The only practical divisions of the general White-European race are the two-race classification made by Thomas H. Huxley or the three race classification made by William Z. Ripley and Madison Grant.

But in general, this overt obsession with differences between smaller groups within Europe is ridiculous. There is hardly anything reasonable about splitting Celts and Germans genetically, considering how incredibly similar the two are. Francis Parker Yockey took it too far when he dismissed the importance of biological race and over-emphasized the idea that race is only spiritual (although I’m not denying a spiritual aspect to race here),but sometimes one can understand why a man can become disgusted with all this useless extensive racial or sub-racial division of Europeans that goes against our natural feelings about genetic divisions.

An obsession with genetic differences between White peoples is what I would call race-materialism and it is something that we need to avoid if we wish to unite and survive as a race.

While that is certainly true recent studies have shown that 75% of the ancestors of modern Englishman settled in Britain between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago. While most Englishmen have Frisian blood due to the apartheid rules of the Saxon kings between 500 and 800 AD where the upper classes took Briton wives but not vice versa the total number of Saxon invaders was just at most around 100,000 and more likely between 10,000 and 25,000 so even after 300 years of Saxon breeding practices the total effect was not that of replacement of the existing population. The Viking and Norman invasions were much smaller and had even less total effect.

Here is a current Hapmap of Europe based on genes associated with asthma. Note the rather small number of green Germanic data points compared to the sea of yellow Celtic ones in Britain.

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/genmapeuropeA.jpg

This is truly sad, given that my first response would be that you are the inheritors of the genetic aristocracy of the West. The cultures that gave the world Gothic architecture, Mozart, Beethoven, the Magna Carta, the list goes on and on. It is a measure of how the “de-education” process has succeeded in universities across the land when Shakespeare can be trashed for patently mediocre authors like Toni Morrison (a Nobel Prize, no less!) and Amy Tan.

It seems that our young people need to see and hear about some contemporary leading lights in our people. I was watching a Discovery channel episode on quantum physics the other day, and guess what? All of the top physicists were white and European. We still command the lead in so many areas…I guess physics just isn’t sexy enough.

> Multiculturalism serves in this way as the proxy of multiculturalism

I think the former should read “multiracialism”
I’m afraid my English is not as good as I thought it was =p
Very insightful piece, one of the best I’ve read in this site so far!

This piece originally appeared in the print version of The Occidental Quarterly 9:2 (Summer 2009). Sam Phillips apparently had to re-type it (above and beyond the call of duty, I would say), which accounts for the numerous dropped words and unintelligiable sentences of this version.

Like a few other revolutionaries associated with white nationalism, I am a blue-collar worker, who writes on weekends — and in the spirit of Lenin’s What Is To be Done? I wish it were otherwise, but “We Irish” are still not allowed into the salons or classrooms of America’s low-church empire.

I’d like to ask the author some perhaps stupid or at least possibly ignorant questions. Was this article intended for publication in TOQ? If not, was it intended for publication elsewhere, and simply posted here for general interest? Will you get paid for it? If not, how can you possibly find the time to write something so detailed and, well, ‘academic’, for free?

That is why I liked this part of the definitions especially:
——————————————–
For Arnold culture is:

“the pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world; and through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits.26″

Culture in this is self-culture: that is, the self-cultivation of man’s being through a formation in the finest achievements of his civilization. Hence, the definition found in older editions of the OED: “The training, development, refinement of mind, tastes, and manners.”

For Arnold the striving to improve and enhance oneself (”perfection”) was the ideal state of the mind, just as health was the ideal state of the body.
Culture here is more a state of mind than a body of knowledge. For the mind’s love of perfection implies a process of becoming rather than of obtaining, designating an inward condition higher or greater than outward materialism.
——————————————-

That is the real definition of what culture should be — not the behaviors that pass for “culture” to modern minds like rap music and gangster “culture”. Culture is toward truth and perfection and everything that symbolizes these things.