On race, culture, and nationality

It has been a while since i have seen any form of opinionated debate thread here, and i have been tossing this question to some friends of mine for a bit, so i'll ask it here too.

TL;DR: Should a new "race" (to use the term loosely) be branded, due to the euro-based racemixing in the US?

In all of the places i have been in the US (every eastern state really), the majority of white people are some mix of German, Italian, Irish/Brit, French, or Nordic decent. Most commonly, i have seen mixes of Irish, German, and Italian. At this stage in the US, it is albeit arguably too late to stick to our own kinds; germans for germans, irish for irish, etc., because we are pretty mixed as-is.

My question is, should the Irish/German/Italian mix which most white US Citizens are be considered a new ethnicity? We as white Americans have more than likely been here for at least three generations so far, which usually constitutes the rebranding of ones nationality into the groups adoptive State. As far as I know, us on the right call ourselves American, our distinct nationality. As Americans, we have our own distinct conservative culture (I do not mean the political title conservative as it is currently used, but as in we wish to conserve all which we have). The only thing different amongst us whites that bars us from being one race are our distant and diverse ethnic backgrounds, which, now, are not so diverse any more. I have once heard us described in the German Amerikaner as a racial identity, though i dont recall the context, what mix it was directed at, where it came from, or anything really.

>Race: Amerikaner?

We are already called "white" as our race, but that is misleading and inaccurate. Irish are very different from lightskinned Greeks, and theyre both very different from an eastern Russian, an Italian, a Swede, and a German. Since most non-hispanic whites are a mix of Irish/German/Italian, should we coin a new term for us? This will be more accurate than "I'm 25% Irish, 25% German, 25% Italian, 12.5% Russian, 12.5% French," and it will give lefties a scary buzzword, which will further ostrasize the far-left from the moderate-left.

PROS? CONS? Rebuttals? Defenses?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yep

Why would you name yourselves in German when the vast majority of h'white Americans are English speakers and see LARPing as cringeworthy?

Maybe in Argentina and Brazil, but no in the US. There's very little Italian influence in the south, or Midwest, or anywhere except the major cities.

These things are mutually exclusive, Chaim.

Because you cant say "American" because thats a nationality title, since there are so many other races here. If you come up with a better name then lets use it. Gerishalian? Italrishan? Iritalman?

Maybe thats just a north east thing. Every friend i have is some mix of german, italian, irish, and some of them also potentially have russian french or nordic. But the main three are German Italian and Irish.

Oy vey, the goyim is onto me!
I know. It was a cynically posted image i found during one of the BLDM chimpouts. There should have been quotation marks around the "Chimp Out" in the image to better convey the point that we are civilized and they are but poorly dressed, sedated animals.

There are two fundamental elements that one has to give primacy.

1. Race
2. Culture.

Both are equally important and interdependent, but you must determine which of these two factors is given primary focus. For instance, perhaps you determine race to be the chief factor, and you want to create a nation of ethnic Scandinavian people only. What would happen if you had an ethnically pure Scandinavian man and women moved to the Middle East, became Muslims, and then had children that were raised in Islam in the Arab world? Specifically, what would happen if these ethnically pure Scandinavian Muslims wanted to move back? Would you let them? Probably not, but not due to racial issues. It would simply be that their cultural indoctrination is so alien, that you MUST use the cultural aspect as grounds for denial of citizenship or entry.

Now, imagine if culture becomes the primary focus. What you would do is define the broadly European/Western cultural tradition and make it the chief element of determining who is to be considered "white." Here, race plays a role, but only in the broader continental sense. For instance, even though Italian people are largely different from Icelandic people, there are enough rough similarities in the cultural context alongside with at least distantly related racial similarities for us to determine who is a "native European." This would lead us to have a broader pan-European definition of determining who is "white," but it would also give us the tools to determine who is NOT white, for we could look at a Chinese person and immediately see some significant differences in culture and race to know who is what.

Ultimately, one must determine which of these two factors will unite enough people to form a political force capable of producing actual change. In the case of the United States, one must realize that a VERY LARGE number of people are of pan-European descent, having come from a variety of European lineages. Combine this with the fact that these mixed pan-European peoples have intermixed their cultures into a different construction (roughly speaking), and you begin to understand that you CANNOT build a political machine in the United States that does not give culture primacy over race.

If you want a coalition, culture will have to be the primary determining factor so that a broader pan-European consensus can be constructed. If you begin telling those of Italian or Greek blood to fuck off, then everyone who is aware of their heritage or loved a grandparent with that heritage will immediately abandon your cause.

In the United States it is either pan-European or bust.

The issue there is that the United States are very large and it really depends on where you go on what type of ancestry you will find. And to be honest, I have found that there are actually are is a large number of people who have stayed pure to their lineage, meaning someone's ancestors on both sides are traces to Britain, or to Germany and so forth. Just from my experience, but yes, most people probably trace to at least 2-4 nations.

If you go to the South, most will be of Anglo stock. In fact, many have been there so long, they just report their ancestry as "American", and as a consequence the numbers of Americans with English descent appears lower than it actually is. Upper New England will also be of Anglo stock as well. The Midwest is overwhelmingly Teutonic. The upper Midwest is particular Nordic. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is filled with Finns. Portions of the East coast are very Italian and Irish-New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and have been more urban compared to others. The Northwest, in terms of ethnography, is like an extension of the Midwest in that it is largely German. California too. Utah has stayed Anglo.

When it comes to cities wherever the region, its usually more of a cesspool of identities and you would be better off going outside them to learn a regions true identity. For example, the demographics of Chicago and Philadelphia will not represent the small towns scattered throughout those states.

Any future identity for Americans of European descent will probably be Anglo centered, after all, the English wrote the Constitution and founded the country, and a large portion of the country still traces back to Britain. And of course, English is the common language.

Can whites who descend from other regions of Europe carry on the Anglo tradition? How big is the racial evolutionary difference between say, an Pole and an Englishman?

There used to be a much more visible federalist system in America which helped avoid conflicts between different identities in the states. Even during the time of the Revolutionary War there was four major identities in the US, all English, but they still thought a Federalist system would work best, This way, there would be a central government that oversaw all regions, but had few, and very basic responsibilities, like military, and regulation between states, and of course guaranteeing our rights as listed in the founding document, The state government had different responsibilities and this way most of the time different states with different identities would not have to force or come into dispute with their way of life. And back then, which state you belonged to was a bigger deal. Now it means almost nothing. Sure their are minor differences in laws but which state you were born in does not describe you in the same way it did back in the day. If you and your family were from Virginia you were a Virginian and it carried more weight and there were more things unique that. Notice how presidents used to say "These United States", and not "The United States".

I've always used "Euro-mutt" to describe myself even though my ancestors were only Germanic or Celtic. Just American would be fine if it wasn't already so tainted by hyphened-Americans.
Amerikaner isn't so bad but I'm not so sure it's ability to appeal to normies, who are the ones we need to cement the term into our common tongue.
In my opinion I think we're stuck with "White." Our fight then would be who is actually white.
The US census lists middle eastern and north african as White so our numbers are even lower than initial glances suggest. I've had more success explaining to people who is White by using the Out of Africa theory to make race sound more like extended family than a simple skin color like they think. I argue that each race is simply a genetic branch of humanity and thousands of years of selection pressures of a certain environment on one branch's gene pool have made each branch unique and predisposed to perform better in certain environments (This makes sending niggers back to Africa more palatable but could open a discussion about America's demographics). This amost always corners them into either defending genocide by racemixing or accepting racial purity as desirable while also priming them for future discussions on white genocide.
Most people aren't screeching harpies like you see on youtube so an informed and polite explanation will be received pretty well.