Before starting, I want to clarify that my intention with this article is not to deconstruct Whiteness, or condone race-mixing or defend squat-Incas ruining America. My intention is to talk about an issue that we will have to eventually examine and decide upon. At the very least we should keep it in the back of our minds until RaHoWa is won and we have successfully fourteened and eightyeighted. The issue is not "what is Whiteness" in the abstract but applied to the reality of what Spain did in the New World. Without further ado:
When talking about race mixing dear Anglo-American and Old-European readers, it's very important to understand that the context of the issue is completely different in Anglo-America than it is in Spanish America.
For an Anglo-American race-mixing is about the future. When you think about the subject you picture your daughter or sister spawning Tyrone's little D'Shawn and it is horrible, it makes you sick to your stomach and want to put everyone involved in an oven to stop it from happening. On the other hand, for a Spanish-American, race-mixing is about the past, not the future. For a Spanish-American it's not about his sister or daughter spawning Montezuma's little Tacocoatl-Francisco, it's about he himself being the spawn of a spawn of a spawn of a Montezuma two hundred years ago, but so is almost everyone else and there's nothing he can do about it (race-mixing up?) so he shrugs and carries on with his life, not really caring about the issue.
This is the reality of hundreds of years of mestizaje. The abridged version of why the Spaniards did it is: because they came as conquerors and explorers to unknown lands, not settlers to already semi-charted land like the Brits did. Spain also encountered the only two empires on the continent and had to subdue them militarily and deal with the occupation afterwards. Basically Spanish men came as soldiers and couldn't bring their families until later, the Brits came with their families first and had to become soldiers later. Keep in mind the time spans of such endeavors too. Spain had been on the continent for almost a century and a half before the first English pilgrims came to Plymouth. That's a lot of time to rape Aztec women and produce hybrids, even if they did bring their wives and families eventually. But the "damage" (is disseminating White genes and reducing Indio ones, while leaving the genetic capital of your European HQ untouched truly an unequivocal bad thing or was it eugenic?) was already done.
In any case, we now have a bunch of people that are not fully 100% genetically White because of events that happened hundreds of years ago and that is a problem for our movement. The problem is, that we have to define Whiteness, whereas if it hadn't happened, we really wouldn't need to. To further complicate things, the stricter the definition, the higher the costs of enforcing policies or defining groups.
So, who is White? We could play it safe and just say that people of 100% European ancestry, but then you would have to exclude Morrakiu from our future Whitetopia. I don't know about you, but that seems shitty. So then you would have to make "an exception" for him and people like him and then exceptions eventually lead to NAxALT and the jews take over again. So we say, "OK, 99% White, Morrakiu can stay, and no exceptions." OK cool, but what's the difference between 99% White and 98.5% White? You take enough .5% and yes, eventually you stop being White, the issue is where do we stop? Again, I remind you that my intention is not deconstruction, it's to highlight the problem and the problem is what I will call the "lower bounds" of Whiteness. Upper bounds are easy. No one can be more than 100% White so it can't be higher than that, and if you place it lower than 100, then someone who surpasses the upper bound is still White. The problem is "how low" is the lower bound?
For an Anglo-American detached of a race-mixing past it might not seem like a big issue, but Latin America is full of people that look White, were raised as White, have no connection to any other ethnic expression or group, and yet might find that they are only 80% White and to top it all off, the other 20% is not monolithic and is actually divided into North African, West African and Amerindian. What the fuck are they? Are we going to condemn them to any particular race of the non-White 20% despite them not having any connection to it? If the answer is that they should form their own countries, the issue is the same, should someone who is 79% White be a part of that country, or should 79ers get their own country too? How many countries are we going to have and how are we going to arrange such societies? I'm not saying that this isn't what should be done, but it seems weirdly Soviet and jewy. Oy vey! Don't mingle with the goyim or you'll catch the goy cooties. Achtung! Don't mingle with the impure 88-percenters or you're no longer White.
I repeat this is NOT about deconstructing Whiteness, it's the opposite, it's about defining it and we can either go with a strict binary approach that is costly in all sorts of terms from the economic to the humane and might be non-robust (which is again, fine if that's what we do) or we can decide upon a lower bound , and trust me there is one (and my intuition puts it at around 65%+). Or we can have neither and go at it on a case by case basis seeing how much of the non-White part actually comes through despite cold 23andme numbers. We also don't want to set a lower bound and then have people that would rather be non-White be counted as one of us.
I don't know what the best answer is. But we need to know the issue. If you have spent any kind of time in Latin America or with White Latin Americans it should be more than clear that it is not as cut and dry as it might seem from a purely Anglo-American perspective.
But really, now that I think about it, we all come from Africa so I don't know why I even brought this up.