The Hapa Temptation

hapa temptat.png

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”.

linearlinear 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.

cantsleep“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’.


18 thoughts on “The Hapa Temptation

  1. Well said. The “hapaism” you identify is part of a broader phenomenon on the right: whites, broadly speaking, are highly altruistic (by global standards) and prone to sink into pathological altruism, and where that happens the last stand for sanity comes from the most clannish whites (and groups of whites). But at the same time, these clannish whites have the same narcissistic, chauvinist traits as non-whites when it comes to situating their ethnic group relative to other white ethnicities. So, for example, Sicilian-descendants are extremely reluctant to admit that they are “less white” than the European norm, if you are comparing typical white traits to the typical traits of Arabs, etc. Likewise with mutt-Americans refusing to admit that (a) they aren’t particularly close to the character of whichever European nation(s) they claim as a “homeland”, (b) part of the reason they don’t have a culture is because they’re Euro-mutts, and (c) part of the reason *America* doesn’t have a culture is that their ancestors came into a homogenous Anglo country and fouled it up.

    You can admit all of those things and still be self-assertive, still fight for your right to exist and your people’s right to exist. But the people who are typically willing to admit all those things won’t stand up for themselves, and the people who will stand up for themselves would rather embrace bolshevik nonsense about the brotherhood of man than admit anything unflattering about their heritage.


    • I was careful in what I said, because I still don’t think this sentiment is widely held on the AltRight, at least not in the fully ideological sense that Richard Spencer is espousing. Evidence of this can be found in Greg Johnson’s vehement disagreement with Spencer. I have my issues with Johnson, but he is right on this score. I just think that, when faced with an identity crisis as racially aware white colonial populations become, there are two routes. The first is to try to muddy Europe so that we all have nothing to cling to but ‘white’. and the second is to actually define the ‘American’ ethnos around a set of Traditional ideas, thus giving it a full-scale identity. Obviously, I favour the latter. I’m not being a purist, and being that I’m part Russian, part English, and part Norwegian, it would be hypocritical of me to be so.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. …”define the ‘American’ ethnos around a set of Traditional ideas.” Yes, absolutely correct However, America has never had such a set. Whence shall it come?


  3. I think part of the pan-white movement is inspired by a fear of WWIII between our nations, and a stronger sense of white people as distinctly united as opposed to blacks and Muslims. In an age in which every white person speaks English it’s difficult to imagine them as the “other” when you pass thuggish immigrants on the street every day.

    As a Christian, I feel like the Bible definitely talks about ethnicity as a distinct thing rather than race. I don’t think pan-whiteness is inevitable, but I think it’s strategically preferable to having warring factions of former Christendom weakening each-other while the other races wait to take advantage of our disunity.

    I think this issue is comparable to the weakening of distinct denominational identities in Christianity. As Christianity weakens, and the world globalizes, Christians care increasingly less about what tradition a person comes from. It’s hard for a Protestant to see a Catholic as the “other” when they encounter liberal lesbian feminists every day at work and on TV.


    • I too wish to avoid wars between peoples of the same faith. I’m not even that attached to the political sovereignty of nations, but ethnic sovereignty to me is absolutely critical. I don’t want e.g the Germans preserved because they are ‘white’, I want them preserved because they are German. After all, if there is nothing special about Germans, then their passing is not amazingly important, since Poles could replicate their culture.


  4. I’m a monoethnic white American who has been keeping up with the alt right and its predecessors since around 2010, and I have encountered exceptionally few people who actively wish for the blending of Europeans into a single homogeneous type. Among those who do wish for this ideal, there is no strong tendency to be Americans. You mentioned Varg, a Norwegian; Constantin von Hoffmeister, a German, is particularly enthusiastic about this possibility. I can’t think of any others. Perhaps you could name them for me?

    There is no reason to think that Varg Vikernes is “not exactly what most people would call a sound mind”. None of his bad tendencies (obsessive countersignaling of every living person and movement, uninformed positions on topics, black-and-white judgments) point to instability. Before he was incarcerated, his professional evaluation indicated high intelligence and mental stability. Making these sorts of inflammatory statements about him is below the level of this blog. The fact is that he is indeed a counterexample to your belief that only Americans would gravitate to pan-Europeanism.

    Richard Spencer, from everything I’ve heard from him, merely wishes for European ethnic groups to be ruled by larger political structures. This seems to be informed not by American racial ideas, but by the influence of his Russian wife and her Dugin fascination. (In one of his latest Twitter tirades, his negative opinions towards ethnonationalists and apologetics for Soviet atrocities were interlaced.)

    I think comes from the failure of Europeans to understand the difference between “identities” (national and local), and simple objective facts about individuals (being white). Things like average intelligence and temperament matter, they matter a lot, and they can never be made not to matter. When a European movement begins to countersignal racial ideas, it’s never a good sign for the future. Most of the “white nationalists” in the alt right are really just supporters of ethnic separatism for everyone, and do not literally think that a single nation should be created to serve all white people.


    • Committing petty arson and stabbing someone 23 times, to death in a domestic dispute, is enough to characterize someone as not being of “sound mind”. I do not consider this even remotely inflammatory, and since his cast-iron statements against Christians would render him nothing less than an enemy of what I believe (to the same degree as Anjem Choudary) I don’t feel the need to sugar-coat my statements in any way to mask his history.

      Richard Spencer was paraphrased by Millennial Woes as having said that the mixing of European peoples was part of the “arrow of time”, thus being inevitable. He is the high profile example of this, and indeed the academic one, others being ardent netizen supporters of him (as opposed to, say, Greg Johnson) whom I have encountered, who tend to identify as “white” before anything else, and do agree with Spencer’s sentiments on the EU for example. For them, ethnicity really just doesn’t matter. The fact that quaslacrimas and Christian Talour above recognize pan-whitism as an actual phenomenon confirms that I’m not simply imagining that people have agreed with Spencer. I never said this was a phenomenon present in a majority of people, only in a segment for which Spencer is something of a spokesman, which is typically not European. It’s true, language does limit much of my interaction to the Anglosphere, which is dominated by colonial populations rather than the English, so that may bias my own assessment of this sentiment’s presence on the continent. Perhaps there is high support for it in Romania and Poland, though I have doubts.

      But in fact, you yourself betray this attitude when you say that “identities” are distinct from objective facts. In framing the issue this way, you imply that identities are subjective (since they are said to contrast with “objective facts”). There are in fact demonstrable genetic differences across European ethnicities (which very obviously manifest in phenotypes) and beyond this there are objective variations in the orientations of mind and spirit, leading to very different cultural expressions.

      I am not “counter-signaling racial ideas”. I am pointing out that race exists at a different level to ethnicity, and that for some people, ethnicity is ‘subjective’ rather than ‘objective’, and that this viewpoint is bullshit. I never said a majority, so this is a straw man. People are allowed to criticize Spencer’s ideas without being accused of “counter-signaling”. I’m not some kind of anti-Spencer drone. In fact, if you look at Twitter, I’ve praised him recently.

      The main thrust of this article is that there are different notions of how important ethnicity is. RamZPaul and Greg Johnson have a viewpoint which is far closer to the truth and more compatible with European history than Richard Spencer’s on this issue, which is identified with an ‘idealistic’ attitude of pan-whitism that goes beyond governmental politics, and extends to a general laissez faire attitude about ethnic mixing, which would naturally be much more common among populations which are often (though not always) the product of that mixing to the Nth degree. Again I stress, not all, or even a majority of people think in these terms, and I never claimed anything of the sort.


  5. “Committing petty arson and stabbing someone 23 times, to death in a domestic dispute, is enough to characterize someone as not being of “sound mind”.”
    According to him, he was attacked. I’m agnostic about whether that’s true, but there’s a reason that criminal insanity is distinguished from normal criminality.

    “Richard Spencer was paraphrased by Millennial Woes as having said that the mixing of European peoples was part of the “arrow of time”, thus being inevitable.”
    While I admire MW, I do not defer to his personal recollection of other’s arguments as facts. I recall Spencer saying that his pan-Europeanism is specifically governmental. Assuming this is an accurate statement of Spencer’s, it’s still unclear whether it’s prescriptive, descriptive, or both. My emphasis in discussing Spencer was on the origin of his ideas about pan-Europeanism, though, and how I suspect his wife is a big influence.

    “quaslacrimas and Christian Talour”
    Never heard of these two. Based on their Twitter profiles, they look rather marginal. Are they both Americans?

    “In framing the issue this way, you imply that identities are subjective (since they are said to contrast with “objective facts”).”
    We could divide each claim about identity into one of two categories:
    A) Verifiable claims about reality, and
    B) personal feelings and convictions about social relationships and society.
    B could be caused by A, but the two things are distinct.

    “There are in fact demonstrable genetic differences across European ethnicities (which very obviously manifest in phenotypes) and beyond this there are objective variations in the orientations of mind and spirit, leading to very different cultural expressions.”
    There is genetic variation in Europe. They generally do not map onto European ethnicities particularly well. Some groups, such as Finns, are genetically quite distinct. If you wanted to justify a distinction between Norwegians and Danes on genetic grounds, you’d probably come up wanting. Genetic differences within Europe arguably are closer to a gradient along cardinal directions than a group of distinct ethnic groups. In this sense, “European” is a much more distinct genetic reality than “Flemish” or “Breton.”

    Things like “German” and “Italian” are concepts that reference historically new political entities, not ancient cultures. Germany in particular incorporates a large cross-section of European types. Pomeranians do not look like Bavarians, and arguably don’t act much like one another, either. As far as I’m concerned, their decision to continue living together is a decision that I respect, but I don’t automatically defer to the idea that they’ve “always been Germans.” For some European ethnicities, this is more true than for others.

    “I am not “counter-signaling racial ideas”.”
    I wasn’t suggesting that you were. I’m talking about certain European nationalists who simultaneously emphasize national identity but attack the idea of race. From my experience, these people are usually just picky about the method of their destruction. Irish nationalists seem to be particularly bad examples of this: Happy to see foreigners destroy their societies, as long as it isn’t the dreaded Englishmen.


    • “criminally insane” is a legal definition. Maybe you consider him to be of sound mind and would be happy trusting your kids around him because he isn’t “criminally insane”. I wouldn’t, hence why I said he was not of sound mind. The case seems pretty open and shut to me, from what I’ve read. In fact, it actually could be characterized in worse terms of premeditation than I did.

      I honestly don’t know enough about Spencer’s wife to comment on her views of this matter. I’d like to think highly enough of Spencer that he wouldn’t be inculcated with entirely new beliefs by a woman.

      Broadly, you will find genetic variation in Europe is applicable to the various macro-ethnic distinctions, Slav, Germanic, etc. The more specific differentiations are less genetic, but only a strict materialist would say that this makes differences between, say, Poles and Russians merely subjective. I believe in Evola’s tripartite theory of race, so I do not ground my assumptions in mere genetics, but also see expressions as being linked to deeper realities that cannot be quantified scientifically.

      I am in no way promoting ethnic chauvinism here and I hope that wasn’t implied in the piece. I did mention how unhelpful it has been in Eastern Europe. But my point there was that this ethnic chauvanism has its roots in a disrespect for ethnicity, (Russians tried to replace Estonians, ergo: Estonians now hate Russians. Georgians tried to replace Abkhazians, ergo: Abkhazians now hate Georgians). I am against this kind of disrespect for the obvious cases of uniqueness between peoples. I’d say the history of “brother wars” (in both Christian and Pagan times) is refutation enough of this idea that European ethnicities can simply come together under the banner of race. It’s too weak a connection to bridge the divide. Thus, even at the merely political level, I disagree that Spencer’s idea would work. It requires more substance.


  6. Good article. While I agree the ethnicity should remain a focal point, you can count me in the group that demands, yes demands, that European peoples, whatever continent they may live in, work together against our collective destruction.


  7. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/05/14) - Social Matter

  8. Pingback: The Very Best of Last Week in Reaction (2017/05/14) – The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s