Earlier, I quoted diamed from his blog The Road Less Traveled. There is much of interest in that blog and I recently came across his take on borderline “whiteness”. Any white movement must, sooner or later, resolve the problem of how to define “white”. I recommend reading the entire post but here is his idea in a nutshell:
If someone is 3/4 white and 1/4 black, he’s provisionally white. If he acts like a decent white man who calls himself white and defends other whites, he’ll stay provisionally white. He can never be pure white, because he is too genetically distant. But he can be provisionally white. If he identifies as a black and walks around with a chip on his shoulder blaming everything on whites and saying ‘kill the white man,’ then he’s a black. For this reason, Jeremiah Wright, who’s clearly genetically closer to white than black, is a black. He lost his chance at whiteness by damning us to hell. See how it works? In all borderline cases, the cases constantly thrown at us by anti-racists: “Well what about mixed races? What about jews? What about Armenians? What about –?” The answer is now solvable. “These people are provisionally white, their own behavior will determine whether they are included by us, or excluded by us, as white or non-white.” If anyone wants to be included by us, all they have to do is ‘act white.’ Behave well, behave righteously, identify yourself as white, and be loyal to the white race.
Tentatively I like his idea because, in practice, many of us have been looking at things this way for a long time. If we encounter a light-skinned “black” who speaks and behaves just like a white and whose attitudes are those of a healthy white, do we not look at that person (for most purposes) as a white? What diamed did was put into writing what has been lurking in the backs of many of our minds anyway. Codifying it is a step in the right direction. He goes on to list three tiers of “whiteness”:
First Tier: Genetically white, whitey-mc-white-whites. These people should be given free admission to the country, on the sole basis of loyalty and abiding by the laws we set forth. This is the easiest level of admission.
Second Tier: Borderline cases, provisionally white. These people would be included on a case by case scenario, based on their loyalty, behavior, and character. This is a stricter standard than the previous standard, but admission is still open. IE, as many people of this type as qualify, are allowed in.
Third Tier: Non-whites. These people would again be included only as individuals. But they would have to have exceptional abilities. For instance, an IQ no less than 120. Perfect health. Good looks. Extremely talented athletes. Extremely rich. Skilled workers. Scientists or artists who have proven their stuff. You get the idea. In addition, they must be loyal to our race and abide by our laws. Obviously, if they make trouble, they’re gone. Whatever compassion or patience we show for the first tier, will not be shown to the third tier. And in addition to this, they can at no time exceed 10% of the population. So no matter how qualified you are, if our quota is full, you can’t enter. Through this simple measure, the white genome can’t be extinguished, AND we can select non-whites for their quality. This way, we do not cut ourselves off from the gifts and genes of exceptional non-whites, but we do not destroy ourselves either. It’s fair and balanced. If non-whites resent all the restrictions we put upon them, tough, they still have the rest of the world to live on. They don’t have to live here. Humorously enough, even if jews weren’t provisionally white, I’d still allow many of them in as non-whites with exceptional ability. Excluding jews entirely, who hold the secrets to a 15 IQ boost somewhere in their genes, would be sheer folly.
It seems to be as good a system as any but I do have a couple of problems with it. Even though I am not a subscriber to the idea of a “pure race”, it seems to me that we do have relatively pure races. As it stands today, most people who consider themselves “white” are relatively pure; it is likely that they have, in their distant past, some non-whites but they are still pure-blooded enough to be considered of “indigenous European” origin. I doubt that “Native Americans” can say the same. We Jews lost that relative purity long ago so that now we’re reduced to various degrees of mongrelization. It would be a shame if the same thing happened to whites and diamed’s suggestion of allowing 10% of the white population to be non-white would certainly lead to gradual degradation. Furthermore, in any large nation, politics and corruption would surely come into play when determining who has the “right attitudes” (amongst borderline whites) to be worthy of being “provisional whites”. There would be many grey areas and, in the end, who you know would carry as much weight as anything else. Perhaps it would be best if any future white nation be a small nation or a confederation of small nations. This might help curb corruption.
I think this would be a good place to point out what many of us already know: in the long run, the only way to ensure the survival of the white race is for there to be a white nation with strong territorial integrity. In the long run there are only two possibilities: the extinction of the white race or the creation of a white nation. This cannot be said of any other major race of Mankind. There is no danger of Orientals or blacks becoming extinct. As for Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, Pygmies and various Native American tribes, they need to have their own nations as well. I would not want them to disappear either. Polynesians, given their own exclusive nation, would also have to grapple with the question “who is a Polynesian?” As for those who wish for the extinction of whites, or any other race, what they are really advocating for is genocide. In civilized society, we do not hold those who promote genocide in high esteem. It could reasonably be said that such people are “haters” and “bigots”. Therefore you, the reader, have a choice: either you are a “white nationalist” or you are a “bigot”. Which will it be?