of course we are all mutts, we all evolved from bacteria. the question is the relative purity. "is the race pure from this period to this period" is what people mean when they mention purity. When a jew chooses a mate, they are only concerned if their mate has pure jewish ancestry from the last 2000 years.
That doesn't equate to "relative purity" at all. The number of ancestors someone has 66 generations in the past (approx 2000 years) is enormous. We can get around this by making value judgements that say "only the direct matrilineal line ancestors count" or "only the direct patrilineal line ancestors count", but ideas like that are absolutely human value judgements made as a reaction to the overwhelming complexity above, and have no basis in biology. These value or worth of those judgements are also artificially enforced and were not robustly adhered to historically. We are indeed all mutts, and every credible analysis for the last century has shown "race purity" is an abstraction that is absurd to the point of lunacy.
I get why Reich says things like this, but you have to ask what it would mean not to be a "mutt". Is that even physically possible? If not, why do we need DNA testing of ancient skeletons to prove this?
