No, this is not an essay on yellow fever, the phenomenon of white men getting hitched to Asian women. Maybe I could write something on that, but not today. For those who don’t know what a hapa is, this Hawaiian term describes someone of mixed racial ancestry, but in online nomenclature it usually refers to a child of white and Asian parents, and is often associated with the lingering resentment of such individuals, who don’t feel they have a true identity. This is best exemplified on the hapa subreddit, where one can read the following:
“/r/hapas theorizes that young Hapa people can be high risk. /r/hapas looks to be a safe space to talk honestly about our identity issues, and discuss the problem with looking Asian, coming from a specific type of self-hating and potentially lower-status parents – and what is colloquially referred to as the “Hapacalypse.”.”
The case of spree-killer Elliot Rodger brought the rage of such people to the attention of many, but hapas have been around for as long as whites and asians have been around one another. The gist of the hapa problem is that children produced by mixed couples have a sense of rootlessness which manifests itself in a near-constant state of passive aggression. So, if I don’t intend to address this issue in depth, what do I mean by the hapa temptation?
In a recent video, Millennial Woes discussed his thoughts on pan-whitism, in response to a question about the ‘benefits’ of free movement, as occurs between EU countries. He correctly points out that opposition to the EU based upon the threat it poses to native European peoples through mass migration, is the only sensible position. However, he then addresses the question of individual national identities themselves. He draws a distinction between those who want civic nationalism (those who value the culture), those who want ethnonationalism (which values the ethnicity), and those who want pan-europeanism (probably better defined as pan-whitism, which values the race). Who holds this third view? I must say that I have never really heard this espoused by right wing Europeans. I have never heard a Polish nationalist express desire for ethnic mixing among whites. I have never heard a Greek nationalist express desire for ethnic mixing among whites. I have never heard a French nationalist express desire for ethnic mixing among whites. Where this sentiment does emerge is in the former colonial territories: America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Woes confirms this when he asks the question, “Is the mixing of the European peoples inevitable and unavoidable?” and says that Richard Spencer answers in the affirmative and sees this as the natural way forward, part of the “arrow of time”.
linear history… not even once
The “arrow of time” is a particular form of current-yearism falling under the umbrella of “the right side of history”. Something is declared to be inevitable and so we should embrace it. Europe is destined to become “America 2”, according to this prophecy. Woes also points to Varg Vikerness as an example, but while Varg is European, he’s not exactly what most people would call a sound mind, especially considering his argument is “we’ve always mixed”. It’s true, we have done, but never at a rate which fundamentally altered individual ethnic development. If this was the case, we would have a monoculture. Culture springs mostly from race, and thus if everyone in Europe is hybrid, and nothing remains of anything original and distinct, then why are our cultures and indeed dispositions so distinct? I would go as far as to say that our ethnic groups are as distinct in many ways as our racial group, and thus dismissing the first entails the dismissal of the second. This is why the idea of Europe as having “always mixed” is used by the left to justify migration from non-European countries like Pakistan.
Woes takes a line of general inquisitiveness, and asks the question, “how much effort has to be expended to preserve Denmark in 1000 years time?” The answer is, as much as Danes are willing to put into it rather than embrace national suicide. God knows I’m not a Nietzschean, but there is something of a will to power issue here. If something is valuable, we should fight for it until our dying breath, and if we’re not willing to do so then we deserve to perish. One of the key problems of the modern west is its completely vacuous approach to value in which we simply do not bother to care about anything, and thus never have to fight, never have to struggle, never have to defend. It’s just easier.
“There’s my nation
aaaaand it’s gone”
Why would this indulgent defeatism with regards to the destiny of European ethnic groups emerge? This is where hapaism comes into play. In the same way that hapas feel frustration with their lack of clear ancestry with its roots in ancient history, so too have some colonial whites (at least among those who are conscious of race as a real thing) developed the same sense of loss. And, just as hapas develop a resentment because of this, it isn’t impossible to think whites would do the same, and that it would manifest itself as a subtle disdain for the individual ethnicities of Europe, wishing for a pan-white brotherhood, a kind of “if I can’t have ethnic identity… nobody can” sentiment. I don’t know the original context in which Richard Spencer spoke, and to which Woes refers, so I can’t dig down too deep into it, but I do not doubt that these were his sentiments, since he made similar proclamations in an argument over the EU with Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents. To be clear, I don’t think this is a dominant narrative among white colonial populations, and I know quite a few who would find it laughable, but it is sizable enough to be of note.
There is something profoundly sinister about this to my mind, and I speak as someone who is of mixed European ancestry myself. The different ethnicities of Europe are what gives the continent its dynamic character, and indeed its beauty. Without them, we would be void of our historic cultural achievements, since each one was the product of a unique culture, not some ‘white’ monoculture. And contrary to what liberals say, the ethnic groups of Europe are distinct from one another even at the biological level. Greek genes are not the same as English genes. This is not artificial or arbitrary, and thus the formation of an “America 2” would be accurately defined as an ethnic catastrophe. Why would we want to do this? And why would we see its prevention as a Herculean task? I am for ending 90% of free movement between nations in Europe, and an ethnically preferential attitude among all. This isn’t to say there would be no mixing, of course there would be, but at a low enough level that the host population could absorb it without in any way altering its uniqueness.
As someone with strong Russian connections, I don’t feel any need to defend what went on during the Soviet era with a two-faced apologetic. Are Baltic claims of persecution often exaggerated, especially compared to other areas? Yes. Did the Soviet Union bring some positive developments to the Baltics, particularly the rapid development of the electronics and textile industries? Yes. Was there extensive co-operation and collaboration with the Soviet authorities, particularly among Lithuanian communists? Yes. But none of that does anything to omit from history the massive program of ethnic replacement carried out in Estonia and Latvia. Industrial workers were imported into these countries from the Russian interior, and today put their ethnic integrity in doubt. Putting aside the main reason for these expat Russians’ continued existence in Estonia and Latvia (a strategic bargaining chip against countries which are openly hostile to Russia under the aegis of NATO and Washington), the fact of population replacement, which was also suffered by Abkhazians at the hands of the Goergian SSR, is a moral crime. Not only that, but it has produced enduring enmity and distrust between the two sides. Why would we want to essentially embrace this attitude of interchangeability of ethnicities? You can make an academic case with regards to the Ukraine, but Estonians and Latvians are not even Slavic (although supposedly there are linguistic ties). The same story of distinctness is repeated throughout Europe.
The general point here is that ethnicity is special, and it will not disappear unless people will it to disappear. Europeans should strongly reject this tendency. That isn’t to say they should become doctrinaire exclusivists and frown upon all inter-ethnic marriages, but that such things ought not be considered the norm, and certainly not part of some grand mixing project. Part of the reason that American whites in particular have struggled to root their racial concerns in something primordial is not only due to the young age and nature of their country, but because of this widespread deracination which has led to the creation of (in my opinion) a new ethnic group in and of itself, which has yet to define a clear set of exclusive traditions to which only they have rightful access. I don’t see why we would want such a thing to happen to us in Europe. In fact, I think it is a vocal rejection of hapaism which is vital for European cooperation and mutual understanding. While the threat it represents exists in people’s minds, they will have the same suspicion and hatred that predominates in Latvia and Estonia, and rightly so, because their entire ethnic story, past, present, and future, is being assaulted.
I’ve written on pan-whitism before, but I hope this is a clearer treatment of it. European ethnic groups are distinct. We build different societies, have different aesthetic tastes, ways of speaking, ways of relating to each other and the divine, etc. Just as I don’t wish to see McDonalds in Beijing, so too do I not want to see Dutch-style windmills in Hungary. We are a rich tapestry, and reducing that down to a bland commonality would render us rootless, boring, resentful, and lost. A tapestry whose only unifying thread is just plain, undifferentiated ‘white’ is not a tapestry at all. It’s a flag of surrender to the so-called ‘arrow of time’.