, one would expect higher crime rates in their countries of origin. Yet, this is not consistently observed.
If the crime rate were 10x higher among a specific immigrant group compared to the indigenous population, one would logically anticipate the countries of origin for those immigrants to exhibit 10x the crime rate of that European country.
For instance, Senegal does not experience a crime rate that is 10x higher than that of France. In fact, for various offenses such as murder and robberies, Senegal exhibits lower rates than certain predominantly white countries like Estonia and Poland.
Morocco's reputation for safety is a key factor contributing to its popularity as a tourist destination. Moreover, many other African countries demonstrate lower crime rates, depending on the specific offense, when compared to predominantly white countries. It's noteworthy that the British government's stance on Rwanda as a safe destination for deporting illegal migrants is not unfounded.
2. One might anticipate that countries with substantial immigration would experience elevated crime rates, yet this is not the case. Contrarily, the UAE and Qatar, consistently recognized as among the safest countries globally, have extensive immigration, with up to 90% of their populations comprising immigrants from South Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan etc, Only 10% are indigenous. The question arises: Why do Algerian immigrants for eg seemingly contribute to a 10x increase in crime in Germany but not in the UAE?
3. The focus on traditional crime statistics overlooks white-collar crimes that can have profound societal impacts. A single large-scale white-collar crime may have repercussions equivalent to numerous petty offenses.
For instance, a million-dollar crypto fraud might register as a single crime in official statistics, yet its effects could be equivalent to 1000 instances of small-scale shoplifting.
white-collar crimes like tax evasion and sophisticated fraud, causing millions in losses to the system, often result in the ordinary working man bearing the financial burden, albeit going largely unnoticed.
It has taken us more than ten years of endless discussions, streams, articles and search for hidden knowledge to get to this excellent article. This is it, no reason to hate, no reason to be fooled, only reasons to move forward. Everyone from every race should read this.
I really appreciate this article because, though I lean on the race realism side of things, anything E. Michael Jones says I usually take seriously. I think this article very concisely and honestly rebuts his arguments regarding race.
Good academic type paper available which fits nicely in this discussion. It is an interesting mix of history, linguistics, and genetics to trace where a certain group have likely originated from.
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
Authors: Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik
"Why Race Matters" by Michael Levin was a great book on the same topic