I started replying to a valued commenter but the subject is big enough for its own post.
WRT De Niro and other race mixers, do you honestly believe De Niro “settled” for his wife and then went on to have 3 kids by her?
I can’t speak to Robert De Niro’s psyche and motives except to go by the most superficial of appearances. Paul McCartney and John Lennon, with their apex-male options, also married women whom the ruthless eye of the sexual market, in that league, would have judged harshly. But you marry whom you marry. Some men connect with one woman differently than with all the others. Other men, even alphas, are ensnared into commitment.
Greg Johnson’s proposal for dealing with mixed race people in the formation of a white ethnostate would be to allow a one time “reset”.
Does he think in present-time orientation or in a multi-generational perspective? Not rhetorical, I am not familiar with his work. These “re-sets” become one-way concessions like Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, whose conservative terms were never honored. “We’ll keep what you had already dumped into our cribs but no more” is an admission that we’re dealing with something unwanted that we’d rather cap off and dilute in the wombs of our neighbors’ daughters than repel outright because… why?
Racial tolerance, even in moderation, is nihilism. To be OK with this or that percentage of mixing and the passing-on of those mixed genes into the next generation, is to assent to an incremental but mathematically certain drowning out of the European race.
It is not a big leap, to go from agreeing to let a few hundred thousand or million browned people graft themselves onto our branch, to welcoming the inflow of one billion Africans into the West. After all, why not just re-set things there. You say what? they are rapists? Eh, transition pains, it’ll pass. In the meantime, stop struggling and it won’t hurt!
We don’t occupy much of the planet. There is no justification for any presence of non-Whites, which includes mixed-race people, among us. It’s all-downside for us, it’s all parasite’s-upside for them. As goes our destiny as a people, we neither want them integrated among us by government fiat, nor do we want them here settling into an underclass by laissez faire. Either our own faces represent all of our social classes or it gets ugly.
We are not anyone’s habitat. We are not anyone’s genetic feed-lot. If someone had already polluted his line, too bad. It’s not right to ask the children of those who stayed faithful to accommodate a mixer’s bush-trophy. Nie mój cyrk, nie moje małpy (not my circus, not my monkeys), as goes the Polish quip. They have to go back.
Anyway, this stuff is all kinda LARPY to me, but fun to argue.
It would be LARPy if we individually deemed ourselves able to control the macro-trends or on the other extreme, if we pursued this discussion in a bloodless academic spirit as though nothing’s at stake. The purpose of these discussions is to see our civilization and our nations as comprised of people like you and me — links that connect our ancestors with our descendants — and to understand the reach and bounds of our agency, as well as our own role in this rushing river of the worldwide reassertion of every nation’s right to be what it is.
The matter of identity is not complicated. We are European men and women who claim our ancestral lands. I have been to places where everyone is of the same race and ethnicity, and to ones that have had diversity inflicted upon them. The contrast between the two is that of life vs. death. That is not a hyperbole.