Defending the White Race Concept

Counter-Currents wrong again.

Read this.

Although that essay makes some good points, as a whole it is a moronic waste of time. Putting aside that Der Movement is not going to give up talking about "the White race" (and I don't think they should), the fact is that any alternative position you come up with is going to be attacked on its own basis. OK, you talk about genetic similarity as a euphemism for race, and then extend that to interests. Great. What then? First, the Left will come in and start spouting Lewontism, about genetic variation within and between, to convince Whites that they are genetically more similar to Blacks than with each other. Politically motivated population geneticists will either stay silent about these lies or support them in such a way so as to not be easily pinned down in the lie. Academics will (wrongly) say that "precision medicine" applies only to individuals and that it says nothing about genetic similarity between peoples. Meanwhile, on the Right, co-ethnic genetic similarity may be accepted, but the HBDers will start spouting about "free riding" and "genes for altruism" and "green beard effect" and other of their buzzwords to convince Whites that "ethnic nepotism is not adaptive" "and that kin selection only applies to personal family. Look how they attacked Salter about EGI. Other rightists will incoherently rage against "evolutionary biology." So, if making major concessions about race will only lead to more objections against your new position, what's the point? You may as well stand your ground and speak the truth, defending your front lines. Why retreat, only to find yourself desperately defending your new position?  What then?  Make even more concessions and retreat again?  Keep on retreating until your position overlaps the Left?  Mainstreaming!

And if you don't want to use "race" then use "continental population group" that, given PCA data, does cluster rather well, albeit with some overlap with admixed groups - e.g., some Jews overlap with the European boundary because of the three-way Middle Eastern-Southern European-Eastern European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. This overlap can be thus explained, leaving behind, for the most part, reasonably discrete genetic clusters. When those genetic clusters are then combined with cultural and historical markers, a coherent White Identity emerges.

Do not misunderstand me: Of course we should talk about genetic similarity and the shared interests that derive from that similarity - that's what EGI is all about, after all. And, certainly, if you wish, you could use a variation of the argument made in the Counter-Currents piece, to assert that the genetic similarity argument is not dependent upon the existence of discrete (racial) groups, even if variation was purely clinal the same principle holds.  But since genetic variation is clustered as well as clinal, and since reasonably discrete clusters do emerge from genetic analysis, then why on Earth would you concede a point that is in fact (for the most part) true?  Yes, there is some overlap and some fuzzy boundaries due to groups like Jews, but so what? Those are the exceptions that prove the rule.  

And even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, conceding such an important point - much less conceding a point that has a firm basis in reality! - in the end demonstrates weakness.  If you state in effect - "Hey, we have been wrong about the White race concept, the core of our ideology, all this time, but we are right about everything else, you can trust us!" - why should anyone believe you? Why surrender on a core foundation of your beliefs when you have the facts (more or less) on your side?  Why needlessly discredit yourself in this manner?  We can always depend on Counter-Currents to provide the most stupid advice imaginable.