Mischling vs Mongrel

The battle for the soul of the nation.

The split in the “dissident right” is between mischlings and mongrels.

Gen Z is still 50% white. There are 69 million members of Gen Z, 72 Millennials, and 65 million Gen X. If we exclude Gen X, and just focus on Gen Z and Millennials, that leaves 141 million. At least half of these are white, and at least half of those are white conservatives, and at least half of those are white conservative-leaning men. That leaves 17 million white conservative men in America who could theoretically lead the dissident right. Maybe out of that 17 million, only 10% are “dissident right,” which is 1.7 million. Then maybe only 0.1% of those are fit to be “leaders.” That leaves a pool of 1700 white, conservative dudes with high IQs, well-spoken, handsome… Where are these guys? Why are they getting crowded out by mischlings and mongrels?

1700 isn’t a lot. Maybe that’s simply not enough leaders, and other racially ambiguous allies are necessary to fill the demand. But exactly how many right-wing Jews, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are there in the country?

Blacks, for example, might be 20% conservative, at most. There’s 28 million black GenZ+Millennials, leaving 14 million black men, and maybe 3 million black conservatives, and 300,000 black guys who are friendly to the “dissident right.” Assuming that 0.1% of these are handsome, well-spoken, intelligent, and capable of being leaders, there are 300 black guys in the entire country who could be up to the task… So, at most, blacks should make up 15% of the dissident right leadership, proportional to their overall population.

There were 31 “VIPs” named for AFPAC. The number of white men was 71%. Is this reflective of the demographics of “conservative” America?

In 2023, 79% of Republican voters were white. It seems that the dissident right is less white than the Republican Party. This number gets worse if all "America First" allies are added together: Dave Smith, Ali Alexander, Milo Yiannopoulos, John Miller, Kanye West, Sneako, Laura Loomer, "Fresh and Fit," the Hodge Twins, and the Tate Brothers.

Ali could either be categorized as black, Arab, or Muslim; John Miller is mixed race, as is Sneako; “Fresh and Fit” is run by Amrou Fudl and Walter Weekes — Amrou is of Sudanese Muslim descent, while Weekes is from the Caribbean; the Hodge Twins are mixed race, and the Tate Brothers are mixed race. The only people who could be described as “unambiguously black” are Weekes and Kanye, although Weekes is not a heritage black American. Andrew Tate is Muslim, but Tristan is not.

We’ll count them up as follows:

+3 Muslim (Ali, Andrew, Amrou, Sneako)
+3 Half Black (Miller, Hodge Twins)
+1 “Mixed Race” (Tristan)
+1 Immigrant Black (Weekes)
+1 Native Black (Kanye)
+1 Jewish Woman (Laura Loomer)
+2 Jewish Man (Milo, Dave Smith)

This leaves us with an “America First” circle/sphere that is 39% white men. Behind the scenes, there are droves of white men listening, on the ground, in the audience. Looking at the crowd at AFPAC IV, this seems to be correct: the “leadership” is only 39% white, but the crowd is 90%+ white.

Why is it that the dissident right promotes a sort of affirmative action for non-whites? What is driving this development? Why do supposedly racist white guys flock to a political movement which insists on promoting and collaborating with non-white leadership and media influencers?

A similar question can be asked for the BAP-sphere. The feud between BAP and Fuentes has led to the accusation, “you are Jewish!” This attack obscures an important fact: no one in the BAP-sphere is 100% Jewish. Every supposed “Jew” is a Mischling.

The Fuentes-right seems to adopt the one-drop rule when it comes to Jewish heritage. The idea is that even partial Jewish heritage has some kind of biological or even spiritual effect, such that there is no difference between a mixed-Jewish identity and a full-Jewish identity.

From the perspective of Jewish law, culture, and religion, this is not the case.

Jewish Supremacy

The accusation of Fuentes against the Jews are that they are anti-Christian by blood, that they think they are superior to goyim, that they think goyim are dirty or unclean, that they believe goyim can be murdered or rape guilt, and so on. These ideas are supposedly rooted in the Talmud and even the Torah (which Fuentes supposedly honors as part of Catholic canon).

Even if we were to take these claims seriously, that Jews seriously see themselves as a superior race, wouldn’t someone who is half-Jewish be, by that view, unclean, inferior, dirty?

To use an analogy: in the 1920s, the KKK represented the view point of white supremacists. If you went to these guys and said, “hey, we all believe the white race is supreme, and much better than those filthy blacks. But this guy is half-black. He’s basically one of us.” How would they respond?

When it comes to race and identity, being “50%” of one thing or another reveals a split between recessive and dominant identities. Obama wasn’t identified as mixed race, or half black, he was simply black.

What happens when two dominant identities collide? Is Drake Jewish, or is he black?

One would think that a highly ethnocentric (let alone supremacist) culture would have a huge taboo against intermarriage. And, in agreement with this hypothesis, Jews prior to 1980 largely did not intermarry.

Jews by religion (rather than by ethnicity) married a Jewish spouse 89% of the time prior to 1970.

The intermarriage rate doubled between 1970 and 1990, and tripled in the last 50 years.

By drawing a linear trendline, we would project that by 2030, over 70% of Jews will intermarry. This is reflected already in the non-Orthodox Jewish population, where 72% of “mainstream” Jews intermarry as of 2010. This trend is likely to slow down in the future, as the Orthodox population continues to grow, and the non-Orthodox population begins to decline.

By reversing or retrogressing the trendline, it can be projected that in 1945, the Jewish intermarriage rate was 0%. This was not absolutely true in Russia, for example, where Lenin already had one Jewish grandparent in 1870; it was not true for Joseph Pulitzer (congressman and founder of American journalism) who married his non-Jewish wife in 1878.

The first Civil Marriage laws came from the French Revolution in 1792,¹ and were followed in England by the Marriage Act of 1836, which allowed for marriages outside of the three legal religious groups (Anglicans, Quakers, and Jews). This allowed for Catholics, atheists, and Muslims to become legally married using their own ceremonies. Certain select German states allowed for Civil Marriage, but the intermarriage without conversion was first nationalized by Bismarck in 1875.

98% of Orthodox Jews marry other Orthodox Jews. This is because interfaith marriage is explicitly, categorically, and undeniably in violation of Jewish law. How is it then that conservative, Reform, and other rabbis from “mainline” synagogues allow for intermarriage?

The answer to this question has to do with the origins of the Reform movement, within which Conservative Judaism is a compromise. Abraham Geiger, born in 1810, was the first Reform Rabbi. He was first ordained a Rabbi in 1832, and once in a position of power, he began to abolish certain tenants of the Jewish religion. For example, he believed it was inappropriate to mourn for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, since this would imply that Jews sought to return to a foreign homeland. Geiger believed that Jews in Germany should accept Germany as their homeland, and be loyal to the country of their birth.

The roots of Reform Judaism go back the the 18th century, when European states began to disregard and overrule Jewish law. Traditionally, there were three parallel legal systems in Europe: civil law, Catholic canon law, and Jewish law. Canon law determined who was eligible for communion and priesthood, and entirely independent from civil authorities. The Pope could, theoretically, excommunicate priests for being married, in contradiction with civil law which did not prohibit priests from marrying. This conflict between civil and canon law was at the center of the Investiture Contest of 1076, and was never entirely resolved throughout the centuries. The conflict between canon and civil law led Henry VII to break with the Catholic church in order to divorce his wife in 1533.

At the same time, both the Catholic church and civil authorities respected the rights of Rabbis to execute Jewish law. Unless a Jew converted to Christianity, his life was in the hands of the Rabbis. If a Jew stole from a Jew, married the wrong person, committed adultery, murdered a Jew, or ate non-Kosher food, the crime would not be prosecuted by the Catholic church or the state, but by a Jewish Rabbinic court.

The French Revolution, in refusing to recognize the religious rights of the Rabbinic courts, allowed Jews practical immunity from Jewish law. If a Jew in the 18th century violated Jewish law and was sought after by the Rabbinic authority, the Catholic church and the civil state would facilitate his extradition to the Rabbinic court. This is similar to how in the Northern states of the Union, escaped slaves could be captured and returned to their slave masters in the South, even though slavery was technically illegal in the North.

Once the prosecutorial powers of the Rabbinic courts were nullified, the practical powers of the Rabbis vanished, and the result was an immediate, explosive, and over-night conversion to “Reform Judaism.” Raphael Cohen, Rabbi of Hamburg, resigned from his position in 1799, because the criminals he sought to punish sought refuge from civil authorities. Against the state, Rabbi Cohen found himself powerless.²

This problem was summarized best by Baal HaTanya Shneur Zalman, the founder of Chabad-Luvavitch. During Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, Zalman wrote to Moshe Meizeles the following:

“Should Napoleon be victorious, wealth among the Jews will be abundant [..] but the hearts of Israel will be separated and distant from their father in heaven. But if our master [Tsar] Alexander will triumph, though poverty will be abundant [..] the heart of Israel will be bound and joined with their father in heaven [..] And for God's sake: Burn this letter.”³

Meizeles did not burn the letter.

Zalman had a point: assimilation has made Jews extremely wealthy, beyond the imagination or conception of anyone, Jew or gentile, living in the early 19th century. On the other hand, assimilation has destroyed Jewish ethnocentrism and endogamy. Zalman’s concept of “closeness to our father” has a spiritual meaning, but also a biological one. As Jews become more genetically assimilated, they become more distant from their fathers.

A 2009 study⁴ found that, genetically speaking, individuals with one Jewish grandparent clustered very closely with European individuals who had no Jewish ancestry at all. This coincides with the Nuremberg laws, which stated that for legal purposes, those with one Jewish grandparent were free to marry other Germans. Outside of the SS (which required a genealogy going back 200 years), Germans with one Jewish great grandparent had full legal equality.

Non-religious, non-practicing Jews with one Jewish parent have a very high rate of intermarriage, likely exceeding 80%. 71% of Jews with a Jewish spouse put up a Christmas tree, as opposed to 51% of “Jews of no religion.”

Mischlings like BAP, Lomez, and Yarvin must be aware, consciously or unconsciously, that their children will not be Jewish. How can one be a racial supremacist and also acknowledge, at the same time, that one’s children will not participate in that racial identity?

This is not to say that mischlings have no affinity for Israel or no pride in their heritage. It’s simply to say that mischling identity is not compatible with pure racial supremacism.

To give an analogy: many white Americans are proud of their particular heritage: German, Italian, Irish, and so on. They may attend a Polish cultural festival, celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day, use Italian slang, or wear lederhosen on Oktoberfest. There is probably a subset of German Americans who secretly admire Hitler. I would estimate that 10% of German Americans would agree with statements like, “German Americans are smarter than other sorts of Americans,” or “German Americans did more than others to build this country;” “We are more punctual;” “People of my ancestry tend to be more orderly;” etc.

Yet German ethnic chauvinism is not the same thing as German ethnic supremacy or ethnocentric endogamy. German Americans, even those who are proud of their heritage, freely intermarry with Poles, Italians, and Irish. When “Jewishness” is stripped of its religious foundations, it functions very similar to “German-Americanness” — a vague sense of superiority, a recognition of historical achievements, an ambiguous pride in one’s ancestors. But all of this is clearly distinct, behaviorally and statistically, from purity-obsessed endogamy as practiced by white supremacists and Orthodox Jews in the 1920s.

Around 10% of black men marry non-blacks, but if you asked those men if they were proud of their heritage, a majority would say “absolutely.” Blacks have one of the highest rates of open racial pride in America. Black men who marry out continue to espouse ideas like “black people built America;” “blacks are discriminated against;” “we have it harder than other races;” “black people built the pyramids;” etc.

Mischlings have their own versions of this: “Israel is the only civilized state in the middle east;” “Jewish IQ is a standard deviation above whites;” “Judaism is the foundation of western civilization;” “Judaism comes out of the Semitic Phoenicians, and we invented the alphabet;” “While Germans were living in caves, Jews were civilized;” etc.

Just as German-American chauvinism does not prevent German-Americans from becoming dissident righters, mischlings similarly are feeling less inhibited from joining up with the far right. Mischlings, like German Americans, recognize that their children will not be sorted into categories like “German American,” “Italian American,” “Mischling American.” Instead, the quarter-Jewish children of Mischling-Americans will be recognized, for affirmative action purposes, as white.

This has led to the idea that, if Trump were to fail, America might descent into a Zimbabwe or South Africa-style genocide of whites. This seems to combine the historical memory of the pogroms with the massacres in Haiti.

As ironic as it might sound, there is no one in the world more sensitive to the plight of being a minority as the Jews. There is no one more aware of the threat of intermarriage and racial annihilation than the Jews. As Jews intermarry with whites, and as whites continue to decline demographically, Mischlings have found themselves at the forefront of a white chauvinist movement.

In opposition to this Mischling pre-eminence is the Mongrel movement, represented by America First. It is essentially tolerant of Muslims, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, but it draws the line at Israel. Why is there no “third option”? If there is going to be a racist white movement, why does it have so much trouble in restricting membership to white gentiles?

Outside of BAP and Fuentes, there are “pure white” movements, but they get no play. Maybe one of the reasons for this is that a successful “alt-right” always needs to be part of a bigger tent with the “alt-lite.” You can’t just be an anti-Israel Hitler lover. You also need to ally with black, brown Hitler lovers of color. You can’t just be a Nietzschean Hitler lover. You also need to ally with Jewish Zionists in the mainstream.

Of course, “pure white nationalists” still do exist, ghettoized in their own little communities. But the ability to “break into the mainstream,” represented by black conservatives, or David Sacks, is crucial to being “relevant.” Beyond the simple numbers game of the algorithm, of platform exposure, there is also a psychological component which I would describe as “dynamic tension.”

Being a Jew and a Nazi at the same time is a lot more paradoxical and contradictory than just being a stuffy, boring old Nazi. Being a black Nazi serves a similar purpose. In this sense, the dissident right, metaphorically speaking, is an interracial pornography.

Nathan Cofnas highlighted a video showing that young Japanese people are excited about the idea of racial diversity. My Freudian theory of the desire for diversity is that diversity is understood, unconsciously, to be a source of drama, conflict, and warfare, and people find those things exciting and titillating, even on a sexual level.

This is because on an evolutionary level, sex and violence employ the same biological pathways. Both involve predation and fear. The male chases, the female escapes. Sex is violent, and some form of painful sex or rape is the most frequent form of copulation in the natural world.

“Over civilized” or “over socialize” peoples, as Kaczynski referred to them, have a deep sense of ennui, of boredom, and a need to “break out” of the mental prison of the modern world. Most people understand that this is impossible when life is ordered, conformist, and regular. Racial diversity is understood, subconsciously, as a form of chaos which can help humanity break out of civilization. This is part of Norman Mailer’s thesis in The White Negro (1957).

Of course, the sad truth is that when blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics live in close proximity, they just end up recreating Oakland, CA: a hellhole where drug addicts engage in petty theft or prostitution in exchange for another hit. Racial diversity is exciting in theory, but boring in practice.

Liberals don’t seem to be the only ones capable of falling for this. It seems that the dissident right also finds racial diversity to be exciting. Milo built an entire career out of being gay and Jewish. That was part of his schtick: he was a contrarian, not just against the world, but against himself.

There is a contrarian aspect to the dissident right that rebels against the state, the family, and even the self. The self-hating Jew or self-hating black are close to the heart of the white racist, who has to stand against his parents, the schools, and the church in order to embrace the avatar of Hitler. On some spiritual level, people who have a mixed ancestry, who have to hate one part of themselves to love another part, have something in common with the dissident righter who hates George Bush in order to embrace Charles Lindbergh.

The historical genealogy of America is mixed up. America was founded on white supremacy, but it was then re-founded on multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, the melting pot, and Jewish Christmas music. It’s very difficult to disentangle American culture from black jazz and the Jewish lyrics of “White Christmas.”

Given that America is an inherently contradictory frontier, anyone who attempts an American nationalism will inevitably drift toward some kind of racial contradiction, either in Mongrel or Mischling form. This is true in the far right, but it is even more true for mainstream Republicans, who embrace Hindu prayer, Amber Rose, and Tim Scott.

To reject multi-racialism is to reject America itself. Accordingly, the purest white nationalists are anti-American. Atomwaffen, Asatru, and the Northwest Front all represent the secessionist or terrorist tendency of movements which put race before nation. This is not popular, and doesn’t have the cultural, religious, or financial capital to ever become viable in itself.

That doesn’t mean that racism is decreasing. Racism will continue to rise, but for the foreseeable future, that rise will twist and turn with hypocrisy and irony. Every Vance needs an Usha; every Nazi needs a BAP; every Fuentes needs a Kanye. The contradiction and irony is not a threat to the continued growth of racism, but is actually an aggravating element.

In ancient India, one group of light brown guys created a caste system to separate themselves from the dark brown guys. Looking back on this, we can laugh at its continued existence. Can’t they see that they are all just mixed up brown guys? The Brahmin take no notice. “You wouldn’t understand. We are superior. We are the true Aryans…” This attitude is coming to America. Mischlings

and mongrels will be arguing over who is more white, more pure, and more American for quite some time.

Under such conditions, white genocide, as represented by the catastrophe in Haiti, is not possible. There are too many half Jews and half blacks who love white people. Instead of killing fields, America is more likely to feature a soft caste system. Liberals would say that this already exists, and they are correct.

One of the key distinctions between the mischlings and the mongrels is over Christianity. Will America be a Christian nation, or a secular-Freemasonic-Nietzchean empire? Given that Christianity is in perpetual decline, and the fact that America was founded by Freemasons, it seems like the mischlings have the advantage here. In terms of intelligence, wealth, and education, the mischlings also have an advantage. The Christianity of the mongrel faction is still motivating and very strong for about 30% of Americans. The pro-Israel stance of the mischling faction is also becoming increasingly unpopular. Neither side is going away any time soon.

1. Going back even further is the Haskalah movement, which is not mentioned here for the sake of brevity; it had the same Enlightenment roots as the French Revolution.

2. Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto: The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770-1870, Syracuse University Press, 1973. pp. 144-152.

3. Napoleon u-Tekufato, Mevorach, pp. 182–183.
Should Napoleon be victorious...": Politics and Spirituality in Early Modern Jewish Messianism, Hillel Levine, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 16–17, 2001

4. 2009: A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-1-r7