Philosophy of Race FAQs

These examples are meant to show that race is far more than a supposed “social construct”. Every race has genes that make its people better adapted to survive in the environmental conditions that their ancestors evolved to live in (see the second half of this essay for a concise informative explanation of how evolution works). This is an incomplete list of examples:

• Bone density strongly varies depending on race, with Asians having the lowest bone densities, and Sub-Saharan Africans having the highest bone densities. Source
• Despite having lower average bone mineral density than most other racial groups, Chinese women have lower rates of spine fractures than white women and much lower rates of hip fractures than white women, due to differences in hip geometry and bone microarchitecture. Source
• African Americans don’t require as much calcium and vitamin D to maintain good bone health as other ethnic groups. Source
• The Huaorani tribe in the Amazon rainforest spend much time climbing trees in order to hunt monkeys. They thus evolved to have very flat feet, which help them to climb trees. Source
• East Asians tend to have shorter statures since this made it easier to work in rice fields for several hours, days on end.
• Pygymies have the shortest human statures in the world. Pygymy adult men are on average less than 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) tall. There are probably multiple reasons why they evolved to be this height. Source

• Sinodonty and Sundadonty dentitions occur among East Asian, Southeast Asian, and American Indian populations, but not among other races. Source
• Shovel-shaped incisors are significantly common in Amerindians from North, Central and South America. They are also common in East and Central Asians, Hungarians, the Inuit and Aleut peoples of Northeast Asia and North America (including but not limited to the Inuit peoples of eastern Alaska, arctic Canada and Greenland). In European and African groups, shovel-shaped upper incisors are uncommon or not present. Source
• The prevalence of wisdom teeth depending on race. Agenesis of wisdom teeth ranges from almost 0% in Aboriginal Tasmanians to nearly 100% in indigenous Mexicans. East Asians also tend to have fewer wisdom teeth. Source
• Different populations have different frequencies of gene variants that cause wet or dry earwax, differences in body odor, and potentially even the risk of cancer. East Asians have dry earwax almost exclusively Source 1, Source 2. This is also an example of a Mendelian trait. Source 3
• There are likely genetic differences between Black and White females regarding the age when the first menstrual cycle (menarche) occurs. Source

This is just a words game and a Continuum Fallacy:

X and Y are two extremes on a spectrum. There is no clear point at which X becomes Y, therefore, X and Y do not exist.

If races don’t exist because they exist on a continuum, then colors don’t exist either because colors also exist on a continuum, but it’s clearly useful to distinguish colors by name, so this is a contradiction. If someone uses words to refer to races or specific colors while continuing to deny that they exist, then they are using tactical nihilism.

Subspecies or races are not branches on a tree, although sometimes they are depicted that way for convenience. They are more like waves on a choppy sea. The bumpy surface represents the distribution of genetic variants. Each bump is a cluster of similar individuals – a race – but the area between those waves is not empty. There are intermediate forms, genes flow between the bumps, and the bumps change over time. This metaphor is called “adaptive topography”.

Even if the distribution of human groups is continuous with no distinct genetic or phenotypic breaks (and it often is), that wouldn’t render each group along the distribution non-existent, nor would it render the differences between each group insignificant. That would be tantamount to saying yellow is equivalent to orange. Sometimes racial groups are even separated by geographic landmarks, such as deserts and mountains, which enable us to clearly identify definitive regions and groups.

But clines are a better way to describe human genetic diversity than races.

A cline is defined as a gradation in one measurable physical or genetic characteristic, within or between biological groups. Some race-denialists try to replace the word ’race’ with ’cline’, but this doesn’t clarify anything. The stress on the “clinial” nature of human population and genetic distribution is just motivated obfuscation, as is much of the discussion on inherited human differences.

Genetic analysis can separate humanity into reasonably distinct taxons. There are multiple different racial taxonomies, and they each vary depending on the context and how the threshold parameters for dividing taxons are set. Hence, racial groups can be lumped into vast continental-scale agglomerations or split as finely as you like. For example, Siberians could considered a separate race in one taxonomy model, while being considered a subset of East Asians in another model. That said, every system of categorization runs into disputes between “lumpers” and “splitters”. Whether lumping or splitting is more appropriate depends upon the situation.

If the word “cline” wasn’t abused to deny the validity of racial categories (and biological differences by extension), it could potentially be a useful term, similar to how dialect continuum can be a useful term in linguistics for emphasizing gradual variations across geographical distances. Races are to languages as clines are to dialect continuums. But even then, linguists still find it useful to divide dialect continuums into zones or subdivisions (e.g. the Guthrie classification of Bantu languages). So even when we replace the word “language” with “dialect continuum”, we still kind of end up back where we started in order to talk about the linguistic differences across the dialect continuum. The same goes for “race” versus “cline”. Most linguists wouldn’t have any problems with dividing a dialect continuum up into zones to understand it better. They might debate where the exact boundaries of the zones are, but that’s about it. That said, this highlights their hypocrisy when they take issue with defining racial categories that also exist on a continuum.

Since the genetic definitions of various races are defined by clusters of multiple characteristics, rejecting the validity of defining racial categories also requires rejecting the validity of all the other general variables in this list since their validity is justified by similar logic, lest there be contradicting beliefs. Most people wouldn’t reject those variables though, which suggests that it’s valid to define racial categories since they have predictive and explanatory power.

The existence of an “ideal” number of clusters is not required for there to be validity to the structure we find in the clusters. When one chooses n+1 clusters instead of choosing n clusters, the effect is splitting a cluster rather than reshuffling all the clusters. Then what you usually see is individuals staying in their current cluster and also being assigned to a sub-cluster. There isn’t any “moving from one cluster to another cluster”, except perhaps some fuzziness on the edges, which does not destroy the validity of the concept. If you look closely at this chart showing the genetic similarities and differences of modern humans, what we find is that:

• When K=1, the cluster is all of humanity.
• When K=2, the clusters are Sub-Saharan Africans (which are still in the “humanity” cluster) and Non-Sub-Saharan Africans (which are still in the “humanity” cluster).
• When K=3, the clusters are Sub-Saharan Africans, West Eurasians (which are still in the “Non-Sub-Saharan African cluster) and East-Eurasian+Amerindians (which are still in the ”Non-Sub-Saharan African“ cluster)
• When K=4, the clusters roughly correspond to Sub-Saharan Africans, West Eurasians, East Eurasians (which are still in the East-Eurasian+Amerindians cluster) and Amerindians (which are still in the East-Eurasian+Amerindians cluster)
• When K=5, the clusters roughly correspond to Khoisan (which are still in the Sub-Saharan African cluster), non-Khoisan Sub-Saharan-Africans (which are still in the Sub-Saharan African cluster), West Eurasians, East Eurasians, and Amerindians.
• When K=6, the South Eurasian cluster splits from East Asians. This ancestry is found at high levels in Oceania and South India, and low levels throughout East and Southeast Asia.
• When K=7, Siberians appear as a separate group, distinct from East Asians. Even at this level of analysis, Siberia is relatively heterogeneous. The vast region is accessible to a diverse range of racial and ethnic groups and historical migrations. As a result, the Siberian population carries East Asian, West Eurasian, and Amerindian ancestry.
• When K=8, South Asians appear as a distinct group. Ancestry components previously classified as West Eurasian and South Eurasian (blue and purple) are now almost entirely South Asian (green). This green component most likely represents a prehistoric population descended from both West and South Eurasian peoples.
• When K=9, the West Eurasian splits into European and West Asian. The latter is labeled as such (rather than the usual Middle-Eastern-North-African) because this ancestry component likely originated in West Asia before spreading to North Africa via an ‘into Africa’ return migration.
• And so on and so forth.

The “race exists” position is “there is some inherent structure in all this”.

The “race doesn’t exist” position is “there is no inherent structure in all this and/or there are no phenotypical implications of any of this”

That could be true if our society isn’t rational enough to fully understand the implications of biology, statistics, and probabilistic inference. But to argue that race isn’t real is to reinforce the assumption that racial achievement gaps are completely environmental and must be caused by some sort of historical “social injustice”, which leads to support for “Critical Race Theory”, affirmative action, and anti-white and anti-Asian racism in order to make up for those gaps. We don’t see how that’s any better. If it is indeed the case that different races are genetically predisposed to have different behaviors, then we ought to accept the reality.

To be ignorant of racial differences is equivalent to denying racial differences, which is equivalent to denying reality. We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Even if we wanted to ignore racial differences, we could never completely ignore them in practice. The biological reality of race is still evident when people need organ transplants, when some people are at risk of disease but not others, why racial disparities continue to exist despite social intervention, regarding who tends to wins Olympic sports, and much more.

Furthermore, knowledge highlighting racial and genetic diversity doesn’t always have to be negative, nor should it be. If different races (and different people) tend to have different strengths and weaknesses, then it makes sense for a rational society to figure out how to leverage every person’s strengths, while brainstorming how to mitigate or cover every person’s weaknesses. This cannot be done if we ignore racial and genetic differences. Diversity and specialization should go hand in hand.

Lastly, we’ve clarified that averages and exceptions exist for all races, which makes it irrational to discriminate against people by race, instead of by individual characteristics.

But race realism has been used as an excuse to justify slavery, segregation, and racism during the Age of Colonization.

That is true, but that’s not an argument against race realism. If people are dedicated to being racist, they’ll think of anything to rationalize their beliefs. Regardless, recognizing differences between humans does not imply hatred of humans. People who believe “we ought to treat people the same regardless of race” aren’t going to start suddenly hating other humans if it’s revealed that IQ distributions and other behavioral and physiological characteristics vary by race. If anything, recognizing differences between humans is important for forming a functional society.

This depends on what is meant by “better”, and in what context. No respectable race realist would say that there is a master race, because the whole reason why races are different from each other in the first place is because they each evolved genes and traits that enhanced their ancestors’ ability to reproduce in their respective environments. For example, it is easier for Sub-Saharan Africans to live near the equator than Europeans because they have genetic resistance against diseases like skin cancer and malaria. On the other hand, it’s harder for black people to live in a place like pre-Industrial Europe (compared to white people) since they would be more prone to Vitamin D deficiency, would probably have lactose intolerance, and other factors. Race Realism is about understanding that every race has genes that made them more reproductively successful in their ancestral environments, hence why different races tend to excel at different things.

Lastly, even if it were the case that one race was always “better” than the others, that still would not be good grounds to treat people differently based on nothing but their race because we’ve explained that there are statistical outliers for every race.

The possibility that statistical outliers may exist within a data set is precisely the reason why racism is irrational. Even if race A has consistently lower crime rates and consistently higher average IQs than race B, it would be dangerous to assume that that would be the case for every single person belonging to race A, and equally wrong to assume that every single person belonging to race B is going to be less intelligent or more likely to commit crimes that every single person from race A. Individuals should always be treated based on merit, not congenital demographic properties.

Additionally, even if it is the case that Amerindians and Sub-Saharan Africans commit disproportionately more crimes than Europeans, East Asians, East Indians, etc, it can simultaneously be the case that most people from those races are law-abiding and don’t commit any crimes. Similarly, the smartest people who ever lived may have been European or East Asian, but that does not conclude that every European or East Asian is going to be a genius. Generally speaking, the people who commit crimes and the people who have built humanity’s greatest inventions tend to be on the extreme tail ends of the normal curve(s). For further explanation of these statistics, see: Contra Jared Taylor - Eternal Anglo.

Aren’t most / all racial disparities better explained by environmental factors?

No. If there exist racial disparities and achievement gaps between races, and different races are defined by having different genetics, then Occam’s Razor concludes that genetic differences should be the default hypothesis for explaining why racial disparities exist. That doesn’t mean we assume that every difference is genetic, but that is the default explanation. We should only consider other explanations if there is data that cannot be explained by the simplest explanation (i.e. genetic differences).

The causal connection between environment and social outcomes is no more straight-forward than the causal connection between genes and social outcomes. We know that genes affect brain development. We also know that social outcomes are affected by individual actions, and individual actions are generated by brains. So, there is no mystery about the causal pathway between genetics and social outcomes.

Evolved differences in mental traits are no less likely than evolved differences in skin color, hair type, bone structure, disease immunity, metabolism, etc. The belief in the equality of mental traits between races is a religious assumption. It has no rational/scientific basis. On the other hand, there’s many reasons to believe that average intelligence varies between populations.

Arguing that genetic differences should be the default hypothesis for racial disparities is a correlation-causation fallacy.

Occam’s Razor is a necessary principle for logical induction, not a correlation-causation fallacy. A correlation-causation fallacy is when one leaps from “A is correlated with B” to “A causes B” without considering other possible explanations. For example, it would be a fallacy to leap from “Poverty is correlated with crime” to “Poverty causes crime” without considering other possible explanations, such as “Poverty and crime are both affected by genes”. In most cases, correlation does imply some causal relationship. You can find spurious correlations, if you go looking for them, but obvious correlations usually have a causal explanation. The point of the correlation-causation fallacy is that we can’t assume a direction of causation from a correlation.

“I’m rich because mom and dad left me money and a house” fits Occam’s Razor better than “I’m rich because mom and dad left me good genes that enhanced my earning potential”.

This hypothetical example fails from the get-go to eliminate the influence of genetic differences when it’s trying to argue for environmental differences. Perhaps white parents are more likely to become richer and wealthier than black parents because European genes are better suited towards achieving higher SES on average. If so, then of course white parents would have more money and wealth to pass onto their children, compared to black parents. If the white children also had better genes for enhancing their earning potential compared to the black children, then that would further compound the effects for the hereditarian hypothesis.

Since neighborhoods are composed of people, it also fits Occam’s Razor better to conclude that good people make good neighborhoods and bad people make bad neighborhoods rather than the other way around, generally speaking. Bad neighborhoods can have negative effects on the people who live in them, but it doesn’t fit Occam’s Razor as well to suppose the opposite conclusion is stronger, i.e. good neighborhoods make good people, and bad neighborhoods make bad people.

Note that we are not denying that environmental factors at least partially contribute to racial disparities. We’re just saying that environmental factors aren’t the main cause. Most race realists would generally estimate that racial disparities are ~80-88% genetic and ~12-20% environmental. By contrast, many (most?) race denialists would say that racial disparities are 0% genetic and 100% environmental, so this suggests that the race realist position is more nuanced than the position presented by most race denialists.

We can investigate what proportion of the variance in a given sample is explained by environmental factors, and what proportion is explained by genetics. If we eliminate the environmental factors one after another (iodine, malnutrition etc), the proportion of the variance that is explained by genetics + random noise will definitionally approach 100%. Of course if we ignore that, it can be said that any trait is both 100% genetic and 100% environmental in an absolute sense, a phenotype being the expression of genes in an environment.

Lastly, if one labels the idea that some races are innately predisposed to commit more crimes than others as “racist”, then it’s contradictory to not also label the idea that men have an innate disposition to commit more crimes than women as “sexist”.

For the record, an adverse environment with severe poverty (e.g. modern-day sub-Saharan Africa) does have a negative effect on IQ. Hence, the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is somewhat lower than what it could be under optimum conditions. However, we can’t reduce all racial IQ differences to environmental deprivation. It’s not the main factor.

Identical twin studies and adoption studies make it easy to separate the genetic factors from environmental factors regarding the variance among individuals. When we examine identical twins who were raised apart (thus isolating genetics as a control variable), we see that they are still similar in IQ. The inheritability of IQ and behavioral traits is very stable throughout life, reaching into the 0.8-0.9+ range during adulthood when genes have been given the chance to fully express themselves. This means, out of a group of people, at least 80-90% of the variance between them can be attributed to genetic differences.

Likewise, we could compare adoptive siblings who live under a “shared environment” (thus isolating environment as a control variable). The impact of environmental factors is consistently 0. Adoptive siblings might as well be random strangers for the degree of similarity between them in intelligence, behavioral traits, or outcomes. The research conclusively tells us that there aren’t any such lasting potential effects from parenting or upbringing. For differences between groups, it follows that the provably high heritability of behavioral traits and the reality of genetic racial differences that differences in intelligence between races must also heavily genetic.

Read More:

• Race, Genes, & Intelligence: An Empirical Test of the Hereditarian Hypothesis
• Race And Intelligence (Explanations) - Psychology Fandom Wiki
• Most Accurate National IQs Possible - Sebastian Jensen
• Gwern’s Links on IQ and Socio-Economic Status
• Most Accurate National IQs Possible - Sebastian Jensen

Income and educational attainment is correlated with IQ for all races. We could interpret this environmentally as income boosting IQ and educational attainment, but we could also interpret this genetically as IQ boosting income and educational attainment. The former is true to some extent, but the causal relationship in the latter is much stronger. The average African American has a higher standard of living today than Issac Newton and all the other Enlightenment thinkers who lived in the 1600s, or even the standard of living for European Americans in the early 1900s. And yet, African-Americans have still failed to achieve the intellectual, educational, or economic achievement of Europeans and East Asians.

Racial gaps in IQ and achievement persist in developed countries just as much as they persist in developing countries. The racial IQ and achievement hierarchy that is visible in the United States is found all over the world. In every country on Earth, Blacks statistically do poorly in comparison to Europeans. Likewise, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews collectively do well all around the world, better than Europeans do. Across the globe and across very different societies and economic systems, we see roughly the same pattern as we see in the United States. This is true with populations who have been in these respective countries for many generations (e.g. Brazil). Even if someone came up with some cultural explanation for any particular society, it wouldn’t explain the consistency in global racial disparities.

Average IQ positively correlates very strongly with national development, in measures such as GDP per capita. Some countries lag behind despite receiving decades of foreign aid and assistance, while others have done well despite having few natural resources.

Wealth disparities are responsible for observed national IQs.

This is untenable upon close examination. When looking at the outliers from this pattern, one can see that average wealth does not affect national outcomes in IQ. For example, people from impoverished interior China tend to perform better on IQ tests than people from wealthy yet not particularly intelligent Middle Eastern oil-exporting nations.

The rates of violent crime have been falling since the mid-1990s, in spite of a surge in single parenthood during the 70’s and 80’s. However, the theory that single parenthood causes criminality would predict an increase in violent crime that follows the increase in single parenthood by about 20 years, which is the exact opposite of what happened in the 90s and 2000s. While this doesn’t prove that single parenthood has no effect on crime rates, it’s counter-evidence that needs to be considered, along with all the other explanations why crime rates fell during the 90s and onward (the legalization of abortion, better policing tactics, higher incarcerations rates, etc).

Instead of single-parent households causing higher crime rates, it could also be the case that people who grew up in single-parent / fatherless households are simply more likely to be less responsible and commit more crime because their parents’ genes were less responsible in the first place. Correlation does not imply causation, but genetic factors shouldn’t be ruled out in favor of environmental factors just because the former is a more taboo explanation. A child with good genes would probably perform decently well even without a father present, although they would obviously be better with a father in all cases.

Other proposed factors include how welfare states and other leftist policies have subsidized the reproduction of genes linked to social and sexual irresponsibility, the breakdown of the Church, and the movement of blacks into urban environments (which makes them even more distant from their ancestral social environment). Some would even argue that Jim Crow laws helped to maintain the black community, because blacks would have separate black-owned enterprises, and thus there used to be a stronger pathway to financial success and social status. But even then, whites did not respond to the welfare state in the same way as blacks (on average), so there are racial (and genetic) differences that have a clear effect here. Genes cannot be rationally dismissed as affecting the racial disparity.

It’s a contradiction to insist that the high incarceration of black people (relative to their proportion of the population) is caused by environmental factors, while also insisting that the fact that males make up >90% of the prison population is not caused by environmental factors. To resolve this contradiction, one would have to pick between one of two options:

1. There’s no such thing as people having innate dispositions to commit more crimes and violence than others. Note that this would imply that the high incarceration rates for men are completely caused by environmental factors, which virtually everybody would disagree with.
2. Some races have innate dispositions to commit more crimes. (the more reasonable position)

For the most part, good people make good neighborhoods, and bad people make bad neighborhoods. It’s not the other way around.

The crime gap can easily be explained by blacks more often being in an economic situation that would encourage theft (being poor), and having worse life prospects. People are less likely to risk committing crimes if they have better life prospects.

This is a good example of one-sided reasoning, which simply ignores other explanations. While poverty does correlate with higher crime rates, correlation does not imply causation. The available evidence does not support a causation relationship between poverty and crime rates.

Furthermore, the crime gap between races is bigger for murder than for theft, and it is not explained by economics. Most murders have little or no economic benefit. The same goes for rapes, which are more likely to be committed by blacks than whites per capita. Also, there are many natural experiments that support the genetic hypothesis over the wealth inheritance hypothesis. For example, some minorities quickly rose in social status after immigrating to Western societies with little or no wealth: Ashkenazi Jews, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. Countries that were extremely poor, such as Japan after WWII or China in the 1980s, have had huge increases in prosperity. Their poverty did not hold them back.

White supremacy is the most common motivation for domestic terrorism in the United States.

I don’t know the statistics on terrorism and its motivations, but there seems to be ideological bias regarding what gets labeled as “terrorism”. For example, the Waukesha Christmas parade attack was not labeled “terrorism”. Neither was the 2023 Nashville school shooting, although it seems to have been inspired by social/political views. Amren has a decent article comparing the Waukesha incident to the Charlottesville incident.

Read More: Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification - Frost & Harpending 2015

Read More: Violence Around The World - HBD Chick

Read More: Racial Crime Statistics – Documentation of Globally Consistent Trends - Thuletide.

Read More: US Mass Shootings, 2018-2020: Who’s responsible? - Thuletide.

Anyone with working eyes can see that race is not merely “skin color”, “just a melanin level”, etc. If race was only about skin color, then it wouldn’t be possible to identify the races of albino people… but it is.

Moreover, this page features dozens of examples of how race is far more than just skin color.

See: Pancake Fallacy: “All races are mixed, therefore race does not exist” - Thuletide

Human populations can’t be kept separate enough for long enough to develop highly distinct races in the modern world anymore.

That’s irrelevant. Mixed races inherit qualities from both of their ancestral races, so interbreeding merely changes the statistical genetic frequencies that define the world’s races. And when races do mix, the resulting race inherits the respective percentages of its ancestral races. Races may be mixing all over the modern world, but mestizos, mulattoes, and hapas are all still different from each other. Each of them may be half European, but they’re still half Amerindian, half sub-Saharan African, and half East Asian respectively. Thus, they all behave, think, and act differently from each other. Same with mulattoes, zambos, and blasians (all half sub-Saharan African).

The Pancake Fallacy uses similar tactical nihilism to the Continuum Fallacy.

See: Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy - Wikipedia

See: Lewontin’s Fallacy - Metapedia

See: Do human races exist?: Explaining Lewontin’s Fallacy - Peter Frost

Also see: Lewontin’s Fallacy Explained and Debunked: - Thuletide

See: “All humans are 99.9% genetically identical, therefore race isn’t real” - Thuletide

See: Transracial Fallacy: “Two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other” - Thuletide

As more and more loci are considered, the probability that two random people from two geographically distant populations (Europeans, Africans, Asians) will be more genetically similar than two random people from the same population becomes virtually zero. Source

This is not true. To the contrary, human evolution has accelerated during that time. Since the advent of agriculture over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has been changing 100 times faster. In short, agriculture led to greatly increased population size. Increased population meant more individuals in which mutations could appear. More mutations meant that natural selection had more to work with. Additionally, the rise of states and the more varied environments created by humans meant stronger and more geographically and temporally variable selective pressures, which further sped up human evolution. The age estimate of several human alleles (genetic variants) from Hawks et al. can be graphically demonstrated.

Read More: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending (2009).

Read More: Wikipedia: Recent Human Evolution.

No, they don’t. The group selection theory of evolution is incorrect. There is no identified mechanism for how such it would actually work in the real world, and group selection theory doesn’t explain anything any better than the phenocentric theory of evolution does. Selfishness occurs on the individual level, so life isn’t just a competition between groups, but also between organisms that compete for resources among the other organisms in their respective groups.

Humans do often help each other in nature, but this isn’t altruism towards one’s race or even altruism in general because altruism doesn’t exist in nature:

1. Parents care for their children because they have strong selfish incentives to do so for their own reproductive success,
2. Kin altruism between siblings is best explained as the parents’ selfish behavior being expressed in the children as part of their extended phenotype (cooperative children are easier to raise than non-cooperative children),
3. Stotting/pronking is a demonstration to predators to try catching someone else in the herd that is obviously less physically fit than the pronker, and
4. Friends helping friends is cooperation motivated by selfish interest and the moral accounting system, not “reciprocal altruism” (which is oxymoronic since altruism is selfless).
5. Other purported examples of kin altruism can be further debunked on a case-by-case basis.

Read More: Book Summary of Debunking the Selfish Gene

Read More: Debunking the Selfish Gene by T. K. Van Allen (the complete book)

Shorter Essay 1: Why Evolutionary Theory Does Not Imply Genetic Tribalism?

Shorter Essay 2: The Cuck Metaphor and the Alt-Right

I support ethnostates, so I could technically be considered a white nationalist depending on how it’s defined, however I don’t associate myself with that label since most white nationalists believe in multiple things that I disagree with:

• Most WNs believe in Group Selection Theory, instead of the Phenocentric Selection Theory.
• Most WNs believe in r/K Selection Theory, even though it’s based on fallacious reasoning.
• Most WNs believe in kin altruism and Kin Selection Theory, but it’s based on fallacious reasoning.
• Most WNs believe in the Jewish Conspiracy Theory. I don’t believe it’s real, and most of the evidence for it falls apart once Group Selection Theory is rejected. I’ve never seen anyone convincingly argue for either position without doing a lot of hand-waving.
• 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.
• Many WNs deny the Holocaust. My position is that the Holocaust was real and the forced labor camps certainly existed, but it’s reasonable to be skeptical of the 6 million deaths figure and some other aspects. Regardless, the Holocaust was a crime against humanity, and I strongly condemn it. We should also acknowledge that the Holocaust has become a sacred narrative for justifying arbitrary morals. No historical event should ever be off-limits from questioning.
• WNs tend to be racist and anti-Semitic, whereas I condemn such discrimination.
• Many WNs are white supremacists who support a form of race idealism. I oppose racial supremacy on a philosophical basis, and am better described as a race realist, not a race idealist.
• Some white nationalists are not willing to live with other people of other races, even if they conform well to the society’s goals. This is irrational.
• Race-mixing can be okay under some conditions. I also don’t get along with white nationalists who won’t accept me, just because I’m mixed-race. I’m one-fourth Japanese and one-fourth Cantonese.
• White nationalists tend to oppose having a globalist government, whereas I’ve never seen a principled argument against global governments that doesn’t also apply to lower levels of government. If one is willing to support one level of government, it’s contradictory to not support other levels as well.
• Generally speaking, most white nationalists aren’t philosophical enough for my tastes. Besides topics that relate to race and politics, most of them wouldn’t be very interested in the other topics on this website’s homepage.

Biological value is what is good or bad for an organism. Fitness is the quantitative representation of individual reproductive success. Race-mixing is good for an organism if it increases its fitness, and bad if it decreases its fitness.

A potential disadvantage to race mixing on a global scale could be that populations around the world would become less adapted to their environments, which could cause some concern in some areas, but most of these possible concerns won’t matter much in the modern world. Some examples:

• Adaptive Coherence: Race-mixing could potentially interfere with a community’s adaptive coherence by causing more people to have genes that don’t work as well with the memes or culture of a given community, thus reducing fitness and disrupting the cultural character of the community.
• Disease Immunity: Immune systems tend to be adapted to local conditions, parasites, and diet. However, conditions in the modern world conditions are completely different than they are from the past: parasites are either gone or global, and diet is totally different and globalized. So this doesn’t matter much, as far as race-mixing is concerned.
• Organ Donation: Organ transplants tend to have greater compatibility and higher success rates with recipients who are of the same race as the donor. But as the world continues to race-mix more and more, this will become less of a problem over time, if it’s a problem at all.
• Giving Birth & Congenital Malformations: Mixed-race births face different risks for congenital malformations and babies born to WMAF couples have some of the highest rates of caesarean deliveries (33.2 percent). But this doesn’t matter much either. It’s a known fact that babies with genes that cause them to require C-sections to be delivered are becoming more and more common in the modern world, so even if race-mixing causes this to be a slight problem, it’s as much of a problem as how the prevalence of C-sections have been increasing. There’s much more critical problems to worry about in the modern world.

• Et Cetera

For most traits, race won’t matter when you take the parent’s traits into account. Good looking parents have good looking children, smart parents have smart children, and tall parents have tall children.

Since races tend to already be well-adapted to the respective territories that they inhabit, most of the genes from a race that evolved in a foreign environment are unlikely to improve the fitness of the race living in its local, ancestral environment. Nevertheless, race-mixing still has the potential to introduce genes that could increase the biological fitness of a population. For example, the Sherpa people in Nepal have a gene of homo denisovan origin, which makes it easier for them to breathe at higher altitudes and thus makes them more fit for their respective environment. The Sherpa wouldn’t have that gene if homo sapiens never interbred with homo denisovans.

As mentioned in Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism?, race-mixing between European men and native women proved to be a great reproductive strategy for both sides where both races were able to exchange positive contributions for raising their children together. From the perspective of the Mestizos and their ancestors, this race-mixing was a good thing. From the perspective of white nationalists, it was a bad thing.

More Information: Effects of Race Mixing - Metapedia

Race-mixing can sometimes lead to identity problems among the offspring of interracial couples. However, most mixed-race people say that it hasn’t made a difference for them, or that’s even been an advantage (likely because they’re proud of their ancestry in most cases). Even if someone argues that the mixed-race respondents to the Pew poll have no idea what it would be like if they were born to only one race, it’s still natural for humans to be proud of their race and ancestry, regardless of whatever they are since humans are naturally selfish and racial pride in one’s ancestry and oneself is useful for justifying one’s existence and continued survival. So while this poll and similar ones rely on self-reported data, and while they could have larger sample sizes (n = 1000), it’s likely that they’re closely aligned with reality.

If you can reasonably expect your children to face significant discrimination or outbreeding depression for being mixed-race in the future, it could be better for your future children if you can avoid breeding with other races. However, this problem will gradually disappear as tolerance for other races continues to increase, and as race-mixing further blurs racial differences.

Supposedly, mixed-race children are more likely to have physical and mental health problems. There’s conceivably some truth to this, but the only study that I could find to support this claim had a low sample size. More studies and greater sampling should be made on this topic before reaching a more definitive conclusion.

Related: Racial Pride is Reasonable - Gnew.

Social value judgments are social judgments of value, and they are used to generate social action. Social values are intersubjective, meaning that they consist of agreements between multiple minds. This section talks about race-mixing from the society’s perspective.

In most ways and most cases, racially homogenous societies are more prosperous and have fewer social problems than racially diverse societies, all other factors being equal. It’s not hard to see why. Racial homogeneity leads to less racism and inter-racial violence and conflicts between the members of society, and lends well for greater cultural and linguistic unity. These traits make it easier for all the members to form a collective national identity that redirects the natural competitiveness of life outwards from the group, which improves the group’s odds at survival and prosperity. Having a preference to be around people of one’s own race is normal and natural.

By contrast, we see that racially diverse countries tend to have many more social problems and less national unity. Sometimes, minority ethnic groups may just be marginalized by the majority (e.g. Catalonians in Spain, Canada and Cameroon (Anglophones vs Francophones), etc). Other times, conflicts and civil wars where races try to win independence from the larger society are not uncommon (e.g. Yugoslavia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Russians in Ukraine, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Bangladesh vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, etc). Many of these minority groups would be better off if they had independence (or at least more autonomy) from the larger society. However, given that Africa has the most ethnic groups of any continent and that most of those ethnic groups have very small populations, it wouldn’t be possible for these ethnic groups to have economies of scale on their own, unless many smaller ethnic groups were placed into the same country. In such cases, racially diverse societies may be undesirable, but they’re still preferable overall among the various ethnicities for economic and geopolitical reasons.

In the 90s and 2000s, the US had a pretty low level of inter-racial violence and discrimination compared to other multi-racial countries, but unfortunately the mainstream media and leftist ideology have been greatly exaggerating racial conflicts in the country, thus making something that otherwise wouldn’t have been much of an issue into one of the country’s leading social problems and causing a growing proliferation of anti-white racism. Much of the racial conflict is motivated by wanting the country’s races to be equally represented in the media and in positions of power. The United States is becoming more racially diverse every day, and while it still performs better than most other countries, it’s safe to say that the US would be an even more prosperous society if it were a white ethnostate where whites make up a larger percentage of the population, compared to the modern US.

Singapore is perhaps the best example there is of a multiracial society that works very smoothly, much of which can be attributed to its specific racial admixture and governmental policies. But even among racially diverse societies that don’t have much interracial violence or discrimination, we can observe that racial diversity still leads to societal problems. For such countries, it is more common for people to form their identities based on race, since race is one of the main characteristics in how people differ from one another. Some of these identities cause undesirable discussions in the public discourse that aren’t very conducive to a prosperous civilization, but they are otherwise negligible.

To an extent, a multiracial society may also be a multicultural society that gains cultural enrichment from the collection of all the various different races cohabiting the same space. For example, the United States has managed to blend a lot of different European races and traditions together, and while there are clear examples of how this diversity has created a rich and varied culture in the United States, there’s also examples of how it has created division instead (e.g. Anti-Catholicism, anti-German sentiment during and after WWI, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc). The extent to which European races and cultures have been successfully mixed together can be attributed to the comparatively lower genetic differences and not-as-drastic culture shocks of all the various European immigrants, in comparison to say mixing white culture with black culture. Generally speaking though, it really isn’t necessary to mix races together in order to spread cultural traditions to spread nowadays, especially during the Internet age, international commerce, and mass media.

Race-mixing tends to have better outcomes when the races that are being mixed are closely related to each other. One example include how Western Hunter Gatherers interbred with Early European Farmers and how their offspring later mated with Proto-Indo-European descendants. The WHG, EEF, and PIE peoples were closely related, and separated by a few thousand years of evolution each. Another example is how all the various white immigrants mixed with each other in the United States during the 1800s and 1900s to create mixed-race white offspring. After the ethnic tensions passed, pretty much all the white immigrants who arrived to the US were well-assimilated, and it created the perfect individualist and hard-working population for creating the most powerful and most prosperous country on Earth.

Multi-ethnic countries are more likely to be multilingual. Being multilingual in each of the country’s national languages can have economic advantages if the languages spoken in the country can be used to communicate with other countries (e.g. Switzerland), but it can also hinder a country’s economic progress if the languages aren’t widely spoken outside the country (e.g. India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, DRC, etc) since it increases social and communication barriers and can require more education and time to learn other languages that are spoken inside and outside the country.

Dysgenics is another consideration regarding race-mixing within a society. Not all humans are created equally because genes and traits vary from population to population (e.g. IQ, impulse control, psychopathy, etc). For Western countries, the average IQ for white people is approximately ~100 and since whites have the highest IQs in the world besides Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians, if whites were to race-mix with other races, then the resulting offspring would probably have lower IQs on average when compared with the rest of the whites in the society. Of course, IQ is only one polygenic trait to be considered, and we’ve already mentioned from a biological perspective how race-mixing can have many negative effects on organisms and populations that could make them less biologically fit for the environments that they inhabit.

For ethnostates, a major contention is how likely people with mixed-race ancestry are to have political allegiance to the state’s interests. As a mixed-race person myself, my take is that mixed-race people will always distinguish themselves by how they are different from the ethnostate’s most dominant group because people naturally distinguish themselves and form their personal identities by how they are different from others. Every mixed-race person is different. For example, quadroons (25% black, 75% white) are less likely to be loyal a white ethnostate than quapas (25% Asian, 75% white). This is not a problem as long as mixed-race people continue to support their ethnostates, and they are likely to do so as long as 1. they would rather side with the ethnostate’s dominant ethnicity and political authority over their other ethnicity(ies), and 2. they don’t perceive that they’re being discriminated against.

Links For Reading More:

• The Negative Impact of Racial and Ethnic Diversity Upon Societies and Individuals
• [Study] How Races Rate Each Other
• In-Group Preference (aka “Racism”) by Race and Political Alignment
• We are biologically programmed to be attracted to people who are genetically, physically, and psychologically similar to ourselves

Ethnic diversity can also have major effects on the dating market within a society, and there is so much to say on this topic that it deserves a separate subsection in its own right.

White Male Asian Female (WMAF) couples are popular in the West when considering how many Asian women marry outside their ethnicity. Likewise, Asian men and black women are statistically the least desirable races of their sexes when it comes to dating preferences. The 2010 US Census confirms that these trends extend from dating to interracial marriages too, with 8.2% of Asian men marrying outside of their race while 17.5% of Asian women did the same, and that 10.8% of black men married outside of their race compared to 4.6% of black women.³ This has caused many Asian men and black women to be unable to find other people to date and marry since they are not able to marry outside their race at the same rates. Meanwhile, the dating market for white people is nearly balanced since the number of white men who are marrying Asian women is compensated by the number of white women who are marrying black men. These multi-racial dynamics have lead to Asian men and black women being unlikely to get sex, love, and children.

From a societal perspective, the main problem with race-mixing between Asians and whites is that it deprives millions of Asian men of love, sex, and children. This wouldn’t be a problem if fewer Asian women dated outside their ethnicity, or even if as many white women dated Asian men as there are white men dating Asian women. But this is not the reality. Aside from that, East Asians have favorable genetics for maintaining modern civilization due to their higher IQs, lower crime rates, and greater propensities for hard work compared to white people, and White-Asian multiracial adults are also the most likely to say that their racial background has been an advantage. These facts affirm that the dating market imbalance created for East Asian men is the primary disadvantage to race-mixing between Asians and whites, from a societal perspective centered in the Western world.

Some people have suggested that black women and Asian men could pair together since they are both the least desired ethnicities of their respected sexes, but I predict that this is unlikely to be a good matching in most situations, otherwise they would’ve already done so. They’re too genetically different from each other, not attracted to each other enough, and the average intelligence between the two may be too different for them to be compatible together (although IQ differs a lot between East Asians, Southeast Asians, and South Asians). Another thing to consider is that black women have the highest testosterone levels of all women, whereas Asian men have the lowest testosterone levels of all men, which helps explain why Asian men and black women both have relatively low desirability. The difficulty of Asian men and black women trying to find a partner will probably decrease fertility rates slightly, which can be a good thing if the country is on the verge of overpopulation, or a bad thing if the country wishes to boost its population.

Why does it matter if white men and Asian girls date? If they both love each other, why should it matter who dates who?

The fact that so many people think this way demonstrates that most people don’t consciously or attentively realize the nature of how value judgments for objects are both positive and negative:

Unlike truth, value is not convergent for similar brains. Tom and Joe could have identical brains, but make very different value judgments from their perspectives. For example, suppose that Joe and Tom both want to date Sally. Their value judgments are identical in one way, but opposite in another way. Joe positively values Joe dating Sally, and negatively values Tom dating Sally. Tom positively values Tom dating Sally, and negatively values Joe dating Sally. – Blithering Genius, from What is Subjectivity?

In the context of the sexual market between the country’s ethnicities, we can state the following:

• The Asian male positively values being with the Asian woman and negatively values the White male being with the Asian woman.
• The White male positively values being with the Asian woman and negatively values the Asian male being with the Asian woman.

From the individual-centric perspective of the partners in a WMAF relationship, they both positively value race-mixing, since it allows them to be together and procreate together. From the ricecel’s perspective on WMAF relationships, they negatively value that race-mixing since it deprives them of partners to procreate with. The high rates of inceldom among Asian men is a good example of how race-mixing has noticeably unfavorable consequences on society (especially for incels in particularly), although we should acknowledge that it’s also had favorable consequences between WMAF couples as well.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters (as far as reality is concerned) is who has the power to get what they want and make it happen. Preventing the race-mixing from ever happening in the first place can only be achieved by segregation or preventing the mass immigration of Asians into Western countries. But that has already happened. Besides pop-cultural movements that could portray Asian men and black women in a more positive light (e.g. K-Pop has recently given Korean men somewhat higher social status), or shaming Asian women and white men for marrying outside their races, there isn’t much else that can be done to prevent a sexual market imbalance for Asian men. It will suck for the Asian men, black women, and everybody else who ends up being unable to find loving partners, sex, and children for life, but countless people throughout history also lived that way until the day they died. Their lineages died off, and they were forgotten about forever. Such is the nature of life.

Ethnonationalists tend to argue that interracial marriages have higher divorce rates, but it would be more accurate to say that divorce rates generally depend more on race than race-mixing. For instance, Black + Black marriages have the highest divorce rates, Asian + Asian have the lowest, and WMAF divorce rates are lower than WMWF divorce rates. The table below is pretty much what we would expect to see, based on theory and observation.

Read More:

• The rise of multiracial and multiethnic babies in the U.S. - Pew Research
• From multiracial children to gender identity, what some demographers are studying now - Pew Research
• Interracial marriage: Who is ’marrying out’? - Pew Research
• Other Pew Research Intermarriage Articles
• Pew Research Statistics: Key facts about Asian origin groups in the U.S.
• Study finds bias, disgust toward mixed-race couples (2016)
• Demographics of Inceldom - Incels Wiki

This section was written in response to some criticisms by white nationalists. I believe they have a flawed understanding of evolution, biological purpose, genes, and race-mixing. Most of this can be attributed to their belief in the genocentric or group selection theory(ies) of biological purpose instead of the phenocentric theory of biological purpose.

Society is based on shared genetic interests.

This is false. Society is not based on altruism at any level: global, racial, national, or even tribal. It is based on cooperation between selfish individuals. A society can act in the world as a unit because it has an internal power structure. That structure also gives it internal coherence. A society is a kind of object and a kind of subject. A race is neither.

And that is why you don’t see racial solidarity (v1). You didn’t see it in the colonization of the Americas, when European societies fought each other alongside native allies. You didn’t see it in the American Civil War. You didn’t see it in WWI. You didn’t see it in WWII. You don’t see it today in the Congo. You don’t see it in Detroit. It doesn’t exist. It never has. It never will.

People who breed with other races are “throwing away their blood lines”. They are not preserving their genes.

They are still preserving their genes. No matter who a person mates with, the child can only inherit ~50% of his/her genes at most. That doesn’t become false just because she/he is breeding with someone of a different race. To conclude otherwise is a fallacy. Did the homo sapiens throw away their bloodline when they bred with neanderthals, denisovans, and other hominids? Or the ancestors of modern people? Again, it’s the genes that get passed on that matters, not the race.

Also, race-mixing doesn’t always negatively affect a person’s reproductive fitness. People don’t necessarily value genes just because they have them encoded into their own DNA. People value genes that make them and their children more adapted to their respective environments. For example, a person with sickle cell anemia is not going to value having a child who also has sickle cell anemia if they also value their reproductive success. If procreating with someone of a different race would improve the fitness and other desired qualities of one’s prospective children, then race-mixing is warranted and preferred according to the subject’s psychological values. Aside from valuing adaptive genes, in most cases humans would tend to value that their offspring have genes that are the same as their own, if and only if those genes are not maladaptive.

But insisting that only a maximum of 50% of genes are passed on disregards the shared or non-shared genetics in one’s mate.

By this logic, group selection theory concludes that it was a mistake for the ancestors of modern white people (Western European Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Proto-Indo-Europeans) to interbred with each other to create mixed-race offspring. But given that most white supremacists are supportive of the historical race-mixing that lead to their creation, this implies that it’s contradictory for them to unilaterally oppose all race-mixing. It also suggests that they should re-evaluate their opposition to race-mixing.

Moreover, virtually nobody (except maybe for the most fervent believers in the genocentric theory of evolution) actually calculates with mathematics how closely genetically related they are to the person that they are mating with just to make sure that the offspring will have as many of their genes as possible. It’s simply ridiculous that anyone would actually prioritize genetic similarity with their partner over other traits that are much more likely to be desirable instead. The fact that basically nobody thinks that way is further evidence in favor of the phenocentric theory of biological purpose, instead of the genocentric theory.

Furthermore, the genocentric theory of evolution ignores the mutations that every organism inherits, which is an important reason why anyone would be motivated to care for their children instead of other people’s children in the first place. Currently, every human is born on average with ~60 or so new, random mutations, although most are situated in non-coding DNA and are neutral. So even if someone breeds with someone of a different race, their child will inherit approximately half of their mutations (~30), as well as many of the mutations of that parent’s ancestors. That’s 30+ genes that the parent and child uniquely share, that almost no one else has. This is a big deal because evolution wouldn’t be possible in the first place without the genetic variation that mutations provide. If someone cares for someone else’s children instead of their own, those children are probably not going to have any of the mutations that are present in the parent, which is a good reason to favor raising biological children instead of adopted children if the mutations are adaptive, even if the other parent is of a different race.

Lastly, 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.

This next quote was written by a white nationalist in response to Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism? by Blithering Genius:

We see the difference in success between North America and South America. The shipping of brides to North America seemed to produce a radically different society than the one win which the brides were found among the native population of South America. Does this not contradict this theory a bit?

From the perspective of white nationalists, the race-mixing that happened largely between American Indian women and white European male colonizers was a bad thing when considering the modern societies that that genetic admixture produced, in comparison to the largely white descended population of the United States and Canada. But we still have to remember that from the biological perspective of the Amerindian women, the race-mixing was a good thing because it enabled them to reproduce and replicate their genes to re-populate the Americas after ~90% the American Indians died of disease.

We also have to keep in mind is that the American Indian women had knowledge of how to live off the land, whereas the white colonizers did not. As Blithering Genius mentions in his essay titled “Space Colonization and Industrialization” from his book Futurist Fantasies, advanced technology alone would not’ve been sufficient for colonizing the Americas in the 1500-1700s because technology depends on the scale of civilization, and more complex levels of technology cannot develop unless the more primitive technologies that created their existence were invented and used beforehand.

Perhaps the white colonizers could’ve eventually colonized the Americas by breeding with white women to create a purely genetic admixture if they had waited longer to build technology that could help colonize the rest of the Americas, but this undoubtedly would’ve taken longer. And if the colonizers who were there in the American colonies wanted to colonize the Americas as soon as possible, it simply would’ve made more sense to breed with an American Indian woman due to their knowledge of how to live off the land. They would have to have children with the American Indian women in order to incentivize them to care for the descendants of the white colonizers, since those children would be theirs too. If the European colonizers in the Americas during the 1500s didn’t interbreed during that century, then other European men from later centuries would’ve populated the continent instead, and that would’ve been a loss for their selfish reproductive biological interests.

In terms of psychological and social value, most people today who value modern civilization may prefer that the Americas had been populated exclusively or near exclusively by white people instead, but this ignores how the ancestors of the modern inhabitants of Latin America (both the white colonizers and Amerindian women) valued the procreation that created all of their descendants. Might makes right, and power is self-justifying.

Ultimately, if white nationalists really want to promote white preservation and stop the great replacement (both of which I support), then they should encourage white people to have more kids. The more kids white people have (irregardless of who they breed with), the greater the white proportion of the gene pool will be.

Is miscegnation into a “one global race” inevitable?

To an extent, the notion of “mixing” is somewhat misleading, because there aren’t separate discrete types that are being “mixed” together. Rather, existing racial clusters can disappear and/or change, due to different selective pressures and global migration. In that sense, some level of “mixing” is always inevitable, since genes are always mixed when a male and female mate and conceive a child.

Globalization and race-mixing are causing many distinctive racial differences to disappear. If countries decide to enforce very strict immigration/miscegnation/etc laws, then many distinct races will be mostly preserved as the original genetic clusters that they were historically. If there’s enough political will to prevent race-mixing, then it could theoretically be prevented. Until then, global immigration, and interracial relationships will continue to blur the boundaries between genetic clusters. But this doesn’t imply that racial categories won’t still be useful for having predictive power.

Whether race-mixing is “good” or “bad” depends on one’s values, the races being mixed, and the perspective that it is viewed from. In my case, I positively value the race-mixing that eventually lead to my creation, and I negatively value race-mixing if it leads to me being deprived of any potential partners to date, marry, and procreate with. Alternatively, it makes sense to positively value race-mixing when it enables the subject to find a more suitable partner to procreate with.

If I had to make a choice from a societal perspective, I would generally oppose race-mixing in most cases. There’s no evidence that racial diversity confers any major advantages to a society in any real way. Racially homogenous society are more optimal for creating more stable civilizations. However, creating ethnostates may not be viable in multiracial countries, or even in Modern Western countries where minorities now make up too high of a portion of the population. Race-mixing is only likely to continue and speed up in the modern world as time passes. Whites in the West could hypothetically race-mix with East Asians to result in offspring with slightly higher IQs, but race-mixing between whites and East Asians would still cause somewhat negative consequences for society. Asian men in particular would be the most affected, unless AMWF relationships were to become as common as WMAF relationships. Until then, this will be the main downside to whites and East Asians cohabiting the same society.

Preventing overpopulation, mass immigration, and environmental degradation are much more important problems than miscegenation will ever be. Modern healthcare and technology eliminate most of the biological concern against race-mixing, assuming that modern civilization won’t collapse in the future. And racial conflicts, discrimination, and imbalances in the sexual market will be gradually reduced over time to an extent if race-mixing and tolerance of other races continues to become more common. There are also some cases where race-mixing can be a “good” thing (depending on the perspective). In the long run, race-mixing won’t be a major problem for modern societies that restrict mass immigration and practice population control and laissez-faire eugenics.

In the West, white nationalists and eugenicists both agree that reducing mass immigration, deporting illegal aliens, and removing welfare benefits are important priorities. It could be done strategically if there’s enough political will and power to make it happen. There is no debate that racially homogenous societies tend to perform better than multiracial societies. The main disagreements between WNs and race-blind eugenicists are 1. how practical it would be for Western governments to prioritize benefiting the dominant ethnic group over the minority ethnic groups, 2. whether or not that’s feasible according to the size of the minority population, and 3. race-mixing should be forbidden. The white nationalists’ main justifications are that: 1. it would take too long for minorities to assimilate into the society, 2. it can happen if there’s enough political will to do it, and 3. race-mixing would be dysgenic and culturally unstable in most cases.

The US, the UK, Canada, France, and other Western countries all should’ve became ethnostates that greatly curtailed foreign immigration in the 90s, but I am skeptical that it will be possible to reverse the mass immigration from previous decades in the 2020s and beyond. Non-white people make up too much of the US and Canadian populations⁴ (they might have too much leverage), there isn’t enough mass public support and political authority to greatly curtail mass immigration from foreign countries, and there’s not even enough support among white people for turning those countries into ethnostates. Bringing up the proposal to turn Western countries into white ethnostates would ignite strong opposition and accusations of racism, and it is difficult to substantially change any person’s worldview on just about anything. For the United States, a more likely scenario is that some region of the US becomes a de facto ethnostate for white people. Assimilating minorities into the society may take generations, but it’s not impossible, especially if EPC limits their population growth. Whether race-mixing is dysgenic and harmful to the civilization is a more complicated issue.

The greatest problem facing the West is mass immigration from other countries. Reducing foreign immigration would greatly curtail social justice, anti-Western hatred, and the cost of rent, while boosting wages, fertility rates, and eugenics. This is a smaller goal than achieving a white ethnostate with wider public appeal, so it’s more feasible. We will have greater success at reducing immigration if we focus on emphasizing all the problems that it’s causing. Ethnostates would help achieve white preservationism, but the most important thing is that the fertility rates of white people are increased in general. Reducing foreign immigration will help with this.

There’s not much that an ethnostate can do that can’t already be solved by a eugenostate. The biggest problem that ethnonationalist policies won’t solve by themselves is preventing overpopulation. Overpopulation is a free-rider problem, so population control is the only way to conceivably prevent overpopulation without war, disease, or famine. Ethnostates don’t prevent dysgenics by themselves either since they don’t regulate reproduction. Every successful ethnostate would have to enforce EPC in order for it to be sustainable for the long-term future. Over time, eugenic policies could cause the average black or white person to be as intelligent as East Asians are today, with even lower crime rates too.

Read More: How Practical Are Ethnostates For Promoting Eugenics?

In this section, I detail the theoretical steps and most likely way for converting Western countries into white ethnostates:

1. White identity and support for pro-white policies gradually increase over the years as white people continue to be marginalized and discriminated against.
2. Americans (especially White Americans) start to vote more conservatively than they already do.
3. Western countries eliminate their welfare for immigrants. In the US, eliminating welfare could disincentivize over 50% of immigrants from staying.
4. Some immigrants leave Western countries once the welfare stops. If they riot in response to the elimination of welfare, then they are deported. Political support for deporting them would be in response to their rioting and violence. Hard-working immigrants who support the country can (and should) stay.
5. The public gains enough support for stopping mass immigration, since it increases the cost of rent, and reduces wages, fertility rates, and eugenics.
6. The Conservatives amass enough popular support for deporting the rest of the illegal aliens from Western countries (there are over 10 million illegal aliens in the United States alone).
7. As wages rise, white fertility rates increase. The West implements other measures for boosting white fertility rates.
8. Western countries reach the critical demographics and political thresholds for becoming white ethnostates.
9. The public gains enough support for EPC to turn the country into a eugenostate.

Note that this is an (overly) optimistic timeline. I’m not convinced that the West could achieve even half of the objectives on this list in the future, but we should try to accomplish whatever we can.

Read More: Mass deportation is economically sound, logistically feasible, and could be accomplished in a matter of years - Thuletide.

The only way people could overlook the current anti-white propaganda and policies in the West is if they had an ideology that blinded them to it. When “It’s okay to be white” is labeled a hate slogan, we have a problem.

Links Regarding Anti-White Ideology And Propaganda In The West:

• Systemic Anti-White Bias in Western Media: A Ton of Evidence (Available as PDF)
• The Rise of Anti-White Bias in Media (with Statistical evidence)
• “Indigenous” Peoples of the World: Everyone Except Europeans
• The Intentional Destruction of White Birth Rates: Leaked reports from Planned Parenthood, the Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, US NSC (including CIA, military etc.)
• Imperialism and Colonialism: White Guilt and Historic Non-White Conquests of European Territories
• Stochastic Terrorism: Non-White academics promote violence against Whites with real-world consequences

See: Population Control FAQs: Ideas For Boosting Western Fertility