9: Whiteness Pt 2

So, I took an excursion by looking more closely at Heidegger the last two posts but now I'm back to the book at hand.  Some common arguments are addressed by Johnson in this section that need to be understood.  They will help protect your children going forward.  I've added a few pictures to help understand the points made.  

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

Is Whiteness Subversive?

The best critique of whiteness as a political category comes from Martin Heidegger.[1] Heidegger was a supporter of German ethnic nationalism and thought that the National Socialist emphasis on racial whiteness subverted German ethnic interests. Heidegger understood that whiteness is a necessary condition of being German, but there is more to being German than just being white.[2]

Heidegger believed that making whiteness a political concept, and subsuming Germans and other European peoples under it, laid the groundwork for the destruction of ethnic differences.[3] For if we are all white, what would it matter if Germans decided to assimilate members of other European ethnic groups? Putting different ethnic groups under the broad biological genus “white” leads one to think that white people are equivalent and interchangeable. In biological terms, this fungibility means that whites of other nations are suitable breeding stock. And in cultural terms, fungible means assimilable: capable of losing one cultural identity and adopting another one. There’s also a dimension of pure power politics here. Why would Germans biologically and culturally assimilate Poles rather than vice-versa? Obviously, simply because Germans were politically dominant.

Furthermore, the Nazis were not just interested in assimilating other whites but specifically Nordic whites, regardless of their culture. A corollary of this is that the Nazis would not be particularly interested in perpetuating the bloodlines of genuine Germans who were not Nordic. This consideration certainly supports Heidegger’s critique, although there is no evidence that it occurred to him. But given that Heidegger himself was no Nordic Übermensch [superman], it probably crossed his mind.

Heidegger’s argument makes a great deal of sense. One does not even ask questions like “Are Finns white?” or “Are Italians white?” unless one is thinking in terms of breeding with them or imposing one’s culture upon them. Such questions almost always arise in a colonial or imperial context. In a Europe of autonomous ethnostates, they would hardly arise at all, and only among the most rootless and cosmopolitan segments of society: academics, artists, businessmen, and the like who travel abroad and might fall in love with a foreign girl and wonder if she is “white enough” to bring back home. (One would hope that in European ethnostates, rootedness would be emphasized to those who aspire to political power.)

Fortunately, there are steps we can take to reduce the threat of European racial and cultural homogenization. We generally wouldn’t need to worry about whether other peoples are “white enough” if every people has a homeland, if immigration and intermarriage between white societies are kept to a minimum, and every person has a strong enough sense of his own ethnic identity to marry his own kind. These are all sensible policies to preserve the ethnic and subracial diversity of white peoples.

Just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader white racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that it preserves rather than undermines distinct white ethnic groups.

Is Whiteness A Social Construct?

White Nationalists are often met with the objection that race is merely a social construct, not a real biological category. In my essay, “Why Race is Not a Social Construct,” I argue that this claim is false.[4] Basically, all social constructivist arguments ignore the distinction between races, which are objective biological facts, and thoughts about race—for example, racial taxonomies and scientific theories—which are socially constructed.

Here I wish to argue that whether the social construction of race is true or false, it does not pose an impediment to White Nationalism. It is simply irrelevant. We can still be White Nationalists even if race is a social construct. In fact, in some ways, it is easier.

First, one has to note that some of the very same people who treat the social construction of race as an objection to White Nationalism have absolutely no problem with advocating non-white identity politics. So if social constructivism undermines identity politics, perhaps our opponents should begin by abandoning their own. And if social constructivism is no impediment to non-white identity politics, it is no impediment to white identity politics either.

Second, White Nationalists think that identity is more than just a matter of race. Every Italian is a white man, but not every white man is Italian. Italian identity is a matter not just of common biological descent, but of a shared language, culture, and history, which are human constructs. These constructs are limited and shaped by our genetic heritage and objective historical events, but at the core of every culture are conventions which are free creations of the human imagination.

Social constructivists hold that if a group of people think of themselves as a nation, they are a nation. For White Nationalists, nationhood is largely a social construct, but not exclusively, since a nation also involves common descent. Nations do, of course, establish conventions for outsiders to become “naturalized” (a very revealing term), but there has always been a strong presumption in favor of making naturalization contingent on biological and cultural assimilability.

But for the sake of argument, let’s just grant the social constructivist thesis that identity is entirely conventional. That does nothing to stop a society from adopting the social convention that only white people can be members. If social boundaries are essentially arbitrary constructs, why not be ethnonationalists? For a social constructivist, nothing prevents a society from stipulating racial homogeneity. And since racial diversity—regardless of whether it is real or socially constructed—is a proven source of disunity and conflict, there are sound practical reasons to prefer homogeneity.

White Nationalists believe that our race is real. But mere race realism hardly matters if people don’t think of themselves in racial terms. White Nationalism is not just a scientific thesis. It is a political ideology. As such, it depends upon white consciousness, namely white self-consciousness.

Indeed, white self-consciousness is the greater part of White Nationalism, for without it, whites are as politically inert as dogs or horses. Thus one of the primary activities of White Nationalists is raising white self-consciousness. Our people need to think that we are a distinct race, with a distinct identity and interests, which often conflict with the identity and interests of other races. And when such conflicts exist, whites must think it natural, normal, and right to organize to protect our interests in the political realm.

Added to Johnson’s work to help explain.

The social constructivists wish to knock the biological prop from under White Nationalism. But removing race realism still leaves the greater part of White Nationalism, namely white racial consciousness, in place. And again, if social constructivism is true, there is nothing to stop White Nationalists from simply stipulating that we want racial and ethnic homogeneity.

The only thing that would stop us from enforcing such preferences is lack of political power. Thus if social constructivism is true, White Nationalists need not waste our breath convincing every last person that our societies should be homogeneous. As long as we can sufficiently raise white self-consciousness, pride, and self-assertiveness, we can attain the political and cultural power necessary to impose our preferences on the rest of society. There is no moral reason not to do so. Our enemies openly declare their intention to do the very same thing to us.

Added to Johnson’s work to help explain.

Do We Need A Definition Of Whiteness?

White Nationalism does require an answer to the question: “Who are whites?” But it does not require an airtight definition of whiteness. There is an important distinction between a phenomenon and its definition. The white race is a phenomenon that exists in the real world. Our primary acquaintance with white people is through sense perception. We know whites when we see them.

Added to Johnson’s work to help explain.

Definitions are attempts to verbally articulate the essential traits of what we see in sense perception, and since we can always perceive more than we can say, all definitions are inadequate.

But the lack of a good definition does not imply that we don’t know who white people are, much less that white people don’t exist. It simply proves that when confronted with the richness of nature, words fail us again and again.

Most of us would be hard-pressed to give a verbal definition of cabbage that would allow us to distinguish it from lettuce. But we can instantly tell them apart simply by looking at them. We always know more than we can say. Thus it is pure sophistry to argue that if we can’t offer an airtight definition of cabbage, then we don’t know what cabbages are, let alone that they don’t even exist.

For the purposes of White Nationalism, white people are the aboriginal peoples of Europe and their unmixed descendants around the world.[5] But inevitably White Nationalists are challenged to defend any such account of whiteness against certain borderline cases.

How much non-white blood is consistent with being a white person? Are Jews, Persians, Georgians, and Armenians white or non-white? Some clearly look white, others not. (The answer is that they are white people whose religion is a vector of non-white invasion into Europe. Sadly, we can now say the same about most European Christians as well.) Are Balkan Muslims white or non-white?  

Again, these questions don’t really matter in a world where all peoples have their own homelands. Jews might not be “white enough” for your taste, but they are all Jewish enough to live in Israel. Of course, non-white nationalists are never met with the same challenge, and they wouldn’t be deterred if they were.

The underlying assumption of these objections is that if one cannot provide non-arbitrary rules for dealing with borderline cases, then whiteness is a social construct, not a natural kind. But this is as absurd as arguing that, since there are shades on the color spectrum that straddle blue and green, pure instances of blue and green do not exist. There have been many different racial taxonomies, which divide up the races of the world in different ways.[6] But none of these taxonomies fail to include a category for white people, because white people obviously exist.

But again, let’s just grant the social constructivists their point. If we embrace social constructivism, we are completely free to answer these questions with arbitrary rules of thumb. Social constructivists should be the last people to object to the idea of white nations being empowered to define their identities and determine who is in and who is out.

Finally, most demands to “define white” are offered in bad faith. The very people who claim that White Nationalism fails without an airtight definition of whiteness, have no problem singling us out when they wish to blame us for the world’s problems, discriminate against us in education and employment, or target us for genocide. So when one of these people asks you to define whiteness, smile and tell him that white people are the ones who are supposed to feel white guilt. But if whites are real enough to bear white guilt, then we are real enough to build white nations.

Questions & Notes


  1. The best critique of whiteness as a political category comes from _________ _________.

  2. See Greg Johnson, “Heidegger and Ethnic Nationalism,” Counter-Currents, June 27 and July 5, 2017.

  3. He believed that making whiteness a political concept, and subsuming Germans and other European peoples under it, laid the groundwork for the _________ of ethnic differences.

  4. Greg Johnson, “Why Race is Not a Social Construct,” in Toward a New Nationalism.

  5. For the purposes of White Nationalism, white people are the aboriginal peoples of _________ and their unmixed descendants around the world.

  6. See Andrew Hamilton, “Taxonomic Approaches to Race,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 3 (Fall 2008).

Why Elon Can’t #BantheADL Even if He Wanted To

Source: Gab News

Over the past few days a grassroots campaign popped up on X calling for the platform to ban the ADL. The campaign, united around the hashtag #BantheADL, has been trending on the platform for days with hundreds of thousands of posts.


This campaign comes after the CEO of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, made a post gloating about his organization’s sheer power to control the platform that Elon Musk purchased for tens of billions of dollars last year. Although the #BantheADL campaign effectively highlighted the significant influence the ADL holds in regulating the flow of information online, it is essential to delve into the reasons why Elon Musk cannot remove the ADL from the platform or hinder their effective management of his company, even if he were inclined to do so.


First we have to understand a bit of the context for how a platform like X actually works and is able to exist on the internet along with the inside baseball of how the ADL flexes its power to control massive corporations without owning a single share.

X’s Partnership with Google

X is built on the rails of multiple third-party services including, but not limited to the Google Cloud infrastructure among others. X has had a partnership with Google Cloud since 2018, and Bloomberg reports that this collaboration has incurred annual expenses ranging from $200 million to $300 million for the company. Jonathan Greenblatt has openly bragged about the ADL’s partnership with Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X, going so far as to change the algorithms of these companies to meet their demands.

With one phone call to Google the ADL can cripple X. If Google pulls the plug on the cloud hosting deal massive parts of X’s critical infrastructure will be down for a long time, possibly the entire platform would be taken offline with one click. We saw this happen in 2020 with Parler when Amazon AWS pulled the plug and the platform was taken offline. They were never able to fully recover and recently shut the platform down completely after it sold to a third-party.

Going after the cloud hosting providers is just the start for the ADL’s ability to utterly destroy X.

The App Store

Next come the app store bans. With that same phone call to Google the ADL could easily highlight the hundreds of thousands of “antisemitic” posts on the platform and point the the #BantheADL posts as their prime example. Don’t put it past them. They likely have multiple studies going on behind the scenes tracking the “rise in hate” on the platform since Elon took over and will use this to present their case.

Without critical infrastructure and the app stores X would be in serious trouble, but Elon may be able to pull off a miracle and keep the platform online.

The Advertisers

Next come the advertisers. The ADL has close connections with all of the top Fortune 500 companies and will use their mafia-style power to get these companies to pull their ad dollars from X. This has already been going on since the moment Elon took over the platform. X is operating in a cash flow negative situation and reports claim that ad revenue has fallen by a dramatic 50% since Elon took over.

That’s only the beginning.

The Government

Next the ADL will contact the sitting members of Congress and the Biden White House. We’ll see Elon be summoned to testify in Congress about the rise in “misinformation” and “hate” on the platform since he took over.

Elon is in a unique position because he’s not only running X. He’s also running several other companies including SpaceX and Tesla, both of which require him to appease the Regime and stay within their favor.

The ADL can and will go after not only X, but all of Elon’s companies.

It’s no coincidence that the CEO of X is having meetings with the ADL just days after the DOJ announced that they were suing SpaceX.

How do I know all of this? Because I lived it–and survived it by the grace of God.

The ADL has been attacking Gab and I for many years. Their smear campaigns against us successfully lobbied dozens of third-party services to deplatform us and cripple our infrastructure. Despite all of their efforts this didn’t stop us. We were able to rebuild our own servers, payment processing, and so much more in order to keep Gab online. It took many years and it wasn’t easy, but we are still standing.

The ADL has also come after me personally.

 They pay Google to promote their smear articles about me to the top of search results.
 They lobbied the DOJ to investigate me after January 6th, even though I wasn’t even in attendance.
 Jonathan Greenblatt went on national television and called me “one of the most toxic people in public life” effectively painting a target on my back.

None of this stopped me.

I don’t fear the ADL. I don’t answer to the ADL. I fear and answer only to God almighty.

The ADL has NO POWER over Gab which is why they hate us. It’s that simple. There is absolutely nothing they can say or do to get us to censor opinions they don’t like and it’s going to stay that way.

Elon has a choice. He can continue to allow this disgusting organization to run his company by proxy without his approval or he can fight back, take a stand like Gab has, and face the consequences head on. He can continue to have his CEO take groveling phone calls and enforce the ADL’s strategy of freedom of speech but not freedom of reach or he can tell them to pound sand.

If he can’t run his own business without permission from some ghoulish vampire at the ADL there’s no sense in running a business at all.

For me it was an easy decision.

Andrew Torba

CEO, http://Gab.com

Jesus Christ is King of kings

Microplastics and the Brain

  • Microplastics, a highly prevalent form of plastic pollution, have infiltrated air, water, and food chains globally.
  • Ross and her team focused on neurobehavioral effects and inflammatory response to exposure to microplastics, as well as the accumulation of microplastics in tissues, including the brain.
  • “Current research suggests that these microplastics are transported throughout the environment and can accumulate in human tissues; however, research on the health effects of microplastics, especially in mammals, is still very limited,”
  • exposed young and old mice to varying levels of microplastics in drinking water over the course of three weeks. They found that microplastic exposure induces both behavioral changes and alterations in immune markers in liver and brain tissues. The study mice began to move and behave peculiarly, exhibiting behaviors akin to dementia in humans. The results were even more profound in older animals.
  • “To us, this was striking. These were not high doses of microplastics, but in only a short period of time, we saw these changes,”
  • “Nobody really understands the life cycle of these microplastics in the body, so part of what we want to address is the question of what happens as you get older. Are you more susceptible to systemic inflammation from these microplastics as you age? Can your body get rid of them as easily? Do your cells respond differently to these toxins?”
  • The researchers found that the particles had begun to bioaccumulate in every organ, including the brain, as well as in bodily waste.
  • the microplastics were delivered orally via drinking water
  • The brain-blood barrier is supposed to be very difficult to permeate. It is a protective mechanism against viruses and bacteria, yet these particles were able to get in there. It was actually deep in the brain tissue.”
  • That brain infiltration also may cause a decrease in glial fibrillary acidic protein (called “GFAP”), a protein that supports many cell processes in the brain, results have shown. “A decrease in GFAP has been associated with early stages of some neurodegenerative diseases, including mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as depression,”