Home About Archives Contact Forums Search Wiki

Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv

This is a book review of “Breeding between the lines: Why interracial people are healthier and more attractive,” by Alon Ziv, 184 pp., Barricade Books, 2006, ISBN: 1569803064. My preliminary impression that the book most likely doesn’t have decent data in it is confirmed.

The book is written for a lay readership, and with the main text occupying about 160 pages, it can be read within a few hours.

Sloppy work: errors and omissions

Alon Ziv appears to have been working on the main idea of the book for a couple of years, but his book is full of sloppiness and naïve arguments, which is curious given the apparent time he has spent perusing the literature and also that he appears to have an adequate background in the biological sciences. I will provide some illustrative examples.

Ziv provides a primer on evolution that includes statements such as:

  • Asexual people are like slow Cheetahs – they die out.
  • We have evolved to avoid incest; incestuous individuals had inferior offspring and died out.

Well, asexual people die out every generation, but nothing seems to prevent some from being born every generation. For instance, in a national probability British sample of over 18,000 people, roughly 1% of people assessed reported that they were asexual, i.e., had no sexual interest in either men or women[1].

Similarly, whereas most people abhor incest, let alone indulge in it, some people continue to harbor incestuous fantasies and engage in incestuous sex[2-4].

There are numerous examples of evolutionary maladaptive characteristics that persist in small numbers in the population, but Ziv ignores this.

Ziv argues that our bodies are designed to have bilateral symmetry, i.e., we are designed to be perfectly symmetrical. This is incorrect. There is both a random and a non-random component to bilateral asymmetry, and it is the random component that is not part of biological design. The magnitude and direction (left or right side greater) of the random component fluctuates between individuals and hence this component is designated as fluctuating asymmetry. Throughout the book, whenever Ziv cites the literature on symmetry and especially when he extols the virtue of greater bilateral symmetry as in corresponding to better health and greater attractiveness, he is actually referring to the literature on fluctuating asymmetry, and the correct statement is that a lower level of fluctuating asymmetry, rather than greater symmetry, is correlated with somewhat better health and greater attractiveness. For instance, fluctuating asymmetry rather than directional asymmetry is a correlate of attractiveness of faces[5].

Ziv claims that heterozygosity for sickle cell anemia makes the carrier resistant to malaria, but this is not true; what happens is that the severity of malarial infection is reduced in these individuals, which increases the probability of survival should an infection occur.

Ziv acknowledges that races exist, but then cites pathetic sources to support this assertion: the approval of the drug BiDil for blacks by the FDA and a comment on Cavalli-Sforza’s book by Steve Sailer! No serious scientist, aware of the nature of race denial, would cite such poor sources. One needs to cite molecular[6-8] and skeletal evidence[9, 10] in conjunction with standard phylogeographic criteria for race assignment in order to make the case for races among humans. Ziv even says that “since race is really a continuum, there is no ideal way to define or document it.” Well, there is clinal variation with respect to individual characteristics, even a group of neutral DNA markers, and a race denial argument specifically denies racial reality because of human clinal variation[11], but race is characterized by a cluster of variables, and the existence of racial clusters has been shown in spite of clinal variation of DNA markers[6].

Ziv reports that in spite of changing fashions, the optimal waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 in women, according to the research of D. Singh, has not changed; it has remained in the 0.68-0.72 range for Miss Americas and Playboy centerfolds. Well, waist-to-hip ratio in Miss Americas and Playboy centerfolds has increased from the mid- to late-20th century[12]; these women have become more masculine. During the early years of Playboy, waist-to-hip ratios were less than 0.7, on average. Additionally, there is nothing universal about the 0.7 figure: men in some black[13] and Native American[14, 15] populations prefer women with higher front-on waist-to-hip ratios than white men.

Ziv claims that more lopsided individuals (less symmetrical) are more likely to respond aggressively when provoked, but it is not difficult to come up with some papers where more symmetrical people turned out to be more physically aggressive[16, 17]. The latter is merely one example of Ziv omitting the literature that does not support his case.

Ziv is so sold onto the notion of hybrid vigor that he tries to see some in even ill-fated interspecies crosses. For instance, Ziv writes that a mule (horse mother, donkey father) may display some hybrid vigor because it has more stamina and more load-carrying capacity than horses! Hybrid vigor is inferred when the offspring are overall better than their parents, but mules are sterile. Ziv also cites the example of attempts to breed sheep and goats, which are typically unsuccessful, but he describes an example of a success that may have displayed some hybrid vigor as it grew faster than regular sheep or goat offspring, and was so oversexed that it frequently attempted to mount both sheep and goats. The poor animal had to be castrated to reign in his amorous pursuits, but faster growth and the oversexed nature could easily be a manifestation of abnormal development rather than hybrid vigor.

Ziv mentions inbreeding depression and hybrid vigor but fails to mention outbreeding depression. For the uninitiated, depression here refers to the offspring being overall worse than the parents and vigor refers to the offspring being overall better than the parents. There are plenty of examples of race mixing leading to outbreeding depression in various species[18-31].

Several claims in the book are not cited. For instance, Ziv reports a study where underweight newborn babies were more likely to be homozygous (less genetically diverse), but does not cite the reference. Given the small size of the book, it would not have hurt Ziv to add twenty additional pages of references.

Ziv reports that studies show that whites are the least likely to accept intermarriage, which is far from true. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and many other groups are easily much less accepting of intermarriage than whites are. Ben Tillman has previously brought to my attention that the oft-quoted 50% outmarriage rate for American Jews is an exaggeration, and it has been pointed out that even if this figure were taken at face value, it indicates a notable resistance to outmarriage among Jews given their small numbers in the U.S.; see this comment for details. Additionally, when Jews outmarry, most of the time it is with whites rather than with blacks or East Asians. Israel does not allow marriage between Jews and non-Jews, just as Muslims are forbidden to marry non-Muslims. On a related note, Ziv cites anti-miscegenation laws in some U.S. states decades ago, but fails to mention, let alone condemn Israel’s existing laws prohibiting marriage between Jews and non-Jews. In multiracial societies with a significant white presence, whites tend to disproportionately occupy the upper classes, and whereas the appreciation of the physical appearance of a number of populations is mostly limited to within the respective populations, white looks are appreciated by a substantial number of people in most populations. In other words, being white is disproportionately associated with higher status. Therefore, one observes that among non-white groups that generally oppose intermarriage, when they accept intermarriage, it is usually if the spouse is white or a higher status race, but they display marked animosity if the spouse is an other-race non-white of lower racial status. On the other hand, when whites intermarry, they almost always marry someone coming from a lower-status race. Non-blacks generally perceive blacks to be the lowest status race in terms of both looks and socioeconomic status, i.e., the willingness of a large number of blacks to outmarry should not be surprising, and it is obvious that one cannot argue for a naturally high willingness to outmarry among blacks given that there are not a whole lot of non-black races of lower socioeconomic and looks status than blacks. When black women object to black men marrying non-blacks, it is has less to do with objection to outmarriage per se than with the fact that so many black men are in prison or jobless/criminal that their already-low partner prospects are reduced by outmarrying black men. In short, Ziv is grossly mistaken about whites being the least likely to accept intermarriage.

Other problems with Ziv’s book should be seen in light of his main thesis.

Main thesis

Ziv’s main thesis is simple. He argues that more symmetrical people are more attractive, healthier and more heterozygous (more genetically diverse). He then points out that since race mixing increases heterozygosity, it leads to more attractive and healthier people. Let us examine this argument.

Hybrid vigor

Ziv addresses an example of hybrid vigor involving mixing some races of corn, and notes that “the disadvantage of hybridization is that you have to re-create the hybrid seed every generation.” Why doesn’t Ziv elaborate on this? Here is why. Let there be a gene that exists in two versions, A and a; each individual has two copies of this gene. Therefore, an individual could be AA, aa or Aa. Let the beneficial genotype be Aa. If one crosses AA with aa, all first generation hybrids will be Aa. If the first generation hybrids breed among themselves at random, the ratio AA:Aa:aa = 1:2:1, i.e., the desired genotype is present among only half the second generation hybrids. It is for this reason that corn farmers would maintain the original parental stocks and cross them to obtain hybrid vigor, but not allow the hybrids to reproduce among themselves. Obviously, among humans this is not applicable. The example considered here is a single-gene case, but if hybrid vigor is applicable to interracial breeding among humans with respect to multiple genes, then it should be clear that it will be drastically reduced among second and subsequent generation hybrids.

Ziv offers the following examples of hybrid vigor among humans.

  • He cites the tale of mutineers on the HMS Bounty (1789) settling on Pitcairn Island and mating with the local women. The half British-half Tahitian children, according to Ziv, grew up to be 2.5 inches taller than the British and the Tahitians. It is difficult to determine the reliability of this report.
  • Ziv reports a study, where Khasi girls in northeast India (basically East Asian types) were shorter than girls born to Khasi women that had mated with immigrant Muslim men (less Asiatic)[32], as an example of hybrid vigor, but this study did not assess the height of the parents and reported that the neighboring Muslims were a taller people. Therefore, how can one be sure that this is an example of hybrid vigor? If Khasi women breed with taller men, they are bound to produce taller children.
  • Ziv cites an UCLA study by Jay Phelan that showed mixed-race individuals to be more symmetrical (less fluctuating asymmetry) than individuals that were classified into only one of the following groups: white, East Asian, black, Native American or Hispanic (total sample size was 99). This find is reportedly highly significant; the probability that it is a chance find being less than 0.007%. The 25 least symmetrical individuals were uniracial whereas 7 of the 8 most symmetrical individuals were multiracial/mixed race. The participants also apparently had their pictures taken and evaluated for physical attractiveness, and the mixed-race individuals were rated as better looking. Curiously, this study does not appear to have been published, though it was featured in a UCLA report dating to November 04, 2002. Ziv’s citation mentions personal communication. Four years is more than enough time for research to be published. Has this study not been published because of its poor quality? Jay Phelan is co-author of the book “Mean Genes,” and he also wrote the forward to Ziv’s book. Phelan harbors the same idea as Ziv as far as the supposed benefits of race mixing go.

Ziv provides supportive evidence by citing examples of hybrid vigor resulting from crossing inbred strains of animals such as mice, and also cites studies from Swiss[33] and Polish[34] villages where children born of parents from different villages were taller, heavier and larger-chested compared to children born of parents from the same village, though the Swiss study actually compared the Swiss sample with their relatives that had outmarried in California.

The Swiss and polish studies are not about hybrid vigor, but Ziv extrapolates from these studies that the outcome of race mixing will be even better, assuming that the higher the heterozygosity, the better it is, apparently because more diverse genes mean more diverse gene products, which should cover an individual over a broader range of the environment. The latter reasoning appears sound, but then why is outbreeding depression observed in a number of cases? Has Ziv never heard of co-adapted gene complexes, which are disrupted by hybridization? Has Ziv never heard of the concept of genetic architecture in cardiovascular disease, whereby it is not always an allele (one of several versions of a gene) per se that is associated with disease, but the allele in a given environmental and genetic background[35-37]? For instance, a haplotype that slightly increases the odds of a heart attack among American whites is found in smaller numbers among American blacks, who have gotten it from whites, but it confers a 3-fold larger risk in black Americans[38]. Similarly, an allele that confers protection against diabetes among whites does no such thing among south Asians[39].

The paper on the Khasi, which Ziv has presumably read given that he cited it, mentions an Israeli study that attempted to infer the effect of intermarriage, between Jewish groups that had immigrated to Israel from different parts of the world, on the longitudinal growth of children. Five mixed groups were analyzed: two of these were similar to a parental group, one showed some evidence for enhanced growth, and two groups showed some detrimental effects of mixing[40]. I suspect that the null and detrimental finds in this study prompted Ziv to not cite it.

It should be noted that rats and mice are commonly used lab animals, and it is necessary that the differences among the experimental and control groups be attributed to the experimental protocol rather than genetic variation between the groups. Therefore, rats/mice used in a typical experiment come from a highly inbred line, and it should not be surprising that crossing two highly inbred and closely related races results in reduced overall fluctuating asymmetry, but human races, especially those existing in large numbers, are nowhere as inbred as lab rats/mice are. In a study were wild mice were made to inbreed, the overall fluctuating asymmetry of the inbred mice was not greater than that of the outbred group, even though these two groups had different fitness under seminatural conditions[41], but Ziv has not mentioned this study at all. This study is merely one of several that have shown fluctuating asymmetry to be a poor indicator of developmental stability.

Some studies have shown little to no relationship between fluctuating asymmetry and heterozygoisty[42-44], whereas some have even shown fluctuating asymmetry to increase beyond a certain level of heterozygosity[45, 46], i.e., outbreeding depression. In a meta-analysis of 118 datasets published in 41 studies[47], the effect size correlation between fluctuating asymmetry and heterozygoisty was r = -0.09 (SE=0.03), a low effect size correlation, but the interesting data is in the following figure, namely a non-significant trend toward a weak positive effect size correlation in endotherms (animals that maintain a constant internal body temperature), i.e., a non-significant trend for greater heterozygosity in endotherms to correspond to somewhat less symmetrical individuals. To interpret effect size correlation (ES): small ES (less than 0.15), medium/moderate ES (0.15 < ES < 0.33), large ES (greater than 0.33).

Fluctuating asymmetry and heterozygosity in ectotherms and endotherms.

In this meta-analysis, heterozygoisty accounted for one percent of the variation in developmental stability assessed via how symmetrical the individuals were, and even for ectotherms the variance accounted for was only 2% (r=−0.23 ± 0.09)[47]. If Ziv did proper research, he could not possibly have missed this meta-analysis, but he apparently does not cite this because he wants to convey that more heterozygosity equals better symmetry, which translates to more attractiveness and better health, all of which mean that miscegenation for the purposes of increasing heterozygoisty can only be positive with respect to physical and mental development.

Mating preferences

Ziv notes that evolution should shape people to breed in ways that are the most beneficial, yet laments that people generally tend to breed within their races, which is apparently not the best strategy as far as the benefits of heterozygoisty go: more attractive and healthier people. One of the reasons for people mostly seeking partners within their race is that people seek partners in accordance with an internal blueprint, but the good news for Ziv is that this internal blue print can be altered with sufficient exposure to people of other races. He cites the example of snow geese: the white ones breed with whites and the blue ones breed with other blue geese. However, when white geese are raised by blue geese, they prefer blue geese and blue geese raised by white geese prefer white geese. Snow geese of any variety show no preference for white or blue geese if they are exposed to both since birth. Therefore, Ziv extrapolates that humans exposed to multiple races since birth, which will be a reality with mass immigration of multiple races into the West, will not show a specific preference for their own race. This is another non sequitur. More complex human brains are not as susceptible to imprinting as bid brains are. In multiracial societies, non-whites tend to have a preference for facial features closer to that of the white average, but it is uncommon for whites to prefer non-white facial features.

Health

Ziv offers no direct evidence for improved health among mixed-race individuals, and ignores evidence for an across-the-board increase in health problems among mixed-race individuals in a large, representative sample of U.S. adolescents[48]. I have previously addressed this study by J. Richard Udry; the most likely reason for the worsened health of the mixed-race individuals is increased odds of the disruption of the autonomic nervous system, resulting from race mixing.

A study involving undergraduate students at San Francisco State University and the University of Hawaii at Hilo revealed that mixed-race individuals (basically white-Asian mixes) had worse health than whites or Asians[49]; read the paper.

A newer study that assessed substance use and violent behaviors among 2,082 students in Seattle public middle schools has reported mixed-race individuals being worse on these counts, after controlling for differences in socioeconomic status[50]; read the paper. This study also assessed ethnic identity and perceived discrimination to evaluate the extent to which they were related to the problem behaviors. However, a positive ethnic identity was protective on some counts only, and was associated with an increased likelihood of the participants having ever threatened to beat someone up. Perceived discrimination was associated with increased likelihood of problem behaviors on some counts only, but it cannot be assumed that discriminatory experiences were responsible for the problem behaviors since problematic behaviors on the part of individuals would invite discrimination.

Clinical samples have shown higher rates of mental and behavioral problems among mixed-race individuals[51, 52]. There have been few studies showing mixed-race individuals to be comparable to single-race individuals: a study from Hawaii reported no differences with respect to personality variables[53] and another study reported no differences with respect to quality of parent and adolescent relationship[54]. A few years before Udry[48] published the health data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Cooney and Radina[55] published some of this data, and reported multiracial individuals to be worse than uniracial individuals on less than half the school performance, behavioral and psychological dimensions assessed, but a more thorough analysis by Udry shows multiracial individuals to be worse on most measures, including health. Except for the Seattle middle schools study[50], which was likely published after Ziv submitted his final manuscript for publication, Ziv couldn’t possibly have failed to come across the others showing worse health among mixed-race individuals, but he pretends as if these studies don’t exist.

India is a cesspool of race mixing, but East Indians have some of the highest if not the highest prevalence of cardiovascular disease, the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, central obesity, dyslipidemias such as lower high-density lipoprotein or increased low density lipoprotein or higher triglyceride levels, increased thrombotic tendency as in increased plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and decreased tissue plasminogen activator levels, and low birth weights[56-63], in addition to a weak musculo-skeletal build[64-67]. It is remarkable how often I have seen slenderly built south Asian males with a tendency to pack on excess body fat, especially in the abdominal region. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease among mixed-race groups such as south Asians, blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. is 2- to 3-fold higher compared to that among whites[68]. Whereas a number of the papers cited within this paragraph have been published in 2006, they are documenting data that have been well-known for years. Why has Ziv not cited such data?

Athleticism/Sporting ability

Ziv cites a study about more heterozygous oysters being better able to utilize oxygen under stress, and then notes that the implications for human athletics are staggering! Talk about non sequiturs! In a human study, overall body symmetry was unrelated to lung capacity and maximal oxygen utilization[69], i.e., the more symmetrical individuals, which Ziv would describe as more heterozygous, were not better off with respect to the physiological capacities addressed. Another study reported that elite athletes were not more symmetrical than sub-elite athletes[70]. Now, there are studies showing skilled athletes being more symmetrical than non-athletes (see review in Tomkinson et al.[70]), but the relationship is weak, and by not citing negative finds, Ziv is trying to convey that the relationship is so strong that interracial mating to increase heterozygosity is highly recommended.

The only example of a mixed race great athlete that Ziv cites is Tiger Woods, but if I recall correctly, then Tiger Woods had severe myopia, which had to be surgically corrected. If my recollection is correct, then without modern technology, if Tiger Woods had to live as a hunter-gatherer, he would quickly become prey, and he would also be a pretty useless fighter.

In the 1970s, there were several American blacks playing the PGA tour, but in spite of an increase in the popularity of golf and the greater participation of American blacks, currently, Tiger Woods is the only part-black person playing the PGA tour; see more.

There have been some great mixed-race athletes, e.g., Jim Thorpe and Daley Thompson, but the Decathlon is mostly dominated by whites, just as most Olympic sports are. In addressing race, Ziv addresses whether some races are better at some things than others, and says that this is an issue that he doesn’t want to focus on, but he points the interested reader to Jon Entine’s book, “Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we are afraid to talk about it.” This book alleges the racial athletic superiority of blacks, but Entine is as clueless as Steve Sailer on this topic. Blacks only dominate a few sports. West African blacks do not dominate sports such as weightlifting, powerlifting, martial arts, strong man competitions or freestyle fighting, where their alleged superior speed and strength should give them an advantage. Presently, all four heavyweight boxing titles are held by whites. Castefootball.us also features plenty of evidence about anti-white discrimination in American team sports such as football and basketball, showing that the heavy black overrepresentation in these sports is not entirely merit-based. All-white teams from Europe have been learning the game of basketball, and in recent years have defeated all-black teams from the U.S. on several occasions. Things are bound to get more interesting.

When it comes to thousands of years of race mixing between multiple races, it would be hard to beat India, yet East Indians are undoubtedly among the worst if not the worst athletes in the world.

Attractiveness

In a meta-analysis of correlates of facial beauty by Gillian Rhodes[71], the effect size correlations (ES) were: average facial features (0.52 ± 0.41; 95% CI = 0.42-0.61; weighted ES = 0.54), symmetry (0.25 ± 0.34; 95% CI = 0.16-0.33; weighted ES = 0.23) and femininity (0.64 ± 0.39; 95% CI = 0.51-0.74; weighted ES = 0.61). The data are reported as effect size correlation (ES) ± standard deviation; the interval that one would be 95% confident the actual ES lies in the general population; ES weighted by the number of faces examined.

Ziv’s argument that mixed-race individuals are more attractive is based on the assumption that greater heterozygosity equals more symmetry, which equals greater attractiveness, but there are at least two much more powerful correlates of facial beauty that Ziv ignores.

The only study that Ziv cites in favor of mixed-race individuals being more symmetrical is Jay Phelan’s study, which remains unpublished four years after its completion. We have already seen that the relationship between heterozygoisty and symmetry (thereby developmental stability) is very weak.

What about average facial features? As I mentioned previously, Ziv should read about craniofacial morphology in mixed-race individuals, white-Native American mixes to be more precise, and note that canonical variates analysis revealed a canonical root, explaining 36% of the variance, that made the mestizos deviate from shape variables in between whites and Native Americans[72].  52% of the 52 shape variables deviated from the mathematical average shape of the parent races, and here is the money shot[72]:

Finally, it is interesting that the distances that could not be assigned to a particular developmental pattern appeared to introduce ‘‘noise’’ and blur the effects of cranial integration.

The developmental patterns talked about above are mathematical averaging based upon the expectation from quantitative genetics, i.e., additive genetic variation, and morphological integration of different parts of the skull, whereby different parts of the skull effectively behave like a single unit, i.e., a change in one part corresponds to changes in other associated parts.  Note the term “interesting;” this term is an euphemism for some loss of morphological integration in the skull resulting from race mixing, i.e., some solid evidence that yes indeed, races exist among humans, and also that humans races—at least the two considered and by extrapolating from genetic distances and skull shape comparisons, any combination of races—are sufficiently distant so as to result in disruptions of co-adapted gene complexes and subsequent increased odds of anomalous outcomes in mixed offspring, which is confirmed by the health data addressed above.

Morphological integration is an important concept. Whereas one may not appreciate the facial features of another race, one will be able to pick out the better looking among another race, and these better looking people will have some kind of harmony between various parts of their face, but this harmony is more likely to be lost as a result of race mixing compared to same-race breeding. For instance, I previously commented on the malformed appearance of the deranged model Heidi Klum’s mulatto baby.

Deranged white model Heidi Klum with Negro Seal.

Deranged Heidi Klum with malformed mulatto baby; Henry Guenther Ademola Dashtu Samuel.

Deranged Heidi Klum with malformed mulatto baby; Henry Guenther Ademola Dashtu Samuel.

Some would point out that neonates are not exactly cute, but Henry Guenther Ademola Dashtu Samuel, the son of Heidi Klum and Seal, clearly looks like something is wrong with him. The malformed mulatto neonate has grown into a retarded-looking malformed toddler; contrast his features with the beauty of the white child Heidi Klum had previously. I have seen black babies that are a lot better looking.

Deranged Heidi Klum's children with Negro Seal.

Deranged Heidi Klum's children with Negro Seal.

Actual shape variables are important, too. From the perspective of whites, non-white admixture can only diminish the attractiveness of the descendents of whites: make noses broader, make the middle portion of the face flatter (absorption of East Asians, Native Americans, Eskimo-Siberians, khoi-San people, some central African populations), make faces broader (absorption of East Asians, most black African populations, Native Americans, Eskimo-Siberians), make jaws more protruding (especially if blacks, Melanesians and Australian aborigines are involved), make faces larger (absorption of most non-white populations), decrease height (absorption of many non-white populations, especially for northern Europeans), make limbs smaller relative to height (absorption of East Asians, Eskimo-Siberians, Native Americans), increase the frequency of hooked noses (absorption of Middle Eastern populations such as Jews), weaken musculo-skeletal build (absorption of non-whites in general except West Africans and Polynesians), etc.

In addition, non-whites possess more primitive facial features, and some of them disproportionately persist when they mate with whites. For instance, a study from Hawaii reported the persistence of the broad face/massive cheekbones of East Asians among Asian-white hybrids[73]. In addition, flared nostrils, broader noses and more protruding jaws also tend to persist.

What about femininity? No citations are needed for the less feminine physiques of East Asian and physically similar women. Black women, in spite of their larger breasts and more protrusive buttocks, are unable to look as feminine as white women as a result of their greater muscularity, higher front-on waist-to-hip ratios and facial features. White women look more feminine, and I would refer the reader to a previous, currently active, thread on Nordic beauty, where I have put up numerous comparisons; I still have to respond to several comments there, and my replies will feature more comparisons, but posting this review first is more important. Rhodes’ meta-analysis makes it clear that femininity is a much more powerful correlate of beauty in women compared to symmetry, yet Ziv ignores femininity.

I expected to see Ziv cite Gillian Rhodes’ study about the greater rated attractiveness and perceived health of Asian-white hybrids[74], but Ziv hasn’t cited it, and it may have come out too late for Ziv to cite it. I have previously critiqued this study. In short, the whites in this study were unattractive, and the assumption of the authors that race mixing will average the facial features of the parents is not true[72].

Intelligence

Ziv cites a study from Hawaii where white-Japanese hybrid children outperformed white or Japanese children on 13 of 15 cognitive tests (e.g., 0.30 S.D. on a version of the Raven’s progressive matrices and 0.22 S.D. on the PMA Vocabulary Test), in spite of no significant socioeconomic differences between the groups[75]. The confound here is assortative mating for IQ, i.e., it cannot be assumed that the whites and Japanese that bred together came from a random sample of their respective racial groups. Udry studied a large, random population of U.S. adolescents, but as the following table from his paper shows[48], the GPA (grade point average) and verbal IQ of the mixed-race individuals were in between those of the individuals belonging to their parental racial groups, i.e., no hybrid vigor was observed.

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) data on GPA and verbal IQ of mixed race and single race individuals.

One possible example of hybrid vigor with respect to IQ, from the perspective of black Africans, suggested by Arthur Jensen, is that American blacks have an IQ of 85, 15 points or 1 S.D. higher than that of their black African counterparts, even though white admixture among them averages 10-20%. However, if we assume that the black African average IQ would be a few points higher if malnutrition/undernutrition were eliminated, then given that there is a positive correlation between health and IQ, it is reasonable to suppose that Africans bound for slavery in the U.S. were among the healthier ones, and given the harsh conditions of transport, healthier still individuals made it to the U.S. Therefore, the IQ potential of the arrivals could be around 80, and white admixture may only have raised IQ by 5 points or so instead of 15 points, which would not necessitate positing hybrid vigor from the perspective of black Africans, but the validity of this proposal is unclear, and in any case, at present, the 85 IQ of American blacks is not proof of hybrid vigor from the perspective of black Africans.

Ziv cites a paper by Mingroni[76], which proposes heterosis as possibly partially accounting for the Lynn-Flynn effect, i.e., the secular worldwide rise in IQ scores documented in the 20th century. Mingroni’s argument is reasonable. Throughout the period of this secular trend, the heritability of IQ has remained very high, which is not easy to account for if one assumes that environmental factors are involved, and Mingroni cites papers that have critiqued the implausibility of a model proposed by Dickens and Flynn that has argued for a large effect of the environment on IQ. However, the heterosis proposed by Mingroni postulates increased mixing of people from neighboring villages, which is not hybridization (mixing of different breeds), and it does not follow, as Ziv assumes, that the greater the outbreeding, the better it will be. In addition, data from Spain show that the bulk of the Lynn-Flynn effect over a 30-year period was accounted for by gains mostly in the lower half of the bell curve, with very little change in the 99th percentile and spectacular gains in the first percentile[77]; see the gain in raw scores. Therefore, improved nutrition is certainly accounting for a good deal of the Lynn-Flynn effect. Mingroni also cites secular increases in high-heritability factors such as height, head circumference, myopia, autism, asthma and possibly ADHD. If greater outbreeding, though still mostly within racial groups, is partly responsible for the Lynn-Flynn effect and also increases in abnormalities such as myopia and asthma, then general heterosis is not implicated.

The three highest IQ groups are: U.S./U.K. Ashkenazim diaspora (IQ = 110[78, 79]), northeast Asians (IQ = 105) and northern Europeans (IQ = 100). Northeast Asians and northern Europeans have very little other-race admixture. Jews are more heterogeneous, but the most plausible explanation for the Ashkenazim IQ advantage is that under selection pressures for higher IQ, a high level of inbreeding among them accumulated several deleterious alleles that have the side effect of increasing IQ[80]. Therefore, the brightest groups certainly didn’t get that way by large-scale outbreeding. In addition, notwithstanding the northeast Asian IQ advantage over northern Europeans, especially with respect to math ability, whites are heavily overrepresented, in spite of their smaller numbers, among Nobel Prize winners, Field Medalists, annual international ACM software coding college competitions and the most brilliant inventors/innovators. Therefore average IQ is only part of the story, and there is no reason to believe that a white-northeast Asian hybrid population will produce as many intellectually outstanding people per capita as present-day northern Europeans do.

Ziv hilariously writes, “Once true interracial marriage becomes commonplace, I think we will see an even bigger boost in the physical and mental development of future generations.” Really? If the U.S./U.K. Ashkenazim diaspora, northeast Asians and northern Europeans were to mass-absorb the likes of Bushmen (IQ = 54), Australian aborigines (IQ = 62), black Africans in general (IQ = 67) or south Asians (IQ = 82) (see Lynn[81]), would one expect a boost in mental development from the perspective of the high IQ groups?

Another useful consideration is as follows. Assume that there are no deleterious effects of race mixing. From a strictly IQ perspective, if a white man with an IQ of 100 had to choose between a white woman and a Bangladeshi woman, both with an IQ of 130, which would be the better choice? If additive genetics accounted for all the variation in IQ between individuals, one would expect the offspring of the union in consideration to have an IQ around 115, but about 40% of the IQ variation between individuals is accounted for by additive genetics, i.e., the white man can expect an IQ boost that is 40% of 15 points, i.e., 6 points. Therefore, the offspring will have a range of IQ centering around 106. Now, given white and Bangladeshi average IQs of 100 and low 80s, respectively, a 130-IQ Bangladeshi is much more of an outlier for her race than a 130-IQ white is. In other words, the contribution of additive genetics from the Bangladeshi woman would result in a probable IQ of the hybrid offspring leaning toward the lower range of the distribution centering around 106 compared to the white woman. As noted above, deleterious alleles are implicated in the Ashkenazim IQ advantage[80], and it has been documented that people with very high IQs tend to have an above average incidence of myopia and atopic disorders (related to autonomic nervous system disruption) such as asthma and allergies[82]. Therefore, the odds that abnormal genetics/developmental events are implicated in the 130-IQ of the Bangladeshi woman are greater. In other words, the better choice is clearly the white woman. Hence, even if one assumes no harm resulting from race mixing, from a strictly IQ perspective, a white person is better off breeding with a white than a member of the dark races with the same IQ as a prospective white partner. If deleterious alleles are mostly responsible for the Ashkenazim IQ advantage, then it is not worth it for whites to breed with the Ashkenazim. Additionally, northeast Asians are know to have lower verbal IQs than whites, and from an IQ perspective, no racial benefits from absorbing them are apparent given that notwithstanding their math advantage, when it comes to manifesting math prowess at the highest levels (e.g., work deserving of the Field Medal), northeast Asians, in spite of their much greater numbers, are far behind whites.

Conclusions

Ziv makes a very weak case, and has undoubtedly omitted inconvenient data. Giving the process of manuscript submission to final publication about an year’s time, Ziv should easily have come across the citations in this review that were published/put online prior to mid-2005. The evidence that he has ignored makes the opposite case. None of the heavily mixed populations --mestizos/mulattos in south America, Middle Eastern/North African people, south Asians, southeast Asians or central Asians -- are known for great health, vigor, attractiveness or high intelligence. I will speculate on Ziv’s motives below, but the implications of his work should be briefly addressed. From the perspectives of kinship and ethnic genetic interests (EGI), both of which Ziv ignores, Ziv’s ideas are horrible; see comments by “On Holliday” here and a fuller discussion of EGI here. In the biological sciences, there is consensus that living organisms be preserved at the level of kinds, i.e. races and higher order levels of taxonomy, unless one is looking at a virus/microorganism that is deadly for humans. Only if conservation efforts are threatened by inbreeding depression will there be a recommendation to mix races or species (in plants) to preserve broad taxonomical groups, and Ziv’s message will normally be treated with contempt in a non-human context. The concept of ethnic genetic interests basically argues that one’s race is worth preserving because it is one’s own, not because there is any special value to it. However, it is also worthwhile to consider the value of things to determine what is and what isn’t worthy of preservation, and white physical appearance and the ability of northern Europeans to produce the highest number of intellectually outstanding people per capita in the absence of having accumulated deleterious alleles, like the Ashkenazim have, is of sufficient value to be at least preserved if not enhanced, and speaking of enhancement, this will come about by evolution within whites; absorbing non-whites will result in devolution. Ziv’s recommendations will be especially disastrous for whites from an aesthetics and intelligence standpoint if many white people are persuaded by his arguments.

What has motivated Alon Ziv?

Attempting to critique an argument by questioning the motives of the author is bad practice, and is specifically known as deconstruction, but I have provided plenty of criticism, and do not intend this section to be a form of criticism. Rather, given the destructive nature of Ziv’s thesis, it is of some interest to question what could have prompted a man with an apparently adequate background in the biological sciences, and one who appears to have spent years reading relevant studies, to present very selective evidence in favor of his arguments and ignore a large body of evidence making the opposite case.

Ziv tells us that his book is not an instruction manual, i.e., he is not telling us to pick a spouse based on racial criteria. He also notes that he doesn’t need to instruct people to seek interracial unions because they are inevitable. He tells the reader to “get ready for a mixed race explosion.” He writes that “interracial marriage is the future, not because it should be, but simply because it is.” And, as to why it is going to be this way, it is because of continued immigration of people of various races into the U.S. as well as other Western nations, and people’s altered mating preferences in accordance with the snow geese example.

Well then, why write a book extolling the virtues of race mixing if it is going to happen on a large scale no matter what Ziv or other people say? The answer is surely not that Ziv merely decided to document what is going to happen in the future, as should be obvious from the tone of the book and Ziv’s very selective citations. The answer is easy to figure out. Ziv laments that although Gary, Indiana (U.S.A.) has 430,000 whites and 120,000 blacks, blacks and whites are highly segregated in this city; he even calls this depressing! It appears that race mixing in the U.S. is not occurring on a scale that would please Ziv, and he has decided to help accelerate it. Ziv writes, “For the modern world, it would be far better to seek out the most genetically distinct mate possible.” He tells us that “the higher one’s heterozygosity is, the better it is,” and then tells us that the combination that would yield the highest heterozygosity would be the combination of a black African with a non-African, a Bantu-Eskimo mating yielding the highest heterozygosity of all interracial matings, according to the research of Cavalli-Sforza. Ziv is quick to add that he is not advocating a race of Bantu-Eskimo supermen, but greater heterozygoisty has its benefits.

One factor that could have motivated Ziv to write this book is that he genuinely subscribes to his thesis and is so enthusiastic about the virtues of race mixing that he has skipped evidence to the contrary, believing that the weight of the evidence in the long run will eventually vindicate him. Another possibility is that Ziv is motivated by malice, a feeling that I cannot shake off.

It would be interesting to learn about the racial background(s) of the women that Ziv has dated and who he ultimately has children with; if she turns out to be non-Jewish and non-white, I can see myself giving Ziv the benefit of the doubt and believe that his book reflects his genuine conviction about the benefits of race mixing, but if this woman is Jewish or white, then my suspicion that Ziv is motivated by malice would be strengthened. Ziv lives in Los Angeles and should have no problems finding a willing black, Asian or Hispanic woman. However, if I had to bet, I would wager that Ziv would prefer a Nordic white for a breeding partner. Ziv doesn’t tell us about the kind of women he likes, but he describes his first love, a classmate, Leslie, in seventh grade. The only thing he tells us about her physical appearance is that she had honey blonde hair, and his description makes it obvious that he was enamored by her blondeness. Of course, if Ziv mated with Leslie, his offspring would not have honey blond hair anymore than if she mated with any non-white, but Ziv does not address this kind of loss resulting from race mixing.

Citations

  1. Bogaert AF. Asexuality: prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. J Sex Res. Aug 2004;41(3):279-287.
  2. Alikasifoglu M, Erginoz E, Ercan O, Albayrak-Kaymak D, Uysal O, Ilter O. Sexual abuse among female high school students in Istanbul, Turkey. Child Abuse Negl. Mar 2006;30(3):247-255.
  3. Crowley MS, Seery BL. Exploring the multiplicity of childhood sexual abuse with a focus on polyincestuous contexts of abuse. J Child Sex Abus. 2001;10(4):91-110.
  4. Kim HS, Kim HS. Incestuous experience among Korean adolescents: prevalence, family problems, perceived family dynamics, and psychological characteristics. Public Health Nurs. Nov-Dec 2005;22(6):472-482.
  5. Simmons LW, Rhodes G, Peters M, Koehler N. Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability? Behav Ecol. 2004;15(5):864-871.
  6. Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW. Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS Genet. Dec 2005;1(6):e70.
  7. Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science. Dec 20 2002;298(5602):2381-2385.
  8. Nei M, Roychoudhury AK. Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale. Mol Biol Evol. Sep 1993;10(5):927-943.
  9. Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB. Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. Am J Phys Anthropol. Jan 2002;117(1):37-48.
  10. Li YY, Brace CL, Gao QA, Tracer DP. Dimensions of face in Asia in the perspective of geography and prehistory. Am J Phys Anthropol. Jul 1991;85(3):269-279.
  11. Serre D, Paabo S. Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. Sep 2004;14(9):1679-1685.
  12. Freese J, Meland S. Seven tenths incorrect: heterogeneity and change in the waist-to-hip ratios of Playboy centerfold models and Miss America pageant winners. J Sex Res. May 2002;39(2):133-138.
  13. Marlowe FW, Wetsman A. Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personal Individ Diff. 2001;30(3):481-489.
  14. Sugiyama L. Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evol Hum Behav. 2004;25(1):51-62.
  15. Yu DW, Shepard GH, Jr. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature. Nov 26 1998;396(6709):321-322.
  16. Furlow B, Gangestad SW, Armijo-Prewitt T. Developmental stability and human violence. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Jan 7 1998;265(1390):1-6.
  17. Manning JT, Wood D. Fluctuating asymmetry and aggression in boys. Hum Nature. 1998;9:53-65.
  18. Aspi J. Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity. Mar 2000;84 ( Pt 3):273-282.
  19. Galloway LF, Etterson JR. Population differentiation and hybrid success in Campanula americana: geography and genome size. J Evol Biol. Jan 2005;18(1):81-89.
  20. Heiser DA, Shaw RG. The fitness effects of outcrossing in Calylophus serrulatus, a permanent translocation heterozygote. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Jan 2006;60(1):64-76.
  21. Henry PY, Pradel R, Jarne P. Environment-dependent inbreeding depression in a hermaphroditic freshwater snail. J Evol Biol. Nov 2003;16(6):1211-1222.
  22. LeBas NR. Mate choice, genetic incompatibility, and outbreeding in the ornate dragon lizard, Ctenophorus ornatus. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Feb 2002;56(2):371-377.
  23. Miller LM, Close T, Kapuscinski AR. Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Mol Ecol. Nov 2004;13(11):3379-3388.
  24. Montalvo AM, Ellstrand NC. Nonlocal transplantation and outbreeding depression in the subshrub Lotus scoparius (Fabaceae). Am J Bot. Feb 2001;88(2):258-269.
  25. Neff BD. Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Feb 24 2004;101(8):2381-2385.
  26. Parisod C, Trippi C, Galland N. Genetic variability and founder effect in the pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea (Sarraceniaceae) in populations introduced into Switzerland: from inbreeding to invasion. Ann Bot (Lond). Jan 2005;95(2):277-286.
  27. Peer K, Taborsky M. Outbreeding depression, but no inbreeding depression in haplodiploid Ambrosia beetles with regular sibling mating. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Feb 2005;59(2):317-323.
  28. Quilichini A, Debussche M, Thompson JD. Evidence for local outbreeding depression in the Mediterranean island endemic Anchusa crispa Viv. (Boraginaceae). Heredity. Aug 2001;87(Pt 2):190-197.
  29. Shpak M. The role of deleterious mutations in allopatric speciation. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Jul 2005;59(7):1389-1399.
  30. Waser NM, Price MV, Shaw RG. Outbreeding depression varies among cohorts of Ipomopsis aggregata planted in nature. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Apr 2000;54(2):485-491.
  31. Willi Y, Van Buskirk J. Genomic compatibility occurs over a wide range of parental genetic similarity in an outcrossing plant. Proc Biol Sci. Jul 7 2005;272(1570):1333-1338.
  32. Khongsdier R, Mukherjee N. Effects of heterosis on growth in height and its segments: a cross-sectional study of the Khasi girls in Northeast India. Ann Hum Biol. Sep-Oct 2003;30(5):605-621.
  33. Hulse FS. Exogamy and heterosis. Year Phys Anthropol. 1957;9:240-257.
  34. Wolanski N, Jarosz E, Pyzuk M. Heterosis in man: growth in offspring and distance between parents' birthplaces. Soc Biol. Mar 1970;17(1):1-16.
  35. Hegele RA. Genetic prediction of atherosclerosis: lessons from studies in native Canadian populations. Clin Chim Acta. Aug 1999;286(1-2):47-61.
  36. Hegele RA, Ban MR, Carrington CV, Ramdath DD. Allele frequencies for candidate genes in atherosclerosis and diabetes among Trinidadian neonates. Hum Biol. Aug 2001;73(4):525-531.
  37. North KE, MacCluer JW, Williams JT, et al. Evidence for distinct genetic effects on obesity and lipid-related CVD risk factors in diabetic compared to nondiabetic American Indians: the Strong Heart Family Study. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. Mar-Apr 2003;19(2):140-147.
  38. Helgadottir A, Manolescu A, Helgason A, et al. A variant of the gene encoding leukotriene A4 hydrolase confers ethnicity-specific risk of myocardial infarction. Nat Genet. Jan 2006;38(1):68-74.
  39. Radha V, Vimaleswaran KS, Babu HN, et al. Role of genetic polymorphism peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma2 Pro12Ala on ethnic susceptibility to diabetes in South-Asian and Caucasian subjects: Evidence for heterogeneity. Diabetes Care. May 2006;29(5):1046-1051.
  40. Livshits G, Otremski I, Kobyliansky E. Longitudinal growth of infants in families of "mixed" and "non-mixed" ethnic origin in Israel. Hum Biol. Dec 1987;59(6):933-949.
  41. Leamy LJ, Meagher S, Taylor S, Carroll L, Potts WK. Size and fluctuating asymmetry of morphometric characters in mice: their associations with inbreeding and t-haplotype. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Nov 11 2001;55(11):2333-2341.
  42. Beacham TD. Developmental stability, heterozygosity, and genetic analysis of morphological variation in pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Can J Zool. 1991;69(2):274-278.
  43. Clarke GM, Oldroyd BP. The genetic basis of developmental stability in Apis mellifera. II. Relationships between character size, asymmetry and single-locus heterozygosity Genetica. 1996;97(2):211-224.
  44. Vollestad LA, Hindar K. Developmental stability and environmental stress in Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon). Heredity. Feb 1997;78 ( Pt 2):215-222.
  45. Thornhill R, Moller AP. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. Nov 1997;72(4):497-548.
  46. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E. Lerner's concept of developmental homeostasis and the problem of heterozygosity level in natural populations. Heredity. Dec 1985;55 ( Pt 3):341-353.
  47. Vollestad LA, Hindar K, Moller AP. A meta-analysis of fluctuating asymmetry in relation to heterozygosity. Heredity. Aug 1999;83 ( Pt 2):206-218.
  48. Udry JR, Li RM, Hendrickson-Smith J. Health and behavior risks of adolescents with mixed-race identity. Am J Public Health. Nov 2003;93(11):1865-1870.
  49. Vandervoort DJ, Divers PP, Aojido C. Psychosocial correlates of health status among Asians, Caucasians, and multiracial subjects. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social. 2000;19(2):120-128.
  50. Choi Y, Harachi TW, Gillmore MR, Catalano RF. Are multiracial adolescents at greater risk? Comparisons of rates, patterns, and correlates of substance use and violence between monoracial and multiracial adolescents. Am J Orthopsychiatry. Jan 2006;76(1):86-97.
  51. Gibbs JT. Identity and marginality: issues in the treatment of biracial adolescents. Am J Orthopsychiatry. Apr 1987;57(2):265-278.
  52. Gibbs JT, Moskowitz-Sweet G. Clinical and cultural issues in the treatment of biracial and bicultural adolescents. Families in Society. 1991;72:479-591.
  53. Johnson R, Nagoshi C. The adjustment of offspring of withingroup and interracial/intercultural marriages: A comparison of personality factor scores. J Marriage Family. 1986;48:279-284.
  54. Radina ME, Cooney TM. Relationship quality between multiracial adolescents and their biological parents. Am J Orthopsychiatry. Oct 2000;70(4):445-454.
  55. Cooney TM, Radina ME. Adjustment problems in adolescence: are multiracial children at risk? Am J Orthopsychiatry. Oct 2000;70(4):433-444.
  56. Barnett AH, Dixon AN, Bellary S, et al. Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk in the UK south Asian community. Diabetologia. Oct 2006;49(10):2234-2246.
  57. Forouhi NG, Sattar N, Tillin T, McKeigue PM, Chaturvedi N. Do known risk factors explain the higher coronary heart disease mortality in South Asian compared with European men? Prospective follow-up of the Southall and Brent studies, UK. Diabetologia. Sep 14 2006.
  58. Gupta M, Brister S. Is South Asian ethnicity an independent cardiovascular risk factor? Can J Cardiol. Mar 1 2006;22(3):193-197.
  59. Smith J, Cianflone K, Al-Amri M, Sniderman A. Body composition and the apoB/apoA-I ratio in migrant Asian Indians and white Caucasians in Canada. Clin Sci (Lond). Sep 2006;111(3):201-207.
  60. Bedi US, Singh S, Syed A, Aryafar H, Arora R. Coronary artery disease in South Asians: an emerging risk group. Cardiol Rev. Mar-Apr 2006;14(2):74-80.
  61. Tewari S, Kumar S, Kapoor A, et al. Premature coronary artery disease in North India: an angiography study of 1971 patients. Indian Heart J. Jul-Aug 2005;57(4):311-318.
  62. Davey G, Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Hitman GA, McKeigue PM. Familial aggregation of central obesity in Southern Indians. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. Nov 2000;24(11):1523-1527.
  63. Potts J, Simmons D. Sex and ethnic group differences in fat distribution in young United Kingdom South Asians and Europids. J Clin Epidemiol. Aug 1994;47(8):837-841.
  64. Dudeja V, Misra A, Pandey RM, Devina G, Kumar G, Vikram NK. BMI does not accurately predict overweight in Asian Indians in northern India. Br J Nutr. Jul 2001;86(1):105-112.
  65. Misra A, Pandey RM, Sinha S, Guleria R, Sridhar V, Dudeja V. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis of body fat & body mass index in dyslipidaemic Asian Indians. Indian J Med Res. Apr 2003;117:170-179.
  66. Vikram NK, Misra A, Pandey RM, et al. Anthropometry and body composition in northern Asian Indian patients with type 2 diabetes: receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis of body mass index with percentage body fat as standard. Diabetes Nutr Metab. Feb 2003;16(1):32-40.
  67. Nanan DJ. The obesity pandemic--implications for Pakistan. J Pak Med Assoc. Aug 2002;52(8):342-346.
  68. Singh V, Deedwania P. Dyslipidemia in special populations: Asian Indians, African Americans, and Hispanics. Curr Atheroscler Rep. Jan 2006;8(1):32-40.
  69. Tomkinson GR, Olds TS. Physiological correlates of bilateral symmetry in humans. Int J Sports Med. Nov 2000;21(8):545-550.
  70. Tomkinson GR, Popovic N, Martin M. Bilateral symmetry and the competitive standard attained in elite and sub-elite sport. J Sports Sci. Mar 2003;21(3):201-211.
  71. Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199-226.
  72. Martinez-Abadias N, Gonzalez-Jose R, Gonzalez-Martin A, et al. Phenotypic evolution of human craniofacial morphology after admixture: a geometric morphometrics approach. Am J Phys Anthropol. Mar 2006;129(3):387-398.
  73. Chung CS, Runck DW, Bilben SE, Kau MC. Effects of interracial crosses on cephalometric measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol. Apr 1986;69(4):465-472.
  74. Rhodes G, Lee K, Palermo R, et al. Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception. 2005;34(3):319-340.
  75. Nagoshi CT, Johnson RC. The ubiquity of g. Personal Individ Diff. 1986;7(2):201-207.
  76. Mingroni MA. The secular rise in IQ: giving heterosis a closer look. Intelligence. 2004;32(1):65-83.
  77. Colom R, Lluis-Font JM, Andres-Pueyo A. The generational intelligence gains are caused by decreasing variance in the lower half of the distribution: Supporting evidence for the nutrition hypothesis. Intelligence. 2005;33:83-91.
  78. Lynn R. The intelligence of American Jews. Personal Individ Diff. 2004;36(1):201-207.
  79. Lynn R, Longley D. On the high intelligence and cognitive achievements of Jews in Britain. Intelligence. 2006;Epub (ahead of print).
  80. Cochran G, Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J Biosoc Sci. Sep 2006;38(5):659-693.
  81. Lynn R. Race differences in intelligence : an evolutionary analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers; 2006.
  82. Benbow CP. Physiological correlates of extreme intellectual precocity. Neuropsychologia. 1986;24(5):719-725.

Posted by J Richards on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 04:06 AM in Anthropology,  Books,  Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests,  Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity,  IQ and Heredity,  Psychology,  Race realism,  That Question Again
Comments (270) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Posted by Wunderbar on October 24, 2006, 10:22 AM | #

the “inevitable happens” ; what exactly are you referring to rustymason?

Media companies shouldn’t be marketed as ‘white’ - they should just start off with fairly objective neutral programming. The racial aspects of crime etc should be reported fully, and the unenlightened will soon start to see the real picture.

nationalvanguard.org is a good website to tell people about bc it doesn’t allow postings (which often degenerate to racist name-calling) and has some very good articles.

Posted by Wunderbar on October 24, 2006, 10:58 AM | #

Just had a look at the Occidental Quarterly online - looks pretty shit. But the NPI website looks good.

Instead of talking with no action, a yearly donation from all concerned American patriots could help the NPI to become a strong force. Imagine 100 000 patriots each donating a $1000 a year. That could get the ball rolling in creating some good online video media.

(Nope I won’t be investing, I’m not American. Anyway the country I’m most concerned about is Sweden. I hope to travel there next year. )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 03, 2007, 04:03 AM | #

I came across the following comment by Steven P. at another blog (a comment in which he explains his preference for avoiding the term “genocide” to designate what’s going on, in favor of “racial engineering experiments").  At the end of his comment he includes definitions of what constitutes “genocide,” taken from the United Nations Genocide Convention (adopted 1948) and gives a list of “acts punishable” as genocide under the provisions of that Convention.  One glance at the definition and list of acts punishable will make crystal-clear to anyone Prof. Alon Ziv is potentially liable to prosecution: 

The term genocide, though accurate, is too strong.  Displacing a people against their will by flooding their lands with competing groups qualifies as a constructive section C genocide under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention of 1948.  A possible additional violation is forcible denial of group representation since whites — and only whites — aren’t allowed to organize as whites under penalty of soft-persecution for “racism.”

The problem is that most people assume all genocides are section A (killing) or B (terror) genocides because they associate the term with extreme violence.  So you talk about genocide and people look around for evidence of massive carnage, find none and conclude you’re being alarmist.  The only way around this is to bore them to tears by first discussing international treaties and the three non-vioent genocide categories [C (resource denial), D (mass sterilization) and E (child takings)].  Folks… this is too complicated.

Personally, I no longer use the term “genocide.” Back when I used to, my wife picked up on it and started using it herself.  One day I watched as a leftie got her all defensive by telling her she was exaggerating.  I didn’t like that — watching her trying to justify her claim was painful.  She doesn’t know the details of the Genocide Convention of 1948 and besides, why should she?  I felt responsible for her embarassment because she trusts my choice of language.  I haven’t used the term “genocide” since.  I now use “racial engineering experiments on whites” — it isn’t only hard to argue with, but sounds so eerie and makes its proponents sound so evil that it’s practically a self-contained argument in and of itself.

Getting the terminology right is critical because all identity politics is grievance politics.  No grievance, no identity politics.  Ever heard blacks discussing group interests without invoking slavery?  Ever heard Jews discussing group interests without invoking the Holocaust?  Neither have I.

Genocide is our grievance. But we need the right terminology (label) to communicate it outside of our tiny circles.

Possible alternatives:

“racial engineering experiment”
“race replacement”
“reverse colonization”
“white dispossession” (source: Pat Buchanan)
“ethnic submersion” (source: Dalai Lama)
“cultural genocide” (source: Dalai Lama)
“soft genocide”
“slow motion genocide”
“constructive section C genocide”
“constructive violations of Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention of 1948″

Examples:

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing racial engineering experiment against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of race replacement against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing constructive violations of Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention of 1948 against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

(Note: “constructive” is a legal term that means “equivalent to.”)

GENOCIDE CONVENTION OF 1948

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;

* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

* (a) Genocide;

* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;

* (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Clearly a solid case can be made for prosecuting Prof. Ziv under Article 2, §§ c and d and possibly § b as well, and under all five sections of Article 3.  Furthermore, it’s inescapable that anyone promoting forced race-replacement of a community’s or nation’s traditional population through the imposition of excessive racially/ethnoculturally-incompatible immigration is potentially prosecutable under the same definitions and provisions as Prof. Ziv.

Posted by ben tillman on January 03, 2007, 05:33 AM | #

Yeah, well, I still use “genocide”.  See isthatlegal.org

I will take your point under advisement.

Posted by prosecutorial brute on January 03, 2007, 01:41 PM | #

I would certainly like to see Ziv charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced by a legally convened tribunal on charges of promoting genocide.

While that is, unfortunately, unlikely to occur, at least not in the foreseeable future, it would still be a productive exercise to draw up charges against Ziv (and others like him).  The utility would be in the educational and propaganda benefits, and to underscore the seriousness of the situation to those who may in the future wish to promote genocide themselves.

To be done effectively, this would require a person(s) with a legal background and/or someone very familiar with the processes and terminology of “crimes against humanity"-type prosecutions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 03, 2007, 02:02 PM | #

I agree one thousand percent with Brute:  this specific tactic ought to be at the top of our side’s agenda.  Of course nothing will come of it ... in the immediate term.  But neither did any good come of organized Jewish efforts to race-replace Eurochristians ... in 1924.  They didn’t stop trying, but quietly toiled away day and night for decades ... 

Then came 1965. 

These things going on around us are in large part the results of years, nay decades of relentless hard work by dedicated activists.  The litigation-in-the-courts route has been astoundingly successful for the other side starting a hundred years ago.  Our side has been way too lax in pursuing this strategy.  We should start right now, and we should start with pressing genocide charges against Ziv specifically and anyone promoting race-replacement immigration:  charges exactly along the lines of the definition of genocide and list of offenses in the U.N. documents excerpted in the discussion above.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 03, 2007, 02:24 PM | #

“The utility would be in the educational and propaganda benefits, and to underscore the seriousness of the situation to those who may in the future wish to promote genocide themselves.” (—Brute)

Of course, and included among the “educational and propaganda benefits” of such a prosecution is the fact well-known to modern experts in propaganda from the Bolsheviks to the Nazis to present-day Hollywood and organized Jewry to you-name-it:  the more you “name” something in public, the more you “pronounce” something publicly, the more matter-of-fact it seems.  We’re being crushed right now under all sorts of outrages, merely because they’ve been repeated, “named,” “pronounced” so much by the other side that everyone has come to accept them — a century-old propaganda technique.  Well, it’s time our side started naming, pronouncing, repeating a few ripostes for a change, and let everyone come to accept those.

Posted by crusading prosecutor brute on January 03, 2007, 03:25 PM | #

“We should start right now, and we should start with pressing genocide charges against Ziv specifically...”

Agreed.  What’s needed are three things initially: someone with the specific skills and/or training to produce a legally sound document, a place to which to house the document (MR?), and, lastly, people (including MR participants) willing to consistently advertise the existence of the document.

In that order.

Posted by prosecute ziv brute on January 03, 2007, 03:42 PM | #

See here:
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-2ai011029e.htm

This seems to be a format for such indictments.

Posted by Englander on January 03, 2007, 03:45 PM | #

The above-quoted comment by Steven P., about his wife getting into trouble trying to justify her use of the term ‘genocide’, reminds me that we really need a list of arguments that less-educated people (like myself) can learn or go back to in times of need to ensure that we can get our points across well. At the moment anyone who is concerned by MR issues must spend hours going through posts and comments to find the information he or she needs.  All of the most compelling pieces of information are terribly hard to find being mostly comments.
All this talent needs organizing so that others can make use of it.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 03, 2007, 04:09 PM | #

Englander,

Maybe the way to address your request is to grow a list of personal experiences in the form of reader comments on a dedicated thread that could be linked on the side bar under Important Issues heading, just as the Ziv post now is.

If you or anyone else thinks that would be worthwhile I will put up a post to kick it off.

On the Ziv question, I think a very careful examination of the issue by a legal mind is the first step.  There likely is a racial defensive benefit to be got out of propagandising the soft genocidalism involved, but no point in making this very strong claim without a pretty solid legal foundation.

I don’t know if ben would consider himself competent to address issues normally addressed in the (very liberal and self-evidently globalist) International Court of Justice.  But that’s the scale of things, and it’s a long way from our callow speculations.  Ben, in any case, has more legal knowledge than I, and at the very least I would want his view before we committed to commissioning and/or housing the relevant documentation.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 03, 2007, 04:26 PM | #

Englander,

All you need is Darwin, the Descent of Man, Chapter VII - On the Races of Man, On the Extinction of the Races of Man.-

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the
contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.*

Mass migration, low fertility, stir and voila, extinction.

Posted by pondering thoughtful brute on January 03, 2007, 04:51 PM | #

“On the Ziv question, I think a very careful examination of the issue by a legal mind is the first step.”

Agreed.  There are a number of issues involved here, and a full analysis is needed.  I think the overall point is that the idea needs to be at least studied.

From a logical standpoint, miscgenationist propaganda would seem at least at first glance to be:

* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

For example, one of the methods used by “Arabs” (or varying degrees of “purity") to attack Negroes in the zone of North African-subSaharan African convergence is via rape of Negro women - particularly in cultures where group identity is determined by patrilineage.

Thus, not only are pureblooded Negroes being prevented from being produced in these nations (eg, Sudan, I believe is an example), but the hybrids produced are identified with the Arab strain.

Propaganda, particularly one-sided propaganda (and especially if said propaganda persists after the logical and factual flaws within it are made clear) can be viewed as a form of mental/emotional coercion.  Coupled with enforced integration you get:

“ conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part...”

The basic problem here is one of political power and not of logic.  Take Saddam: he is certainly not the only leader on the world stage guilty of “war crimes”; but leaders of powerful nations who are beyond the hand of justice cannot be indicted.

Similarly, because the globalist elite support white dissolution, and encourage miscegenation involving whites, they can hardly be expected to agree that a person advocating their own philosophy is guilty of crimes against humanity.

Whatever input Ben can give will be helpful.  What we really need (and if Ben has any “behind the scenes” connections that can be helpful) is to find a “rightist” legal expert, with knowledge in this area, to examine the validity of this case.  It may be that they may say “yes, you have a point, but the practical reality is that it’s useless”, or he may say “the wording/interpretation of the wording is such that it only favors minority rights”, or he may say that the “interpretation is for punishment of actions, not words” - leaving open why Streicher was executed after WWII - , or he may declare the whole thing is too vague.  Or, he may agree that, while nothing practical can be done, the logic of the complaint stands, and it is valid and worthy of further analysis.

Who knows?  But there is no doubt that encouraging people to produce mixed-race children will decrease the production of pure-breds, and since “partial” destruction of a group, including “prevention of births” is CLEARLY written as part of the definition of genocide, it is difficult to understand how someone twisting facts to promote this is “innocent” of the attempt to decrease numbers of the targeted group.

At the very least, the issue needs to be examined and explained by an individual or individuals conversant with international law and international crimes tribunals.

So, yes let us get a professional examination of the issues.  Another option is to “hand off” the project to a “pro-white” group with a stronger connection to the sorts of professionals needed to examine this case. 

Does anyone know of any group, legal team, etc. that would be willing to adopt this project and invest the energies needed to ascertain whether or not the definitions of genocide as listed by international organizations can be construed as to include attempts to at least partially dissolve racial groups through admixture?

Posted by mcbrutey on January 03, 2007, 05:09 PM | #

“ Ben, in any case, has more legal knowledge than I, and at the very least I would want his view before we committed to commissioning and/or housing the relevant documentation. “

Well, yes, we already stated that the first step would need to be having a lawyer look at the issue.  If the current structure of law is insufficient to cover “soft genocide” as you put it, then, obviously nothing more remains that to simply continue what has already been taking place on cyberspace (including this post and thread): a systematic deconstuction and refutuation of Ziv’s thesis, and an analysis of potential motives (for example, “malice” was cited in the original post as one possible motive).

With respect though to the question: does the author of this book himself realize that the “thesis” is subversive of group preservation, we need only look once again at what Ziv wrote:

“Since you are a member of a website that advocates the preservation of a single race I’m not surprised that you don’t agree with my thesis. “

In other words, Mr. Ziv states that he expects that a person interested in preserving a race would, normally, object to the content of his work.  Why would that be so?  Because, as mixing would alter the race, the thesis proposed works against the preservation of any single race.  That is clear, and it is equally clear, from the quote, that Mr. Ziv has an understanding that his thesis is not compatible with a desire to promote, and I quote: “the preservation of a single race.”

What is the antonym for “preservation?”

Posted by Guessedworker on January 03, 2007, 05:39 PM | #

I really wonder about the chances of finding a rightist human rights lawyer!  Also, has there ever been a prosecution accepted for anything other than the hard definitions of genocide?  Trying to create precedent of any sort - never mind one of this nature - is a game for the very brave, the very certain or the very misguided, and potentially all three!

The reality is that 2 to 4-year legal battles fought all the way through Appeal without the benefit of public funding cost several hundred thousand if not millions of dollars - and that’s if one wins!  Lose and it’s a meltdown.

The only ways to raise the substantial funding are to find wealthy backers - something WN has consistently failed to do for forty years - or to successfully establish a donations-based fighting fund.  The latter might be possible if every single branch of WN was fully supportive and willing to appeal to its membership.  But no such support would be forthcoming without there being a damned good case in law.

If we agree at the outset to limit the objective to propaganda, and forego creating precedent, then the legal grounding can remain more speculative.  The problem of finding a fair-minded expert remains, however.

Paul Fromm might be a useful person to consult on the latter.

Posted by Englander on January 03, 2007, 06:43 PM | #

Englander,

Maybe the way to address your request is to grow a list of personal experiences in the form of reader comments on a dedicated thread that could be linked on the side bar under Important Issues heading, just as the Ziv post now is.

If you or anyone else thinks that would be worthwhile I will put up a post to kick it off.

I think it would be worthwhile. For a start.
In my opinion, the very best writing on this subject (that I have found online) is happening in the comments section of this site. Many of the contributors are brilliant, and if I had half the knowledge they do I would be creating a polished website where such superbly articulated viewpoints would be sorted and easy to find. We need a pro-white super-site. Free of vulgarity and with very high standards. Something that ordinary people won’t be frightened of.
Just above this post are comments about funding for human rights trials. This and all other goals that we wish to see fulfilled rely on better public understanding of our position. It never ceases to amaze me how much talent there is in the pro-white movement, but at the same time I see little in the way of effort to really harness the power of the internet. Amren is probably the best that we have right now, but it could be better. It is still little more than a discussion blog (with some really great articles below the surface) and I feel that this format is only attractive to those already on our side, and those who are just as passionate about attacking us.

Posted by properly grounded brute on January 03, 2007, 07:02 PM | #

“If we agree at the outset to limit the objective to propaganda, and forego creating precedent...”

Of course, no one here is actually expecting the case to be heard in any tribunal under the current multiculturalist global establishment.  Very limited objective.

“...then the legal grounding can remain more speculative.”

No, you would need a firm grounding even for a project restricted to education/propaganda.  All the “i’s” need to be dotted and all the “t’s” need to be crossed; this is not something to be done half-assed.  What you’d want is a case that COULD be presented to a fair tribunal, if one existed.  That there is no such tribunal to hear a properly constructed case would be yet another indictment of the system.

“The problem of finding a fair-minded expert remains, however.”

Agreed, and that’s why we are asking for assistance here.  Anyone know Fromm well enough so as to get a response from the fellow?

Here’s a point.  IF the case is worth pursuing, then an interested foundation (NPI??) could consider investing in it, with the idea that, not only would it be “doing the right thing”, but would allow the group in question to have publicity, etc.

If the case is in fact worthless, then, no one, even if they had the ability to pursue it, would do so.

The major question then is identifying any groups that would have the capacity for this project in its limited objective, and, if such exist, follow up with the proposal to see if it has any chance of success and if they are interested.

A preliminary examination by someone like Ben would be useful to see if there is anything here at all.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 03, 2007, 08:58 PM | #

brute: Of course, no one here is actually expecting the case to be heard in any tribunal under the current multiculturalist global establishment.

But let’s evaluate the utility of a purely rhetorical “victory”.  Whereas the establishment of legal precedent would stop Zivism at source, the rhetorical approach leaves us in the same game as now - trying to get the word out.  It would be a new word, I admit, but the same old, narrow methodology.  We already know it’s not enough.

Precedent, should it be established, is an open road.  The human rights artistes use it continually to expand their reach.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that the acknowledgement that whites must be protected from deliberate attempts to advance genetic mixing opens the way to broader defences based on the ultimate guarantor of genetic preservation: land.

Law is better than rhetorics.  I would not wish to dictate from the outset that we have no real interest in it.  If the child can be sat on the back of the tiger, the next thing to see is how far it can ride.

Posted by Al Ross on January 03, 2007, 10:54 PM | #

This gentleman might consider taking the case :

http://ianandersonadvocate.com/index.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 03, 2007, 11:01 PM | #

I think it’s worth doing regardless of prospects for success in the immediate term.  Those prospects are nil but every step by us in a forward direction chips, chips, chips away at the walls of our oppenents’ meticulously-constructed fortress.  When victory finally comes we or those to whom we’ll have passed the sacred baton will look back and say, “this is where our victory started; here is the seed from which it grew.” The other side didn’t overthrow normalness and entire races in a day; neither shall we succeed overnight in undoing all the evil they’ve wrought.  But with patience and perseverence we shall prevail because truth, the only standard to which we repair, always prevails.

Posted by ben tillman on January 04, 2007, 04:13 PM | #

“I don’t know if ben would consider himself competent to address issues normally addressed in the (very liberal and self-evidently globalist) International Court of Justice.”

I spent a week at the ICJ this fall but was not *before* the ICJ.  We were there for an arbitration, and our “judge” was a solicitor from the City of London who had selected the ICJ’s small courtroom as the venue.  And it was a splendid venue.  I would love to go back. 

Regarding my competence, I see it less as a matter of competence than as a matter of resources and reputation.  If you want someone to brief the issues, then I am your man, but I can’t set aside my other work to take on such a large project gratis.  And there is a lot to be said for the value of the prestige attending someone like the Ian Anderson mentioned by Al Ross. 

Having said all that, I doubt that a private party can institute criminal charges under the treaty.  Under Canada’s genocide law, not even a prosecutor can level charges; the proceeding has to be initiated by a bureaucrat in the central government.

This sounds like a fun project, but it’s just one of many unfunded legal activism projects that I would love to pursue.  At this point, I am inclined to focus on things closer to home—and things that have the potential to pay for themselves. 

James Bowery—take note!—I think a fruitful project may be litigating the rights of American tech workers whose jobs have been outsourced or who have been replaced by imported foreigners.  The beauty of this project is that it will play well to black jurors as well as whites. 

There are sound legal arguments to be directed against any number of the offenses committed against our people, but the problem continues to be funding.  I intend to contact the NPI in the next couple of weeks to see whether its benefactor has any interest in expanding the Instutute’s efforst into legalactivism.  Perhaps it would help if some of you also made the suggestion.

Posted by wjg on January 04, 2007, 05:01 PM | #

Fred’s post at 11:01 is well said.  This is a marathon.  Our people have failed collectively for several generations so the fix will not come easily or quickly.  Much painful labor is needed to birth a renewed European Man.

This whole thread is very positive.  We need to act - boldly and rationally - in the best tradition of our race.  As the enemy keeps handing us rope we need to start fashioning it into a noose for them and no longer for us.

Posted by Sir Salty of Frank on January 04, 2007, 09:54 PM | #

I did contact NPI and suggested that they take a look at the potential activism raised by the last dozen or so comments on this thread.  I also suggested they pay close attention to whatever suggestions made to them in the future by Ben, who is one of the finest commentators on this or any other blog.

Anyone (and it should be someone of “status") who wishes to contact Anderson should do so once someone (NPI, Ben?) lets us know whether the ideas discussed here have any merit whatsoever.

“James Bowery—take note!—I think a fruitful project may be litigating the rights of American tech workers whose jobs have been outsourced or who have been replaced by imported foreigners.  The beauty of this project is that it will play well to black jurors as well as whites.”

That’s a fine idea.

In the future, when a significant fraction of high-IQ (and healthily ethnocentric) whites get a solid understanding of EGI, we can look forward, perhaps, to a legal redress for compensating all the lost “child equivalents” due to alien immigration.

A thought to warm your heart on a cold winter’s day.

Posted by PF on January 05, 2007, 12:01 AM | #

Hi Guys! Here\’s a suggestion:

What about compiling a large word file or PDF, which functions as an FAQ for the movement. In this file, every single individual question posed by anti-racist left would be answered in the most lucid possible language.

The arguments of MacDonald, Salter, Taylor (his dissection of the racial spoils system), Brimelow (on immigration\’s consequences), and all other greats would be concisely summarized and made digestible to a person of slightly-above-average intelligence.

All sticking points (Nordic-Med, Eugenics, Supremacy/colonization, certain tangential aspects of Feminism) would be elided over, so to speak, so that the main thrust of the ideological content could penetrate the reader\’s brain with maximum efficiency.

If such a file was well researched, meticulously worded and argued, with all sources cited, and a clear and readable format, it could then be translated into Dutch, French, Russian, etc.

We would then have a solidified ideological corpus to refer to when arguing against leftists.

What say you, fellow MRers?

Posted by PF on January 05, 2007, 12:15 AM | #

Sorry to do a tandem post, I know its more polite to wait for responses, but heres an example:

Section I. Race.

\"Race does not exist.\”
- counterargument

\"Races exist, but race does not matter.\”
- counterargument

\"Races exist, but differences are skin deep.\”
- counterargument

\"Race exists, and it matters, but for a political
system to acknowledge race, is immoral.\”
-counterargument
[The only political systems where race is not acknowledged are white states where the majority is not allowed to advocate its own interests...etc. etc.]

II. Miscegenation - examples can be taken from this discussion.

and so on and so on.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 05, 2007, 12:30 AM | #

PF,

The suggestions that you and Englander make are interesting, and we would certainly support an effort to build such a resource.  But for something authoritive and useful to emerge quite a few man hours will be involved, and as with the movie review idea the problem is getting someone to operate as the lynchpin.

I don’t know how much more I can do get the word across: OK, we’ll support the idea, create the sub-blog to house it, contribute what intellectual resources we can. But ... someone has to have the drive and the time to take under his wing and do the main spadework.

That’s where the thing tends to come unstuck.  Where are the willing workers?

Posted by PF on January 05, 2007, 12:53 AM | #

Guessedworker,

Point taken. As regards the \"corpus of refutations\” idea, one would just have to rewrite the arguments presented on this site, to a large extent. The comments \"generate themselves\” and would just have to be formalized.

Anyway, its an area where real service could be done, and I will ponder to myself what I can do, without making any hasy proclamations here and now. Another bonus of having a formalized document is that it can be cited and sent around, whereas the Culture of Critique cannot be so readily exchanged[yet/as far as I know]. And it proclaims that we take ourselves seriously enough to issue a formal document - which is at least an attempt at respectability.

I really liked Fred Scrooby\’s comment about 1924 and 1965. It really made things clear for me. Things can change, we wont be stuck forever in this moment. Anyway, cheers guys, heres to everyone waking up in 2007.

Posted by Andy Wooster on January 05, 2007, 01:49 AM | #

I can volunteer to do some of the legwork on PF’s suggestion.  When I finish my law school applications (within the next week or so, God willing) I should have some more free time that I could commit to answering some of the specific anti-racist claims.

I’d offer to help with the movie reviews, but that’s not really my cup of tea. I tend not to watch very many movies and I have an extremely low tolerance for anti-white crap.

Posted by Welf on January 14, 2007, 12:13 PM | #

Tuesday, July 25, 2006
“The Evils of Miscegenation” by Thomas Fairweather
A lot of people probably do not understand the word miscegenation. Basically it means race-mixing or racial-mixed marriages. “Miscegenation” comes from the Latin miscere, “to mix” and genus, “race”.[1] It is something which most people in today’s society do not even raise an eyebrow about. But only a few decades ago in the United States of America miscegenation was illegal. In fact, even an American President by the name of Warren G. Harding was totally against the idea of miscegenation and had mentioned it in a speech that he did. As this is an opinion piece I will give my own views on the issues. Personally I find miscegenation to be abhorrent, something that deluded liberal-minded people do who only see them selves plainly as being “human-beings” rather than humans of a particular race/ethnic group.

They do understand their heritage

Read more....... http://www.newrightausnz.org/articles/theevilsofmiscegenation.html

Posted by jklein on January 17, 2007, 06:56 PM | #

I just stumbled upon this site. Read through it quickly and found it intriguing.

I embrace the overarching theme here which is the importance of preserving our people, nation, civilization. Now, it seems to me that race (white), religion (Christianity), and heritage (western Europe) are all quite important in this regard. I’m not sure why there is so much fixation on science in that discussion. I will return to this below.

I have some queries that if one of the more informed of the posters might help, it would assist me in my own understanding of the issues being raised here.

One, how does the “scientific fact” of the existence of races add or detract from what we experience as a people to be real. Is science somehow the arbiter of what exists in the totality of human experience?

Two, if Ziv were to be correct, Heaven forbid, and there were to be this explosion of interracial marriages/breeding, and biological markers were to disappear, would that render your work obsolete? In other words, even if race were destroyed as a meaningful biological fact, does that mean it does not remain an ontological one for man, notably the few white Europeans who might remain?

Three, because it appears to me not to be a “scientific issue”, but rather one of ontological proportions, race as a component, albeit an important one, of the broader Peoplehood (i.e., the American people as essentially white Christians of western European origin and outlook) established in existence appears far more fundamental and overarching. While in declaratory form, that was mean6 as a query.

Four, and far more trivial, what does it mean in the scientific lexicon to say that something is “better”? For example, the book reviewer noted something along the way about certain features being prettier? But for a scientist, and I profess some expertise in science but not this discipline, how does one determine that? Is this some “universal” scale or has one been developed as valid for “whites” or “North Americans”? Similarly, what does “vigor” mean? As a scientist it would seem that even to suggest that a longer life is more “vigorous” is outside of scientific purview? Might a biological evolutionist (I am not one) say that a shorter life for the individuals might very well be more vigorous for the species since it facilitates adaptability? How does a scientist strictly speaking “value” these matters with any theoretical integrity?

Finally, I note someone said a scientist does not, as a scientist, recognize races, only the human race. It would seem to me that it is deeper than that. A scientist, one who accepts fundamentally the notion first really developed by Descartes of the symbolic mathematization of all of existence would have a hard time defending ontologically distinctions between any matter any where any time. He might find interesting quantifiable distinctions between things (i.e., the lengthy artical posted under “ethnic genetic interests”, but those distinctions as a matter of science are neither here nor there.

All the best, and thanks for the reply in advance,

JK

Posted by ontological brute on January 17, 2007, 08:24 PM | #

“One, how does the “scientific fact” of the existence of races add or detract from what we experience as a people to be real. Is science somehow the arbiter of what exists in the totality of human experience?”

Science is a more objective way of looking at, and understanding, reality than subjective “faith” or your odd ramblings.  I do understand where people afraid of truth may eschew science.  Better to believe what you want to be true, than what is, to the best of our ability to understand, actually true.  Right?

“Two, if Ziv were to be correct, Heaven forbid, and there were to be this explosion of interracial marriages/breeding, and biological markers were to disappear, would that render your work obsolete? In other words, even if race were destroyed as a meaningful biological fact, does that mean it does not remain an ontological one for man, notably the few white Europeans who might remain?”

If “biological markers” were to disappear and if “race were destroyed as a meaningful biological fact”, then there would not be any “few white Europeans”, remaining, would there?  As long as any whites exist, the white race still exists (albeit in diminished form) and those whites have an interest in the well being of their (small) race.  If the white race were to completely disappear it would not exist as any sort of “fact”, except a historical one.

“Three, because it appears to me not to be a “scientific issue”, but rather one of ontological proportions...”

You are probably the only one who understands what you are talking about - assuming of course that you yourself have any idea of what you are writing here.

“While in declaratory form, that was mean6 as a query.”

Brilliant.  You are ready to post on Stormfront.

“Four, and far more trivial, what does it mean in the scientific lexicon to say that something is “better”?

Contributing to genetic contunuity/expansion.

“Finally, I note someone said a scientist does not, as a scientist, recognize races, only the human race.”

Right.  Because you “note” that “someone” said that, then it must be a statement of great utility and validity. 

“A scientist, one who accepts fundamentally the notion first really developed by Descartes of the symbolic mathematization of all of existence would have a hard time defending ontologically distinctions between any matter any where any time.”

Hmmm...a scientific “ontology” can argue that “existence” and “matter” are quantized phenomena, but the point with respect to this blog eludes me.

“He might find interesting quantifiable distinctions between things (i.e., the lengthy artical posted under “ethnic genetic interests”, but those distinctions as a matter of science are neither here nor there.”

What’s an “artical” and what happened to the closing parenthesis?

So, what in your opinion is “here of there?” If you reject quantifiable distinctions (a fundamental basis of scientific observation) what are we then left with - what you “note” that “someone said?”

Posted by Bo Sears on January 18, 2007, 01:41 AM | #

PF on Friday, January 5, 2007 says: “What about compiling a large word file or PDF, which functions as an FAQ for the movement. In this file, every single individual question posed by anti-racist left would be answered in the most lucid possible language.”

Without quarreling about the proposal and its value, it does point up the dangers of using the ideological frame provided by our adversaries, to wit, they are the “anti-racist left” and we are what? The “pro-racist right”? I think not.

We at Resisting Defamation prefer to refer to these guys as “left-wing racialists.” These guys are some of the most racist people in the world, they just mask it because they are racist against Euroman.

Let’s not give them the “anti-racist left” label which they want when they are really the “left-wing racialists.”

********************

In addition, I would like to suggest that we attack with the small end of the wedge, not the big edge and race is probably the single biggest issue there is. Here are some examples of issues we could use as smaller ends of the wedge.

1) The lack of specific programs (this is in California, after all) for white kids hooked on tobacco. There is a massively funded operation for every other ethnicity, and white kids now have the highest rate of tabacco use in the USA as compared with other ethnicities.

2) The lack of specific programs to intervene in meth use. This is a distinctly white drug of choice on the West Coast, and there is not one program dedicated to helping these white kids get off it. In the meantime, there are bunches of programs helping kids in other ethnic groups get free of their drugs of choice. White kids have only the police.

3) School drop-out rates for white kids. There are plenty of white kids dropping out of school, but there are no programs for white kids.

4) White homeless people have no program in place to help them. Serving pork soup sounds like a great idea.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 18, 2007, 03:33 AM | #

How does the “scientific fact” of the existence of races add or detract from what we experience as a people to be real. Is science somehow the arbiter of what exists in the totality of human experience?  (—J. Klein)

J. Klein is asking if we have to wait till science “proves” that forced race-replacement is a legitimate cause for concern before expressing concern.  No, for a couple of reasons: 

1) Scientific and philosophical reflection prior to 1953 (the year of Watson & Crick’s discoveries concerning DNA’s structure) stretching back to Aristotle made clear there were races with different characteristics at least partly inborn whose members didn’t necessarily want them changed.  It didn’t need post-1953 molecular genetics to “prove” it:  for two-and-a-half thousand years it was proven soundly enough.  Molecular genetics could help to rout modern race-denying sophistries but wasn’t necessary to “prove” race.  Many things prove race, all but that one in existence prior to 1953, some since hundreds of years B.C. 

In a related vein, common sense and the obvious are not “assumed false until proven by science,” despite what the left wants everyone to think.  Quite the contrary, common sense and the obvious are accorded full credit until disproven by science.  Science never disproved race, whether “classical” race or “modern molecular-genetic” race.  There was never a reason not to accord full credit to both, whether in the time of Aristotle, or in the year 1952, or in the year 2007. 

2) The other side simply denies what it doesn’t like by extending sophistries to cover that particular matter:  they’ll deny two-plus-two then go home and sleep like a baby.  So, science isn’t what’s being argued.  In fact, nothing’s being “argued”:  there’s no argument, only assertion, by them, of what their grasping little Freudian ids want and demand.  Demand away:  you can’t have it.

[I]f Ziv were to [prevail, would] the few white Europeans who might remain [constitute a viable race]?  (—idem)

Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.  Thermodynamically it will be much harder for Jewish academics like Ziv, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and the rest to totally destroy the Euro race than to partially damage it the way something partly moth-eaten is damaged (accomplishing that sort of damage by persuading weak-minded dupes like Heidi Crumb to divert racial reproductive energy and four-hundred-thousand-year-old racial genetic capital away from “breeding true” and toward breeding interspecies hybrids).  Successfully nibbling away at the white race’s edges by “getting at” its weak spots like Heidi Dummkopf, Angelina Laide, and President George “The Chimp” Bush can be accomplished on the part of these Jewish academics with relatively low cost in energy input.  Finishing the job with actual final eradication of whites would require massive energy inputs, so massive it’s not likely to be feasible.  Of course stupendous genetic damage can be inflicted in the attempt, such as the sort of damage inflicted on the right whale population and the bison herds through almost extinguishing them as species.

Posted by JB on January 18, 2007, 04:43 AM | #

PF:
“What about compiling a large word file or PDF, which functions as an FAQ for the movement. In this file, every single individual question posed by anti-racist left would be answered in the most lucid possible language.”

that’s a good idea, let’s start a thread to see what MR readers think should be included in that big FAQ page. The opposition forum of Stormfront is in theory a good place to debate and to destroy the arguments of the anti-racist dimwits but there’s just too many topics and the same stupid questions keep being asked over and over, it never stops.

A blog like MR is a better place to debate misguided whites or our racial opponents.

The last time a bunch of anti-white libertardians tried to win the debate over race and the West they did not do very well.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/samidioting/

Posted by Rnl on January 18, 2007, 05:58 AM | #

Bo Sears wrote:

We at Resisting Defamation prefer to refer to these guys as “left-wing racialists.” These guys are some of the most racist people in the world, they just mask it because they are racist against Euroman.

You would be much wiser to dump “racism” as a serious word.  We should not accept “racist” as a label for ourselves and we should not apply it to others.

Posted by AlbertPinto on February 26, 2007, 07:07 AM | #

Interracial mixing has been going on for thousands and thousands of years and the evidence to support this is all around you in form of diversity that prevails among people today. Keep in mind that that there are cultures all over the world whose foundations have built on the basis of interracial mixing of pople over thousands and thousands of years. So to present so called scientific evidence in a feeble attempt to show that interracial mixing is something that should be avoided is sort of hypocrical. Don’t you think so? It flies flat in the face of thousands of years of human intermixing and diversity that is obvious and right in front of you.

If you are attempting to present something even close to a scientific evidence arguing that interracial mixing should be avoided , please state the obvious first. That obvious fact is: “interracial mixing has been prevelent among humans for thousands and thousands of years and that foundations of many cultures and belief systems have been based on interracial mixing.”

Given the context of this website, I feel compelled to say that many westerners tend to talk about race issues with arrogance and superiority. They forget that throughout the civilized history of the world (last 5 thousands years or so) India and China have dominated the world economically, scientifically, and culturally. Western dominence is just a blip in the civilized history of human race. And given the way India and China are starting to wake up, history may just regard the current period (what is referred to as Morden Era) as an aberration over consistant cultural, ecoomic, and scientific dominance by India and China.

Westerners are already starting to migrate to India and China for finding jobs. Go to Gurgaon, a place next to a small city of 10 million people where I grew up (Delhi), See who works in the call centers that are popping up all over the place in Gurgaon. If you are worried about asians immigrating into your country and spoiling your genetic pool, wait another 15 years, you will be more preoccupied with westerns spoiling their genetic pool by moving to India and China. Will you guys be presenting scientific facts to prevent emigration then?

Good luck and have a nice life.

Posted by martin_uk on March 04, 2007, 11:42 PM | #

“They forget that throughout the civilized history of the world (last 5 thousands years or so) India and China have dominated the world economically, scientifically, and culturally.”

One cannot forget something that did not happen. How on Earth could India and China have dominated the world at any time over the last 5000 years?  How many Indians and Chinese were in Europe 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 years ago? Even the Europeans did not dominate the world until the last three hundred years or so.
Anyway, the population of India before the British liberated India was about 100 million. Now it is 1000 million, so about 9 in every 10 Indians owe their existence to the British and their Empire.
99% of science and technology has come about through the efforts and ingenuity of white men of European extraction. 95% still is.

Posted by Lurker on March 05, 2007, 04:20 AM | #

So Albert, if everyone has been interbreeding (obviously we are talking en masse not just a few individuals) for all these thousands of years, how is it for example that Burmese as a group appear so different to Icelanders - as a group. Given that they are all interbreeding how can that have happened?

Maybe Im special but if you took a bunch of guys from Tibet and a bunch of guys from Kenya, you know Im pretty sure I could sort them into two groups in very short order. How could that be when theyve been interbreeding all this time?

And when was it that China & India dominated the world economically, culturally etc? I must have missed that historical period, you will be giving us dates, historical milestones, references wont you, I await that with interest.

Posted by AlbertPinto on March 08, 2007, 08:03 AM | #

Oh Boy!!! I definitely overestimated the smartness of people on this forum. (given the complete ignorance and skewed logic that last two posts demonstrate). If I had known earlier, I probably won’t have posted in the first place.

You guys are just a bunch of innocent (proabably working with families or going to school or something like that) white guys just trying to brain wash yourself with self concocted and/or hand picked statistics, combining irrelevent and isolated scientific facts to come up with new scientific theories and basis that sound convincing to yourself.

Certainly you have a right to do that. No harm in a little bit of ignorance combined with day dreaming as long as no one puts an atomic bomb in your hands.

So I am sorry that I posted in the first place. I don’t mean to spoil your day dream.

Peace and have fun and if by any chance you get some time, there is a thing called “google.” Use it to search the internet for information a litlte bit. Who knows it may just open your eyes some day (but if that is too uncomfortable don’t worry about it too much).

Posted by martin_uk on March 13, 2007, 11:58 PM | #

I do not think that your response is in any way adequate. When I state that almost all of the technology that you use or benefit from is the result of the ingenuity and creativity of white men of European heritage, it is possible for me to readily back this assertion up with examples.

Jet Engine -Frank Whittle
TV -Logie Baird
Radio -Marconi
Computer -Various British and USA scientists, e.g. Alan Turing, but I believe there was an Englishman called Flowers who deserves more credit.
Viagra -Scientists in Kent
Record disc -Berliner
Germ theory of disease -Pasteur
Inoculation -Jenner
Earth goes round the Sun theory -Copernicus
Space Rocket -Von Braun

This is just a brief list. I could go on all day if I started referencing wikipedia.

I don’t demand that you go and find these examples yourself. I present these examples to you in my post.
Now, kindly explain how the Chinese and the Indians have dominated the world economically, culturally, or however, in the last 5000 years.

Posted by AlbertPinto on March 15, 2007, 09:24 AM | #

Your earlier statement (the population of India before the British liberated India was about 100 million. Now it is 1000 million, so about 9 in every 10 Indians owe their existence to the British and their Empire) pretty much guaranteed a non-adequate response. I took it to be a sign of flawed logic being used to do some day dreaming. Some others may see that statement as hinting genocide. If you have a third interpretation of that statement, I would certainly like to know.

Also it is interesting that you refer to wikipedia as a source of information. Wikipedia is certainly a good start even though it has many inadequacies.

In any case, here are some quotes from wikipedia that you may find useful:

*British Raj section of wikipedia*
Economic historians estimate that India commanded roughly 25% of world GDP by 1800, but perhaps a tenth of that by the 20th century, due in large part to the severe and rapid decline in the Subcontinent’s native industries (Maddison, Bairoch, Frank). I wonder what the british were doing in India while the economy declined from 25% to 2.5% of world GDP? The most obvious and common sense answer is that british were doing more than just sitting on their white asses (sounds funny, huh?). Actually, they were robbing the country (India) dry for benefit of their little island (UK) while suppressing the native industries. Why would a robber encourage development of new industries, right? I don’t necessarily agree with these figures (25%, 2%, or 100 million population), but I think you get the point.

It is also interesting that you credit Copernicus for Earth goes around the Sun theory, becuase as per Wikipedia (your own source), Indians “invented” the “sun goes around the earth” theory twice (ancient india, medivial india) before Copernicus was even born.

*Ancient India section of Heliocentrism section of Wikipedia*
1. The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.

*Medivial India section of Heliocentrism section of Wikipedia*
Arabic translations of Aryabhata’s Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it is possible that Aryabhata’s work had an influence on Copernicus’ ideas.

Now, I really hope that you are not going to credit gravity to “Newton, a british scientist.” or are you? What about language? grammar? civil engineering and construction?…

I guess this is adequate enough response for now. But I haven’t event gotten started yet and the REALLY interesting part, of which there are multiple, still remain.

Also, I would suggest that you start distinguishing between “real inventions” and “applications of those real invention.” There is a somewhat blurry (but very realistic) line between what should be considered as invention and what should be considered as an application of that invention.

Development of “Grammar and Language” is an invention. Poetry in my opinion is an application of that invention.

Posted by martin_uk on March 16, 2007, 10:27 PM | #

What are you talking about when you say that wikipedia was my source?! I said that I could go on all day IF I started referencing wikipedia.

Copernicus did not merely state that the Sun was the centre of the Universe, he backed it up with sound arguments. In particular, he showed how the hypothesis that the Sun was at the centre explained the anomalous retrograde motion of the planets.  The Ancient Indians knew nothing about all the inticracies of planetary motion, or what the heliocentric theory was designed to explain. To say that the first person to suggest that the Sun was at the centre actually discovered that the Sun was at the centre is like saying that just because an Ancient Greek philosopher conjectured that the world was made up of atoms, therefore he is the discoverer of atomic theory, or that the first person to come across a dinosaur bone was therefore the discoverer of dinosaurs, even though at the time they believed that it was from a creature that had perished in Noah’s flood.

Posted by AlbertPinto on March 17, 2007, 06:40 AM | #

Did you actually read the Wikipedia section on Heliocentrism or are you simply indulging in propaganda?

Aryabhata (medieval India), who was born almost 1000 years before Copernicus was a mathematician by profession. If that itself doesn’t give you a hint, let me clarify: The guy (Aryabhata) wrote an entire damn book about motions of planets and moon around Sun which included calculations of orbital periods and several astronomical ratios and constants that are still in use today (although in a much more refined form).

Four hundred years later (in 8th century), Aryabhata’s book was translated into Arabic. After another five hundred years later (in 13th century), Aryabhata’s book was translated into Latin. Almost 150 years after than Copernicus was born. Surely Copernicus knew how to read Latin.

So what exact “original” contribution did Copernicus make again? For which you are giving 100% of credit for invention of “earth goes around the sun” theory? Just because Copernicus popularized “earth goes around the sun” theory among Europeans doesn’t mean he invented it. Given the propensity of the west (in recent history) to destroy, marginalize, brain-wash, or cover up achievements of native cultures all across the world, it is not surprising that you are so vehemently arguing that Copernicus invented “earth goes around the sun” theory.

By the way, you still haven’t made any comment on how India’s GDP declined from 25% of the world GDP to 2% of the world GDP while the British were ruling India? What were these so called great western administrators & generals doing in India during that time?

Now about “earth goes around the sun” theory in Ancient India (whew!). Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia: “The earliest traces of a COUNTER-INTUITIVE idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in SEVERAL Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.” The key word here is “counter intuitive”. If it was so obvious or trivial, why wasn’t everyone else coming up with similar ideas?

Posted by Mulatto scum on March 21, 2007, 10:17 PM | #

I never expected to encounter such rampant and illogical racism as I have experienced on this site.  Do you people really believe that mulattos are stupid and ugly?  Do you actually encounter people of mixed race and treat them differently?  Do you do a genetic test to make sure that everyone you meet is a “pure” race, whatever that is?

Pathetic.

Posted by wintermute on March 21, 2007, 11:02 PM | #

Any Jew who violates this principle shouldn’t be surprised if he gets some verbal anti-Semitism in return.

Excuse me, but isn’t verbal abuse a wildly disproportionate sentence for what amounts to attempted murder or attempted genocide, especially when we add counts for fraud and conspiracy?

Julius Streicher was hung for far less. And if we don’t respect the judicial precedents at Nuremburg, what does that say of our own countries and their systems of justice?

Indeed, if Nuremburg were - as some scurrilous critics claim - a mere show trial dependant on torture, tall-tale telling Jews, extorted testimony, and suchlike - then wouldn’t the Third Reich still be the legitimate government of Germany?

Since that is obviously not the case, Nuremburg laws still obtain. Since so many Nuremburg judges and personnel were Jewish, Ziv has no place to complain.

Fraud, conspiracy, and attempted genocide have death by hanging set - many times over - as precedent. And not the sort of hanging where you die instantly, not at all. The kind where you hang there, kicking and struggling and making the most awful noises for twenty minutes or more.

Anglo-Saxon justice, in other words.

The verbal anti-Germanism did come eventually, and in fact never stopped, but I simply wanted to point out that verbal anti-Semitism is in no way a fair, just, or proportionate punishment for Ziv’s crimes.

We must look to the wise and far seeing jurists of Nuremburg for these answers to those wrenching legal questions.

Posted by reality check people on March 22, 2007, 07:43 AM | #

you’re all jus jealous because your only choices amonmgst the ‘great purebred white’ superior? society are all morbidly fat obese hamburger loving materialists (and that’s just the men!) don’t get me started on the fat anglo females i see everyday. go on, breed yourself out of existance you ‘proud white, oh sorry you actually look pink to me’ people

Posted by Just some guy on May 24, 2007, 08:22 AM | #

Even if the book is number 26000 on Amazon, if it convinces just one idiotic white woman to commit bestiality instead of marrying a white guy, then Ziv has effectively accomplished his goal of murdering a white baby.

Posted by Gillian on May 29, 2007, 06:23 AM | #

You are SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK to hold on to these ethnocentric beliefs! Different physical features and appearance has nothing to do with a person’s mindset or ability. You think you’re educated, but all I have seen manifest itself is the ignorance and stupidity of a narrowminded person. You call a model deranged because she produces a child with a black man, and you call her child malformed because he’s mixed...Honestly, I didn’t even know fools like you still existed in the world…

I think eugenics should be used to eliminate idiots like you. People who still hold beliefs on white superiority should be the ones who shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

Posted by sully on August 04, 2007, 05:42 PM | #

I think it’s so sad how the people running this website try so damn hard to enforce their opinions of beauty on people.  Calling Heidi Klum “deranged” and calling her new baby “malformed mulatto” and “retarded-looking” yet harping on the “beauty” of Heidi’s blonde and blue eyed daughter.  It’s such an obvious and ridiculous attempt at brainwashing people

How pathetically sad that you people try so hard to force the world to see your narrow minded visions.  Whether you like it or not, the world is mixing and people are coming together and loving who THEY WANT to love!
you have no control over the human race and their genitals, so just get used to it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2007, 06:31 PM | #

“Whether you like it or not, the world is mixing and people are coming together and loving who THEY WANT to love!” (—Sully)

When are the diaspora Jews like Ziv going to start?  When are the Israelis going to?  “Any day now”?  Yeah ... that’s what I thought ... Any day now .... 

Riiiiiiight ................

Posted by Orion Blue on August 05, 2007, 12:34 AM | #

I think eugenics should be used to eliminate idiots like you.
There are others who believed in using eugenics to eliminate ‘undesirables’ ... And you are one of the “good guys”, right?

People who still hold beliefs on white superiority should be the ones who shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

Stalin had a very effective system for crushing dissent, too. You seem to be following in his footsteps.

On the subject of female white trash copulating irresponsibly, I should like to refer readers to the following Link, which features a degenerate, deracine middle-aged slut who gives voice to the whole disgraceful debate about certain kinds of women and their preferences for sordid sex.

This woman, who is a snob in terms of what she calls ‘socioeconomic status’, which basically means social status and wealth value judgements, from a feminist, who if she were normal, would not be copulating with blacks.

Feminists often complain about “men wanting to control women’s bodies”. My response to that, after reading her semi-literate self-indulgent sexual ramblings, is that if women cannot control their own bodies (as this slut is clearly unable to do), should have it controlled either by enforced detention or surgery. The links is as follows: http://www.nypress.com/18/49/news&columns/SusanCrainBakos.cfm
(opens in new window).

Posted by AlbertPinto on August 12, 2007, 09:01 PM | #

>
> On the subject of female white trash copulating irresponsibly, I
> should like to refer readers to the following Link, which features a
> degenerate, deracine middle-aged slut who gives voice to the
> whole disgraceful debate about certain kinds of women and their
> preferences for sordid sex.
>

In direct contradiction to your statement, the fact is that white men are probably more likely to have what you refer to as “inter-racial sexual relationships” then white women. Yet you choose to specifically search and dig up instances of inter-racial sex involving white women.

In fact by many standards, I would go as far as saying that that “white men” are probably the most promiscous men on this planet.

So if you are worried about inter-racial sexual contact, I suggest you start with your fellow white men first. Not to mention that any so called “scientific” rationale that you may come up for discouraging “inter-racial sexual relationships” are probably flawed to begin with (your subjective personal tastes aside).

Posted by Fr John on August 28, 2007, 09:49 PM | #

“Al, you realize that when you say the word “Jew” you realize, of course, that this automatically disqualifies your opinions unless of course, you are Jewish.”

Ah, yes, the perennial carp of the unregenerate against the elected, especially when they come to find that ‘those who say they are Jews, and are not’ [Rev, 2:8,9] are the ones telling us how to think, believe, act, and whom to fornicate with.

I say fornicate, because even Ziv’s racial heritage forbids it- the anti-miscegenation clauses of the Hebrew OT.

And, as Pope J2P2 noted, “We are all semites now.”

So, as one ‘semite’ to another [sic] semite,

My initial comment on this article. One look at the author’s name would have told me, before all this verbal flatulence, that the book’s thesis was flawed, and unequivocally biased.

Anathema sit.

Posted by Tommy G on November 20, 2007, 06:12 PM | #

From VFR:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/

Saletan’s solution to racial differences in intelligence

George writes:

William Saletan has come out with his follow-up. I was not impressed. For instance, he claims:

“Intermarriage is closing the gap. To the extent that IQ differences are genetic, the surest way to eliminate them is to reunite the human genome. This is already happening, including in my own family. In 1970, one percent of U.S. marriages were between blacks and nonblacks. By 1990, it was 4.5 percent. It may be the best punch line of the IQ debate: The more genetic the racial gap is, the faster we can obliterate it.”

Except of course that intermarriage is closing the IQ gap at the expense of whites where non-half-Asian mixed race children tend to have lower IQs than their white parent. And Jews don’t count as a fully separate race. The original Jewish ethnic group doesn’t really exist anymore because the Jews have picked up so much European DNA over the past two thousand years.
The left is going to have to try harder.

LA replies:

Amazing. Yesterday I predicted that Saletan’s response to the recognition of inherent racial differences in intelligence would be some vastly expanded racial quotas scheme involving an endless commitment by society to equalize racial outcomes despite inherent racial differences of ability. But he’s gone beyond mere racial quotas, to a more primary “solution” that I should have predicted because I have often written about it before.
As I said in my 1994 American Renaissance speech, racial intermarriage is the first and last resort of liberals to the insoluble problems caused by racial liberalism (scroll down to where I say, “Ultimately the pursuit of race-blindness..."). It goes like this. Liberals start by taking the following positions: (1) race does not matter; (2) all races are of equal abilities; (3) all races are equally assimilable into the same society; (4) we must not discriminate between races and must not exclude any race but must be race-blind; and (4) anyone who is race-conscious is a morally defective human being who must be re-educated or purged. On the basis of these beliefs, liberals create a racially integrated society and they also open the nation’s borders to tens of millions of Hispanics, who are all believed to have the same abilities as whites and to be completely assimilable into America. But then when it turns out that all races are not of equal abilities and that non-discriminatory racial inclusion and the resulting racial diversity has created insoluble dilemmas for society, what’s the liberals’ response? Wipe out all the human races via mass racial intermarriage. Suddenly race, which didn’t matter at all (and anyone who thought it mattered was a defective human being), matters so much and creates such intractable problems that the only way to solve those problems is to eliminate all the existing human races and create a new, blended human race that no one has ever seen before. Because blacks and browns can’t assimilate to and perform equally with whites, the whites must blend themselves with the blacks and browns and thus go out of existence. Meanwhile the liberals never admit that it was their own belief in racial sameness, racial equality, and racial inclusion that led to these intractable problems and that now makes necessary this unprecedented social-and-racial engineering scheme, which includes the elimination not only of our own race but of all other races.

Even Hitler never proposed the systematic erasure of all the historic races of mankind. But liberals like William Saletan do, without blinking an eye.

I’ll have more to say about this later.

Posted by Bobbert on November 27, 2007, 01:58 PM | #

What’s a nubian?

Posted by Anynomous on December 03, 2007, 02:41 PM | #

I found your article sickening to my stomach and can only hope the world is not too full of people such as you. It seems to me you are a sad lonely man without a family or perhaps with a wife who gives you none (as she probably has a lover with a bigger dick as you have) , so you put all your time and energy in picking on others… How sad… As it is plain to see that people like Heidi Klum and Seal truly love each other. A person not being able to show happines for others is merely sad. Such as yourself.

Posted by erika on December 17, 2007, 09:52 PM | #

the article about hiedi’s baby is just plain stupid. her white girl is adorable, no lie, but so is her new mulatto boy. Infact, i find him to be much cuter. and you’r whole explanation on white/black babies and women is very ignorent.

Posted by Darren on December 28, 2007, 01:49 PM | #

“and you’r whole explanation on white/black babies and women is very ignorent. “

ignorant of what exactly?

Posted by Grouik on December 31, 2007, 01:37 PM | #

AlbertPinto,

It is quite interesting that you talk about Aryabhata, because, in fact he wrote his text in Sanskrit, which, according to Wikipedia, was one of the first Indo-European languages.

In fact, many Nazi officials thought India was the homeland of the “Aryans” and were admirers of Ancient India; for example, Himmler was a Buddhist; Savitri Devi, one of the most influent Nazi mysticists, was married to an Indian man; and the SS did make expeditions in Tibet in order to find the roots of the “Aryan Race”.

Yet I think that neither abundance nor lack of technical innovations made by an ethnic group should justify its disappearance. And it is also clear to me that Indo-Europeans are not the only ones who made technical innovations.

However, I believe that today’s medias are trying to brainwash people into thinking that mixed-race marriages are better for them. I would compare this kind of propaganda to the one led in the 3rd Reich to make people antisemitic.

The problem is that only the whites are threatened of extinction, the main cause to this is not interracial marriages, although it plays a role, but low birth rates. In fact, whites are the only ones who are not making enough children to replace the previous generaton. This unmistakably leads to extinction.

As you said, there was probably only one kind of Homo Sapiens at the origin (although it is not proved). It is the evolution of this kind in different areas of the world into many different races that brought genetic diversity on Earth.

This is the reason why I think that mixed-race marriages and its promotion by the media threaten the diversity of mankind. Of course, when there are no more different races, there won’t be any more racism, but there won’t be any richness either.

I also think that multiracial society brings more problems than solutions: for example, racism does not exist among people of the same race.

All this to say that “racism” is probably only a natural reflex to preserve ethnic diversity.

Most of ethno-nationalists don’t have anything against other races, as long as they live in their own country, and that includes me.

Sorry if I made mistakes, I’m not a native English speaker.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 31, 2007, 02:33 PM | #

You did fine. Grouik.  You might want to add territorial dispossession to your rather short list of extinction-producing events.  Many of us would extend the argument to modernity as a whole.

The fundamental point for liberals and those of non-European descent is this: do you support the extinction of the European people?  If not, cease piling up the straws on the camel’s back.  If you are an immigrant or non-European, leave the West.  If you are a European, live in your own homeland.  If you are a businessman in Europe, stop calling for cheap foreign workers.  If you are a mainstream politican in Europe, listen to your people.

Posted by GoyAmongYou on January 22, 2008, 02:55 PM | #

Wake up and smell the coffee

Posted by Yuezhus on March 14, 2008, 01:39 PM | #

Guessedworker said something in this post, and I’m replying to it here because it would be off topic there.

Anyway, GW said:

...We set out to preserve the greatest of peoples…

Are you referring to Europeans and only them, or would you seek to preserve another race if they, in your eyes, proved to be greater? What if, say, Cro Magnons or Far Eastern Siberians, with their gigantic cranial capacities, yet uglier faces, happened to exist in sizable numbers in some uninhabited part of the world? Would you stop caring about Europeans?

If this greatness is completely genetic, are there some races who are only lesser in greatness simply due to different average levels in one or two hormones, or is the greatness of the ‘Greatest race’ so far removed from others that it can’t easily be engineered in others? I don’t believe in either resolutely, but I tend towards the former.

It may well be, among a certain race, whatever Greatness you may grant them, that there are common patterns of neurological development that, if a child is raised in a certain way, will render the person in question almost incapable of Greatness, through the rejection and eventual pruning of many ‘excess’ neurons that control field independence, latent inhibition, spontaneity etc. The race perceived to be the Greatest may not actually be too different in neurological potential from a certain race, but will have a far easier time of reaching such, because of the robust, individualist and comparatively active nature of their childhoods; such people will be easily excited by incoming stimuli, and those precious abundant childhood neurons would be nurtured and retained in full. Such robustness may be, more than anything, hormonal in its cause, which is not to say there are complex neural causes at work too.

The music situation in 433 BC, and especially the math situation in 2006 Australia, make me very curious as to what this ‘Greatness’ truly is. Even among races that are immediately ruled out from being ‘Great’ through their lack of intelligence sometimes have, when controlling for intelligence with the ‘Greatest’, large advantages openness and divergence, which would make the Great’s ‘Greatness’ significantly greater if such traits were adapted (no, not through mixing). The genius of Scriabin or Rimsky cannot be denied, for example, but I can’t say the music of millions of working/underclass Russians compares favorably to that of a few million working/underclass Jamaicans.

I do not deny this Greatness, but it may be something very different from what it is commonly made out to be; at its root it may well be very simple indeed.

...Or if you’re just talking about hotness, then yes, Europeans win.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 14, 2008, 04:30 PM | #

We don’t know for sure what creates European greatness, in the objective sense.  It’s best to be conservative (small c) and act to cover all the bases, i.e., protect our genes and our culture.  This seems to be in the interest of all featherless bipeds.

In the non-objective sense, with the objective sense set aside, from our perspective we’re the greatest because we’re we, no other explanations needed.

It’s ****ing odd to me that people can’t grasp that.  They’ll get rabidly behind a bunch of negroes in gym shorts throwing a ball through a hoop, but they can’t grasp this simple concept.  It’s almost as if they’re brainwashed…

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 14, 2008, 04:37 PM | #

And yes, if, say, the roles of blacks and whites were reversed, we as whites would have an interest in preserving black racial and cultural integrity much greater than vice-versa, even though our own EGI would of course remain strong.

Posted by sigs on March 23, 2008, 08:05 PM | #

lol nazis

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2008, 08:58 PM | #

Notice “sigs,” just above, could’ve made the exact same point he was trying to make by saying, “lol Israelis,” “lol Zionists,” or “lol Likudniks” (not to mention the Japs, the Chinese, the Subcon nations, the Arab nations, the Latin American nations, the Southeast Asian nations, in fact any non-Eurosphere nation or people on earth — the Euros are the only ones reproached for not wanting to go extinct; for everybody else including the Jews it’s considered normal).

Posted by dfsdfsfd on March 27, 2008, 12:48 AM | #

Scrooby, just shut the fuck up.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2008, 01:27 AM | #

State your ethnicity, race, and species please, dfs:  I generally like to know those things before replying to someone.

Posted by Martin from Canada on March 28, 2008, 03:02 AM | #

Shame on you… Obama is as good, if not, a much better candidate than Senator Clinton is.  If we’re going to look at racial differences and ask ourselves questions about having a black (mulatto) african-american president and his ability to do so, we should also be looking at Senator Clinton’s ability to preside as a woman.  Didn’t we already go through this in the sixties and seventies?  This election is the fruit of that era; we are living in a new time… Unless McCain wins…

Too many times I see people (white, black, asian etc.)misinterpret subjective data and forget that socio-economic conditions, recent history and most importantly upbringing have more to do with the results of these questionable tests designed for and issued mostly by Western societies.  As for beauty, that is completely left up to an individual’s taste.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 28, 2008, 07:25 AM | #

Martin from Canada,

Whether you know it or not, you are an unregenerate seeker after the authored self.  Doubtless it offends your learned sensibilities to be told that individualism is a selected psychological trait that is stronger in the European than in other races.  Doubtless you will abhor the gentle advice that we are never “living in a new time”, but always in evolutionary time - we cannot escape our genes, and self-authorship is fit only for the self-estranged and the intellectual lightweight.  In any case, you demonstrate by your attachment to the terribly modern supra-Marxist meme of black equality that you are not free at all.

Put away your silly liberal arguments and your pathetic faux-morality ("Shame on you"), and live with what you know to be true in Man and in yourself.  You are not free as you are.  You are not clever.  You are not radical.  You are not worth listening to.  You are a mere Jewish extended phenotype mouthing off white-harming arguments.  Desist.

Posted by j on May 05, 2008, 04:09 PM | #

I have not read Ziv’s book but any animal husbandry genetist could demonstrate that his thesis, that human miscegenation has an improving effect, is absurd. I happened to be on the spot when Cebu cattle breeds were introduced to Northern Argentina, and “reproductores” were sold at very high prices because their hybrid descendants had that “vigor hibrido” and achieved sales weight earlier. The second generation of hybrid had no hybrid effect at all and a portion of them was worse than the original shorthorn or aberdeen angus breeds, or the pure cebu. Some people kept European females and used Asiatic males, but it was very impractical. Nowadays the whole hybridization technology has been forgotten.  The same in milching cattle, hybrids were (are) very poor producers, and high yielding cows are a highly inbred population derived from Dutch (Holstein, etc.) cattle. We in Israel hold the world’s record milk yields and our herds are all descendants of two or three Dutch very sturdy and high yielding animals. It is a pity Mr Ziv did not visited some of our kibbutz farms, because he would have learned that in milk or meat production (which are businesses where you have to be very competitive and efficient to make some money) hybrid vigor is an economic disaster. It may be very non PC and from an anthropomorphic perspective, most immoral, but animal husbandry is based on extreme inbreeding. I presume Ziv comes from a social science area, so he is not familiar with real life practical, applied, for money, genetics.

If you allow me, I wish to clear up a common misunderstanding of Israel’s marriage laws, which one commenter thinks is racist. It is only necessary to walk in any street in Israel to see that the population is very very heterogeneous, and we have blond Ashkenazi Jews as well North African Moroccan Jews, and Dagestan Jews and black skinned Indian Jews and wow! now even Ethiopian Jews (IQ same as the rest of the Ethiopians, however they were persecuted in Ethiopia and called cannibals). All of them can marry with any other Jew. A non Jew converted by a religious court accepted by Israeli religious bureaucrats, is a Jew for everything including marriage. There is a problem with American converts, because our courts feel they are not religious enough and they think they have no jewish legitimacy and no authority to convert anyone. But that is a tremendous infight about who has the authority to convert, and not about the race or whatever of the converted. The israeli religious courts try to follow some Biblical and very primitive marriage laws, and maintain a blacklist of people who cannot marry with Jews, such as children of married women whose father is suspected to be other than the legal husband. Those are considered bastards and cannot enter the community for ten generations. That and other imbecilities give a wrong impression of the jewish marriage legal practices, that are strange but certainly no racist. The Jewish people is undergoing a great process of intermixing, mostly within the religious framework of Judaism, like all the peoples in the world. Already Moses (who married a black girl) told the Israelites that “you are son of a wandering Amorite” meaning that no one knows his real ancestry and should not be too proud of it.

Posted by Tom on August 05, 2008, 04:43 AM | #

actually....asshole who wrote this...the mixed girl is at least ten times prettier than the twelve year old white boy with a bikini on.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2008, 02:05 AM | #

“It is only necessary to walk in any street in Israel to see that the population is very very heterogeneous, and we have blond Ashkenazi Jews as well North African Moroccan Jews, and Dagestan Jews and black skinned Indian Jews and wow! now even Ethiopian Jews” (—J, a couple above)

Not much longer on the Ethiopian Jews, J — looks like the Ashkenazis are tightening the screws on the Jewish wackos who want them in the country.  They won’t last long:  no more will be allowed to enter, and within half-a-generation those already there will have dwindled considerably due to withering attrition policies aimed at zeroing out their numbers.  Those policies will succeed in the long run, and these mistakes will have been disappeared from Israel as if by magic.  The Jews do a lot of dumb things but letting lots of Negroes stay in their country isn’t one of them — that’s strictly for the goys. 

See also here:

ISRAELI RACE REALISM

After 30 years of admitting 120,000 self-styled Jews from Ethiopia (mean national IQ 64), Israel announced it was slamming the door on further such immigration - for the Ethiopian immigrants and their descendants had turned out to be uneducable, unemployable and poor (despite government underwriting of mortgages for them) (Daily Telegraph, 6 viii). Leaders of the already-immigrated Ethiopians promptly accused their hosts of “discrimination” and “prejudice.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2008, 02:16 AM | #

Sorry, that second link doesn’t go to the right batch of entries and I can’t make the right one work.  Scroll down to the entries of August 11.  It’s in there.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2008, 02:24 AM | #

”Daily Telegraph, 6 viii” means Daily Telegraph, August 6.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 20, 2008, 02:25 AM | #

The Jews keep telling us to marry Negroes, but look what Jews marry.

Practice what you preach, Jews!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 20, 2008, 02:56 AM | #

The photo caption in the article I linked just above:

“Les Juifs sont des activistes infatigables du métissage industriel dont ils nous vantent en choeur les vertus. Les déclarations sont innombrables.  Mais lorsque l’on observe en leur privé les Juifs qui les promeuvent, on constate qu’il s’agit d’une arme d’exportation exclusive destinée à éradiquer biologiquement les peuples dont ils veulent le contrôle absolu.”

It says,

“Jews are tireless activists on behalf of industrial-strength race-mixing, something whose praises they sing with one voice, in endless claims.  But when one looks at the private lives of the Jews who promote this stuff, one sees it’s strictly ‘for export only,’ a weapon aimed at the biological eradication of the peoples over whom the Jews want absolute control.”

(It must be acknowledged that, notwithstanding their many faults, the Frogs, those times when they manage to get their mojo working, sometimes have an admirable way of hitting the nail squarely on the head ....)

Posted by DQ feat. 50 paisa on October 20, 2008, 08:45 PM | #

I was going to bring up the question of Ethiopian Jews in Israel, to what extent to they marry with the other Jews, but J answered my question already by stating that there is ample mixing, though she gave no statistics.
I guess the only way to find out would be to travel the length and breadth of Israel.  Ethiopian Jews are not self-styled, they are amongst one of the oldest groups of Jews on the planet.  I find the concept of Israel as a Jewish homeland to be extremely retrograde.  I’m the member of a religion that has it’s origins in a foreign (eastern) country as well, and when I want to visit my own “holy land” I go on a tourist visa as an American citizen.  I am not afforded any special rights over the natives of various religions just because I’m a member of the majority religion that has it’s “homeland” in that country.  So now we are going to start to divide the regions of the world according to religious preference and not native inhabitants?  It is crazy.

The real proof of Ziv’s pudding would be in who he choses to marry and breed with.  Can he put his money where his mouth is?  I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. 

On a practical level when people of different ethnic backgrounds fall in love and mate it is not because they think their offspring will be more fit and intelligent than they are.  Emotions and hormones are involved and that’s about it.

For the guy from Gurgaon, a place that I once lived and worked in, Indian people are not into inter-racial, inter-ethnic and inter-cultural breeding so the fact that some whites are migrating to India to work is not going to change that, at least any time soon.  The reason is, as you know being born there, Indians have a very long and ancient cultural history and people with deep roots are less likely to mix with rootless gypsies and hippies and their (often bastard and divorced descendents) with no culture that cannot trace their family trees, origins, nothing, which is what most white Americans are.

I read this blog thread today and how ironic that this is on page one, dated from 2 years ago…

When US Senator Barack Obama announced on an American TV Sunday morning talk show yesterday that he was considering running for the presidency in 2008, he sealed his fate.

Everything he does now will be judged in light of that and, I assure you, the Clintonistas well know how to deal with first term US Senators who display such ambition too soon. Without executive experience and with only two years’ national senatorial experience, Obama will be cut down to size so quickly it’ll make heads spin.

It shows how bright he is not to realize that the media excitement was about his announcement, not about the wonders of an Obama presidency. He just gave up 12 months of free publicity for 30 minutes of national TV yesterday.

Senators Biden, Levin, and Clinton are not impressed with this youngster, and he will gradually be edged out. All he really had going for him was an excellent speech at the national Democratic convention two years ago. He’s authored no substantial federal legislation, uncovered no national scandal, and carried out no major oversight investigation.

He’ll be gone politically by the end of 2007, never to return, unless he adopts the Harold Stassen tactic.

He spoke much too soon yesterday.

You’re dead on, Bo----The Lizard Queen is going tear Obama limb from limb.

Posted by Andy on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 11:13 PM

Almost exactly 2 years later to the day (3 days difference), and we’ve come a long way baby......

(note the mention of Senator Biden)

Posted by Armor on October 21, 2008, 02:26 AM | #

posted a few months ago:

I wish to clear up a common misunderstanding of Israel’s marriage laws, which one commenter thinks is racist. (… ... ...) The Jewish people is undergoing a great process of intermixing, mostly within the religious framework of Judaism, like all the peoples in the world.

A dictionary definition of religion = “A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny”.

Is judaism a religion in that sense?
How many Jews really believe in it? Not many, I think.

--
About the Ethiopians: If my figures are correct, 120,000 Ethiopians out of 7,282,000 Israelis would represent 1,65 % of the population.

Posted by shawna on October 26, 2008, 07:57 PM | #

I found this"book review” by accident while browsing elsewhere on the net.  I began reading the “in depth” critique of the book.  I began to see a pattern of the critic taking reasonably mundane satements from the book, and finding as many semantical errors as possible with them. As I scrolled down, I began to see pictures, so I read the captions.  And lo and behold they are attempting to assess how attractive a newborn interracil infant is.  Like, I mean a few days old.  That is pretty bizarre, considering this is how they argue their points against the book.  I don’t know much about Heidi Klum and was not sure why this revewer calls her deranged, either.  So I googled it.  The first result I came up wit the The Christian Party sayig the same.  This is a very racist and hateful group with an apparent reverence for Hitler.  So, there you have it.

Posted by Obama's baby mama on November 01, 2008, 03:05 AM | #

Forget all that, Shawna, click on page 1 of this thread and scroll down to the last statement about Obama from 2006.  Fast forward 2 years later - CLASSIC!

Posted by smnytx on November 15, 2008, 11:57 PM | #

Please avoid anti-Semitic comments

That request is priceless.

Sub-text: “even though you and I know he’s just a dirty Jew, don’t let him know what haters we are, so we can get him here and take him apart”

Do you think he’s going to respond on a website that is so thoroughly racist and is so clearly without any scientific or academic merit whatsoever?  When I ran across the phrase “mental retard” I knew what I was dealing with here.

My second favorite quote is in the post immediately above mine…

The Lizard Queen is going tear Obama limb from limb.

Remember, though… the “lizard queen” is WHITE.  Not only did SHE not tear Obama limb from limb, neither did McCain or Palin.  Hmmmm - pretty amazing show for a man who exhibits “negroid” features (and therefore can be assumed to have a sub-average IQ). 

I have a whole lot of pity for you, and more for any children you may have.  Looking at race as you do, it’s got to be hard living in America right now, faced with the fact that WE WHITE PEOPLE will soon no longer be the majority. 

If ever a web-site proved that IQ is in no way correlative with race, this one is it.

Posted by smnytx on November 16, 2008, 12:38 AM | #

Ah, Mr. Ziv did respond - my error for not “enjoying” MORE of the comments here before posting my own comment.  Note, however: he didn’t bother to continue the dialogue, once the Jew-baiting commenced.

Can I also just mention a valiant attempt at logic by one Fred Scrooby?

In other words, since a blade of grass and a giant sequoia are on a continuum there is no such category as “trees”?  For all anyone knows, a tree might be a blade of grass?  (… and a Negro might be a white man, as well as a Chinaman an Australian Aborigine? ...)

Um, Fred?  dude, I know you hate this, but it turns out that all human beings are ONE SPECIES.  You may not have figured this out, but grass is not just a different species from giant sequoias, it is in a different PHYLUM.  PHYLA are just one step below KINGDOMS, and of those there are only a few.  Whether you all like it or not, every human belongs to the Animal Kingdom.

Therefore, comparing grass (megnoliophyta) to giant sequoias (pinophyta) is akin to comparing humans (members of phylum chordata) to oysters (members of phylum mollusca). 

So, exactly WHAT “continuum” would include grass and giant sequoias?  I guess one called ”green stuff that grows out of the ground, by size”. 

If I believed in the opinions of this site, I would sure hate the fact that I apparently share a race with a mental giant like Fred.  Thankfully, I don’t believe intelligence is correlative with skin color or race.  The fact that people like Fred are devoted to the content of this site is demonstrative of the lack of intellectual rigor presented here.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 16, 2008, 12:43 AM | #

smnytx: Do you think he’s going to respond on a website that is so thoroughly racist and is so clearly without any scientific or academic merit whatsoever?

But he didn’t respond because he can’t.  That’s the whole point.  His book is just another (and an especially vile) attack on Europeans from the folks with the tradition of subversion.

These were just my questions he fled from:-

Alon Ziv: We are on the cusp of a mixed-race explosion

Who is the “we” here, Alon.  Are your people resident, say, in Israel about to explode into sexual relations with Falashas or, indeed, Bantus?  No?  Well, are you agitating for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in Israel so all those good things you write about can get established in Jewish populations?  No?  Then, how on earth can you possibly be acting in good faith towards us?

You must know that your efforts to “talk about race in a real way” look just a tad like malice, as JR rather diplomatically puts it.  And, indeed, an effort to impell Europeans a little further towards racial extinction would not be a nice trick to play, would it?

So I think you should do us the honour of clarifying your position on this issue.  Should Caucasian Jews in Israel and elsewhere, as a matter of principle, pursue greater “vigour” by going the Bantu route?  Even if that “vigour” gravely damaged mean Jewish IQ, destroyed the whole basis of Jewishness as an inherited, not cultural, phenomenon and impoverished the Jewish people to black African levels?

A nice direct answer, please.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM

and ...

Well, here anyway are a few more serious questions for Alon.

1) As you agree that race exists, do you also agree that the Boas-Montague-Gould-Lewontin-Diamond-Wise line on the non-existence of race, for example the following passage on race from Encyclopedia Brittanica ...

Genetic studies in the late 20th century denied the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.

... was and is a Marxist scam?

2) Do you accept that Jewish intellectuals were disproportionately to the fore in that scam, and would you care to put forward an explanation for that?

3) Do you accept the validity of the genetic research that has found population clusters as well as clines, or are you a “clines only” man?  Because that’s just another way of denying race, which you say you don’t do.  If you are indeed a “clines only” man, how do you refute the research showing clusters?  Or do you just want to cherry-pick?

4) Steve Sailor’s VDare article on your opus states: Gregory Cochran told me that he and University of Utah population geneticist Henry Harpending once scanned the medical literature to see if interracial mating increased human fertility (due to hybrid vigor) or decreased it (due to genetic incompatibilities). They concluded that whatever net effect might exist was smaller than the statistical margin of error in the studies.

So, if mixed-race couples don’t produce more children than endogamous parents, on what basis can you compensate for their loss of parental kinship?

Would not this loss of parental kinship constitute a loss of fitness?

5) What hard evidence do you have that shows that, in the round, mixed race children are actually healthier than white children?  For example, what health benefits accrue from Bantu-European miscegenation that compensate for the known increase in mental health problems that afflict black-white mixed-race children and adolescents.

6) JR tells me that you took no account of ethnic genetic interests in your book.  Don’t even mention them.  But in this world of unidirectional migration the loss of fitness that results from loss of parental kinship plainly projects on Europeans in general as a loss of EGI.  How can exogamy possibly throw up “compensations” for something of which it is the cause?  It’s double-talk.

7) Now let’s fast forward to a future Zivworld.  Whaddya know, we’re all brown and, well, bigger and we spend one heck of a lot of time chasing that next great orgasm.  But what will have happened to the mean IQ of the West, Alon?  And its prosperity, civility, aesthetics, its culture of progress?  Any loss of fitness percolating through to your brain there?

8) Now a really tough test of integrity, Alon ... if you were ordered by an employer, say, to gather research evidence against hybrid vigour from second generations on, could you find any?  It’s interesting you see, because my local plant nursery breeds fuschias and camillas from original parental stock.  They keep these fabulous plants just for that purpose.  They must have found, don’t you know, that outbreeding depression reduces their livelihood.

Strange how humble plant-breeders know that only too well but you, an IQ 130 man I suppose, don’t.  Or perhaps you do but don’t want to tell us.

So which is it?  Could you find evidence against your own thesis of human hybrid vigour?  Did you look before you wrote your book, or did you merely cherry-pick?

And what might have been your reason for cherry-picking?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, October 15, 2006 at 04:16

What you need to understand about the anger you see on this site is that it is righteous.  There is no word to describe the immensely long-standing multi-level attack on European Man by Jewish intellectuals (not that Ziv is an intellectual).  Taken together with the more mundane political and media attacks, the list today reads:-

Classical Marxism
Revolutionary internationalism
Critical Theory
Postmodernism
Freudianism
Second-wave Feminism
Second-Wave Libertarianism
Gay Rights/LBGT Rights
American Civil Rights
Human Rights
White Privilege/White Abolitionism
Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
Neoconservatism
Academic race-denial
Encouragement for white race-mixing (incl. Zivism)
Exploitation of the official holocaust narrative
Israel Lobby
Promulgation of hate speech law
Internet pornography
Negative imagery of whites on film and TV
Anti-white bias in media reporting

This ain’t love, pal.  It is racism.  We Europeans are the victims.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 16, 2008, 02:33 AM | #

“a man who exhibits ‘negroid’ features (and therefore can be assumed to have a sub-average IQ).”

No one at this site has ever said all Negroes have low IQs, any more than anyone here has ever said all Orientals, Jews, or Hindu Brahmins have high ones.  For you to interpret this site as saying that only shows how stupid you are, Smnytx.  So we learn right off the bat from this and other glaring evidence in your comment that you’re a complete dunce.

“Um, Fred?  dude, I know you hate this, but it turns out that all human beings are ONE SPECIES.  You may not have figured this out, but grass is not just a different species from giant sequoias, it is in a different PHYLUM.  PHYLA are just one step below KINGDOMS, and of those there are only a few.  Whether you all like it or not, every human belongs to the Animal Kingdom. [etc.]”

My point — which passed you by because you’re such a nitwit — was precisely that the same “reasoning” used to deny distinct races can be used to deny distinct species and all other distinct categories.

As for today’s humans all being one species, I consider that view wrong (and partly politically motivated):  I view today’s humans as consisting of at least two distinct species.

Come back when you’ve had an IQ boost.

Posted by smnytx on November 16, 2008, 02:57 AM | #

I stand corrected.  Y’all aren’t stupid, you’re freaking INSANE.

Thanks, Fred - that two species thing is PERFECT.  I’m glad the world now knows the truth.  Won’t that be something when the world finally stops discriminating against white men and actually admits that you’ve been right all along?

Y’all are insane, and probably violent.  I won’t be visiting again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 16, 2008, 03:02 AM | #

“I won’t be visiting again.” (—Smnytx)

Best news I’ve heard all fricking week.

Posted by barbiplease on November 20, 2008, 10:54 AM | #

But anywayz....

J Richards:

I haven’t read the book but I do recall my anthropology professor from the early ‘90s who made a similar observation concerning biraciality and its connections to better genes, higher intelligence, and evolutionary symmetry. 

I’m no geneticist yet it makes perfect sense to me from a more subjective standpoint (see images below) as well as from a purely logical standpoint.

Inbreeding tends to reinforce certain genetic traits which, over the course of time (if continously reinforced and re-circulated back into the gene-pool), would make the gene pool increasingly stagnant: leading to an increasingly assymetrical look.

Not to mention that marrying someone from the same gene pool or marrying someone who is genetically similar increases the likelihood of having offspring who inherit two copies of deleterious recessive genes, such as mental retardation.

I have a white step-cousin down here in South Georgia who is that way (from inbreeding).

A biracial draws from a much wider gene-pool, hence, the higher likelihood of genetic symmetry and beauty.

Those who are assymetrical are generally not as attractive as those who are symmetrical in appearance.  At any rate, I’m not aware of any studies done to date on biraciality which could possibly support or refute your argument or even the other guy’s for that matter.  A great deal of your review, such as the concept of “exotherms” and the contention of Sub-Saharan Africans having an I.Q. of 62, sounds pseudo-scientific.

And the fact that you posted a very big picture of a very pretty white girl posing next to a very ugly black man in the middle of your article is very telling.....why even bother to put on any pretense of scientific objectivity? 

All you had to do was “ask” me and I would have gladly supplied you with the face of of “miscegenation” for your article!

l_c2ed71fd52ac790fc01239b7adf08048.jpg

“The Face of Miscenegation” (Half-Japanese, Half-White (Eurasian).

1528227667_l.jpg

“Bi-raciality means way cooler than the rest of you!”

Posted by Guessedworker on November 20, 2008, 11:30 AM | #

Barbiplease,

Do you know what the average IQ of Ashkenazic Jews is?

A biracial draws from a much wider gene-pool, hence, the higher likelihood of genetic symmetry and beauty.

Can you explain the selection pressure for genes for beauty over genes for ugliness?  Unless you can, that statement is simply supposition.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2008, 04:24 PM | #

Barbieplease: “But anywayz....”

Oooooh, it’s slinky, it’s sexy, it’s slang....itz “slankzy”.  Don’t you dare use that one, I’m getting a copy right.

“I could have any guy I want to take care of me materially,”

Yup, why fuck for free when you can fuck for money.

“...but I feel that my work is more important at the current time of writing.”

Are you taking donations?

“Perhaps someday I will return to normal society and date but at the time,”

Don’t take too long honey, a whore, er, I mean a muse/courtier has a shelf-life.  At 41 yours may well have expired.

“Not to mention that marrying someone from the same gene pool or marrying someone who is genetically similar increases the likelihood of having offspring who inherit two copies of deleterious recessive genes, such as mental retardation.”

People tend to marry, er, I mean fuck and produce off-spring with those who are similar to themselves in appearance, level of education, income and intelligence.  The gene-pool of the White race is sufficiently large to avoid the above described dysgenic outcomes.  It has gotten us this far, the highest civilization ever created by man.  What we need to do is preserve it.

Speaking of inbreeding, interesting case study:

“The settlement of Iceland began in 874 when, according to Landnámabók, the Norwegian chieftain Ingólfur Arnarson became the first permanent Norwegian settler on the island.”

“Today, Iceland has some of the world’s highest levels of economic and civil freedoms.[5] In 2007, Iceland was ranked as the most developed country in the world by the United Nations’ Human Development Index.[6] It is also the fourth most productive country per capita, and one of the most egalitarian, as rated by the Gini coefficient.[7][8] Icelanders have a rich culture and heritage, such as cuisine and poetry, and the medieval Icelandic Sagas are internationally renowned.”

Iceland’s total population: 313,376.  Native Icelandics: 291,942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Demographics

See?  “Inbreeding” really does cut your throat, don’t it?

“I have a white step-cousin down here in South Georgia who is that way (from inbreeding).”

You are trash, if you don’t already know why don’t bother asking, you wouldn’t understand.

“A biracial draws from a much wider gene-pool, hence, the higher likelihood of genetic symmetry and beauty.”

Is that why European models set the standard for beauty internationally, including in (gasp!) Japan?

“All you had to do was “ask” me and I would have gladly supplied you with the face of of “miscegenation” for your article!”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You look like a cheap Tijuana back-alley ho.  Better get the money up front.

P.S. Have you ever fucked a Negro for a crack rock?

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2008, 06:58 PM | #

Here, read this, and then read the book, you dumb cooze (and don’t forget to get checked at the free clinic):

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-RichardLynnOnFemaleAndAsianIQ.htm

My [Richard Lynn] book published in 2006 is Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Augusta, Georgia: Washington Summit Books (PO Box 3514, Augusta, GA 30914) ISBN 1-59368-020-1 pp. 318., US$37.95 HB), $20.95 (PB) (plus $6 for overseas orders). 
A review by Prof.J.P.Rushton in Personality and Individual Differences is given below.

Lynn’s book represents the culmination of more than a quarter of a century’s work on race differences in intelligence. It was in 1977 that he first ventured into this field – some would say minefield – with the publication of two papers on the IQ in Japan and Singapore. Both showed that the East Asians obtained higher means than white Europeans in the United States and Britain. These initial studies were criticised, but the present book lists 60 studies of the IQs of indigenous East Asians all of which confirm the original claim.

Hitherto studies of race differences in intelligence have been largely conducted and discussed in local contexts. In the United Sates they have been largely concerned with the IQs of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native American Indians. In Australia they have been concerned with the low IQ of the Aborigines, and in New Zealand with the low IQ of the Maoris.. These differences have typically been explained by racism and discrimination of Europeans against minorities the legacy of slavery, although a number of writers have posited a significant genetic factor (Jensen, 1998; Rushton and Jensen, 2005). Lynn’s book differs in taking a global perspective and consists of a review more than 500 studies published world wide from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the present. He devotes a chapter to each of ten races, differentiated by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza (1994) into “genetic clusters”, which he regards as a transparent euphemism for races.

His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).

After the ten chapters setting out the evidence for each of the ten races there follows a chapter on the reliability and validity of the measures. These show that the studies have high reliability in the sense that different studies of racial IQs give closely similar results. For instance, East Asians invariably obtain high IQs, not only in their own native homelands but in Singapore, Malaysia, Hawaii and North America. To establish the validity of the racial IQs he shows that they have high correlations with performance in the international studies of achievement in mathematics and science. Racial IQs also have high correlations with national economic development, providing a major contribution to the problem of why the peoples of some nations are rich and others poor. He argues further that the IQ differences between the races explain the differences in achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years.

Posted by barbiplease on November 22, 2008, 03:13 AM | #

Barbiplease,

Do you know what the average IQ of Ashkenazic Jews is?

Some reports estimate 112-115, which is a .75 SD higher than the average IQ.  A more recent study which claims to use more sophisticated methods argues that the actual SD for the Ashkenazic is roughly half that percentage.  And your point is?

Can you explain the selection pressure for genes for beauty over genes for ugliness?  Unless you can, that statement is simply supposition.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM | #

I do not even know what you are talking about here.  Your question makes no sense. 

Are you making an assertion that there is a selection pressure for genes for beauty over genes for ugliness?  And that you wish for me to explain your assertion?

I will try to “explain” your assertion but you must first clarify some fuzzy vocabulary:

What constitutes “selection pressure” to you?  By “selection pressure,” are you referring to natural selection (which tends to encourage genetic diversity) or some socially-constructed selection process, such as ethnocentrism or eugenics (which tends to encourage genetic or “racial” “purity” or “uniqueness")? 

What constitutes “beauty” and “ugliness” to you?  “Whiteness”?  “Symmetry”?  There are many different standards or interpretations for “beauty”; very few of which (if any) are quantifiable or universally-binding. 

With respect to human and animal facial features and human body types, the more acceptable and quantifiable measure today is “symmetry”; not “whiteness.” And whereas “facial symmetry” exists in all populations, “whiteness” does not.  At any rate, “whiteness” is not any more associated with symmetry than “blackness” is. 

“Symmetry” does not appear to be any more prevalent in any one monoracial “group” over any other.  It occurs in all “races.” However, based on all of my readings and anecdotal evidence, symmetry does appear to be more prevalent among those who are biracial or multiracial rather than monoracial.  I have not encountered this particular phenomenon being exclusive to “white people,” except perhaps in various claims made here which appears to be politically motivated to find scientific justifications to prove its racialist “point"--resorting even to pseudoscience if it must. 

At any rate, “beauty” is a subjective value referring to quality, not quantity, so in and of itself is not amenable to any scientific measurement or “proof” from a purely quantitative (objective) standpoint.  That said, “beauty,” from a purely aesthetic standpoint seems almost universally biased toward associating the quality of beauty with “symmetry”: not with “distortion” or “assymetry.” This is found to be true irrespective of locality or group and even among babies, as well: who are shown overwhelmingly to spend longer durations gazing at human faces that are symmetrical than assymetrical irrespective of face’s “race.”

Unless you can, that statement is simply supposition.

If you are referring to my anecdotal proof for symmetry or hybrid vigor in humans, I don’t think there’s anyone here to dispute my empirical data (i.e., pictures above) or to contest this data by putting up their own mug shots as “counterproof” to show that I am “wrong” or “genetically inferior” to themselves.  I don’t think anyone has the guts to do so, frankly.  If you folks are so much more attractive, why don’t you put up your own mugshots (if you dare) and we can do a comparative analysis?

At any rate, I’m not aware of any scientific studies to date to prove conclusively one way or the other as to hybrid vigor among “groups” of multiracial people beyond individual or anecdotal accounts.  Thus, I submit my personal data to permit the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions subjectively, in light of the author’s lack of scientific credibility and lack of scientific objectivity.  This is evident in his various arguments (most of which appear to be objections which are irrelevent to the truth of Ziv’s claims) and in his deliberate use of images in which he attempts to go out of his way to find the best-looking and the worst-looking member of each “race” to put them together to “prove” his point by way of imagery or emotion.

All that anyone can truly ascertain from a scientific standpoint is that natural selection tends to discourage inbreeding and tends to encourage genetic diversity for the purpose of continuity and genetic fitness.  In terms of biraciality or heterosity, it is more genetically diverse than monoraciality or homogeneity.  Thus, according to the laws of probability and statistics, it is more likely that a biracial would exhibit these qualities of genetic fitness and symmetry over that of a monoracial.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 22, 2008, 04:09 AM | #

All that anyone can truly ascertain from a scientific standpoint is that natural selection tends to discourage inbreeding and tends to encourage genetic diversity for the purpose of continuity and genetic fitness.  In terms of biraciality or heterosity, it is more genetically diverse than monoraciality or homogeneity.  Thus, according to the laws of probability and statistics, it is more likely that a biracial would exhibit these qualities of genetic fitness and symmetry over that of a monoracial.

Except they don’t.

While the thought of searching for a potential mate at a family reunion might sound repulsive to some, researchers in Iceland report that “kissing cousins” may produce more children and grandchildren than unrelated couples.

Researchers at the deCODE Genetics company in Reykjavik mapped out kinship among all known Icelandic couples whose members were born between 1800 and 1965. They then compared the numbers of children and grandchildren descended from these 160,811 couples.

Researchers were shocked to find that for women born between 1800 and 1824, marriages between third cousins produced an average of 4.04 children and 9.17 grandchildren, while marriages between eighth cousins or more distantly related couples had averages of only 3.34 children and 7.31 grandchildren.

For women born between 1925 and 1949, with mates related at the degree of third cousins, the average number of children and grandchildren were 3.27 and 6.64, compared with 2.45 and 4.86 for those with mates who were eighth cousins, or more distantly related.

“These are counterintuitive, almost dislikable results,” said Dr. Kari Stefansson, senior author of the paper on the study.

Dislikable, because our intuition is that the more closely related you are to your mate, the higher the chances of passing along the unfortunate traits so often associated with inbreeding.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4258128&page=1

Posted by barbiplease on November 22, 2008, 04:47 AM | #

Barbieplease: “But anywayz....”

Oooooh, it’s slinky, it’s sexy, it’s slang....itz “slankzy”.  Don’t you dare use that one, I’m getting a copy right.

But ANYWAYZ… Next?

I could have any guy I want to take care of me materially,”

Yup, why fuck for free when you can fuck for money.

Wow, something I said or posted must have really hit a nerve with you to go on like that.  I guess you are pissed off because I have empirical proof of looking better than any of you and there’s nothing you can do to “prove” me wrong except to resort to outright lies.

Even

you

think I am more beautiful than you are; you just can’t bring yourself to admit that so you make up some bogus accusation of “fucking for money” without even so much as knowing me. 

Why so reactionary? 

Your mind is obviously in the gutter.  And since you are burning with desire to know about my “sex life"--the idea of “fucking” any of you sounds frankly disgusting to me..

I’ve actually chosen a life of celibacy and poverty for the past four years.  This time is being spent in a positive way for education, self-improvement, and spiritual growth via contemplation and study for as long as necessary.  I wouldn’t do this for a lifetime but I would highly recommend the path to others try it at least once in their lives if only temporarily.  Perhaps it might be a remedy or cure for those of you here who are caught up in so many lesser teachings.  Teachings which apparently only teach you to embrace hatred toward the rest of humanity.

“...but I feel that my work is more important at the current time of writing.”

Are you taking donations?

Donations for what?  My writing?  My music?  Please clarify.

“Perhaps someday I will return to normal society and date but at the time,”

Don’t take too long honey, a whore, er, I mean a muse/courtier has a shelf-life.  At 41 yours may well have expired.

Thank you, but I will take however long I like.  It’s one of the advantages of being free. 

Men my own age have started to look too old for me 10 years ago.  Everyone around me has “aged.” Especially white people, who age faster than other races.  It’s kind of scary, actually--to be the only one left who looks youthful.  Not to say that I would be this way forever--but it’s one of the many advantages of being biracial, perhaps.

I can honestly say these things about myself and and prove it. I am sorry that you are having a hard time with that.

Everyone who meets me thinks that I am in my late 20s, btw.  I think it has to do with “hybrid vigor.”

I have no interest in knowing about any of you personally but I see that many of you have taken the time to go to my blog.  Why is everyone so interested in me?  Do you honestly think that I would be interested in any of you personally beyond this or the other thread?

“Not to mention that marrying someone from the same gene pool or marrying someone who is genetically similar increases the likelihood of having offspring who inherit two copies of deleterious recessive genes, such as mental retardation.”

People tend to marry, er, I mean fuck and produce off-spring with those who are similar to themselves in appearance, level of education, income and intelligence.  The gene-pool of the White race is sufficiently large to avoid the above described dysgenic outcomes.  It has gotten us this far, the highest civilization ever created by man.  What we need to do is preserve it.

It’s unfortunate that your entire self-worth is contingent upon the survival of the “White race.” What happens when it goes?

The “White race” will be no longer be the majority the UK and USA by 2050--perhaps even sooner.  Whatever will you do then?

What will become of this site, the “majority rights” site?  Will it then be a site geared for securing the rights of the non-white majority or will you be compelled to change the site name to “minority rights” instead to keep it “white only”?

Speaking of inbreeding, interesting case study:

“The settlement of Iceland began in 874 when, according to Landnámabók, the Norwegian chieftain Ingólfur Arnarson became the first permanent Norwegian settler on the island.”

“Today, Iceland has some of the world’s highest levels of economic and civil freedoms.[5] In 2007, Iceland was ranked as the most developed country in the world by the United Nations’ Human Development Index.[6] It is also the fourth most productive country per capita, and one of the most egalitarian, as rated by the Gini coefficient.[7][8] Icelanders have a rich culture and heritage, such as cuisine and poetry, and the medieval Icelandic Sagas are internationally renowned.”

Iceland’s total population: 313,376.  Native Icelandics: 291,942.

Ah, “The Blond Ambition"…

Sounds not much different from Japan which is also homogenous except that the average intelligence of Iceland is substantially lower than Japan (Iceland, 98; Japan, 105). 

Perhaps you are on to something that Iceland has reached a critical population mass so as to avoid the problem of inbreeding.  Nevertheless, it still doesn’t disprove anything that Ziv contends about biraciality and hybrid vigor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Demographics

See?  “Inbreeding” really does cut your throat, don’t it?

Inbreeding occurs in isolated regions having a low population.  Otherwise, it occurs in populations where racial intermarriage is forbidden.  The philosophy that you endorse would inevitably lead to inbreeding, considering the increasing racial diversity of the UK and the diminishing white population.

Simply because Iceland isn’t isolated enough doesn’t disprove the fact about inbreeding.  There are too many white people there for them to be concerned about it, at any rate. 

It seems to me that the threat of inbreeding would be more problematic in your home state, where white populations are diminishing rapidly.  Iceland doesn’t appear to have that problem, since they are 98% white. 

What will happen to your kind when most pure whites are gone or are “mongrelized”?  Will you be forced to turn to incest to keep the purity of your race?

“I have a white step-cousin down here in South Georgia who is that way (from inbreeding).”

You are trash, if you don’t already know why don’t bother asking, you wouldn’t understand.

Sounds to me that the vast majority of the whites here come from a less educated (more trashy) class than most Europeans, most of whom do not subscribe to your bigoted viewpoint.  Most of the white supremacists in America are less educated and more trashy, too.

“A biracial draws from a much wider gene-pool, hence, the higher likelihood of genetic symmetry and beauty.”

Is that why European models set the standard for beauty internationally, including in (gasp!) Japan?

You are living in yesteryear.  Times change.  And so too do standards for beauty.

Has anyone noticed that it has become increasingly difficult to identify models’ ethnicity? There was a time; politically correct ads went to great lengths to have an equal distribution of males and females who were black, white, Asian and Hispanic. Now there are moments when one can’t tell if they are looking at Jessica Simpson, Beyonce or Shakira. Being ethnically ambiguous is now a bonanza. Advertisers make no bones about it. They purposely seek out models with indeterminate features for their shoots.

In a 2003 New York Times column titled “Generation E.A.: Ethnically Ambiguous,” reporter Ruth La Ferla quoted Ron Berger, chief executive of New York’s advertising and trend research company Euro RSCG MVBMS Partners, “Today what’s ethnically neutral, diverse or ambiguous has tremendous appeal both in the mainstream and at the high end of the marketplace. What is perceived as good, desirable and successful is often a face whose heritage is hard to pin down.”

“All you had to do was “ask” me and I would have gladly supplied you with the face of of “miscegenation” for your article!”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You look like a cheap Tijuana back-alley ho.  Better get the money up front.

P.S. Have you ever fucked a Negro for a crack rock?

Posted by Captainchaos on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 04:24 PM | #

Jealous of my beauty, are we not?  Why so reactionary?

Again, it appears that my beauty frightens you to the point of making racist bogus remarks that are irrelevant.

Posted by barbiplease on November 22, 2008, 07:09 AM | #

All that anyone can truly ascertain from a scientific standpoint is that natural selection tends to discourage inbreeding and tends to encourage genetic diversity for the purpose of continuity and genetic fitness.  In terms of biraciality or heterosity, it is more genetically diverse than monoraciality or homogeneity.  Thus, according to the laws of probability and statistics, it is more likely that a biracial would exhibit these qualities of genetic fitness and symmetry over that of a monoracial.

Except they don’t.

While the thought of searching for a potential mate at a family reunion might sound repulsive to some, researchers in Iceland report that “kissing cousins” may produce more children and grandchildren than unrelated couples.

Researchers at the deCODE Genetics company in Reykjavik mapped out kinship among all known Icelandic couples whose members were born between 1800 and 1965. They then compared the numbers of children and grandchildren descended from these 160,811 couples.

Researchers were shocked to find that for women born between 1800 and 1824, marriages between third cousins produced an average of 4.04 children and 9.17 grandchildren, while marriages between eighth cousins or more distantly related couples had averages of only 3.34 children and 7.31 grandchildren.

For women born between 1925 and 1949, with mates related at the degree of third cousins, the average number of children and grandchildren were 3.27 and 6.64, compared with 2.45 and 4.86 for those with mates who were eighth cousins, or more distantly related.

“These are counterintuitive, almost dislikable results,” said Dr. Kari Stefansson, senior author of the paper on the study.

Dislikable, because our intuition is that the more closely related you are to your mate, the higher the chances of passing along the unfortunate traits so often associated with inbreeding.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4258128&page=1

Posted by Desmond Jones on Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 04:09 AM | #

I have read that cousin marriage is actually quite commonplace throughout the world.  The question is, is it beneficial, harmful, or are the effects negligible?  And does this practice in fact produce genetically-superior children than biracial children?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece

The deCODE study only reports an increased number of children born to third-cousin marriages vs. the number of children born to unrelated couples in Iceland.  This suggests that inbreeding promotes higher fertility or birth rates at best.  How healthy are these children compared to other children born to unrelated couples in Iceland, or compared to biracial or multiracial children, who are thought to be healthier than monoracial children due to their heterosity? 

What is the rate of genetic defects in these third-cousin offspring vs. offspring of unrelated partners in Iceland, or vs. multiracial or biracial offspring?  It’s really difficult to draw any conclusions whatsoever based on these facts alone with respect to the so-called hybrid vigor advantage that is bestowed to biracial children. 

How intelligent are the children of third cousins compared to biracial or multiracial children?  How symmetrical are the faces and bodies of the children of third cousins compared to biracial or multiracial children? 

Heterosis - Heterosis in humans

One study suggests that hybrid vigor may be associated with increased intelligence in humans. Nagoshi and Johnson (1986) found that children of Japanese-Caucasian cross-ethnic unions scored .26 SD higher on several cognitive tests than those from within-ethnic families, despite having virtually identical parental educational and occupational backgrounds (p. 204). The increase in scores tended to be higher on cognitive tests that were more g-loaded, suggesting that hybrid vigor improves g. To become more reliable, the study would have to match the intelligence averages of the parents as well as compute the intelligence scores of their children. Mingroni (2004) has argued that heterosis may be partially responsible for the Flynn effect.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study shows US children of African-Caucasian cross-ethnic unions score .47 SD lower on cognitive tests taken at age 17 than adopted children of Caucasian heritage, and .67 SD higher than adopted children of African heritage. (The average IQ of the adopting parents in this study was more than 1 standard deviation above the population mean of 100.) The exact interpretation of this study is disputed.

The Flynn effect is rather large, approximately 15 points of IQ gain in the past 50 years. That’s one standard deviation. It has been observed in every country where reliable measurements are available.

One could postulate the racial-mixing hypothesis in the US or Europe, but the Flynn effect is equally observable in countries like Japan, where racial mixing is almost non-existant.

Nutrition seems like a better candidate in most countries, but in the US - and especially the white population - nutrition has been at a very high level for well over sixty years. There must be some other explanation. I wish I knew.

Isolated by race, the 2007 black US population today does better on IQ tests than the white population did two generations ago.

The author of Freakonomics:

3) Mixed-race kids do have one advantage over white and black kids: the mixed-race kids are much more attractive on average.

Study indicates mixed race, physical symmetry correlate

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/21170/

David Zisser

Published: Monday, November 4, 2002

A recent study by UCLA Assistant Adjunct Professor of Biology Jay Phelan concluded that biracial people are perceived as more attractive than “uniracial” people because they have more symmetric features.

Symmetry, according to Phelan, reflects an organism’s developmental stability and is strongly associated with longevity, health and fitness.

Small random deviations from perfect symmetry in bilateral traits such as hands, ears and feet result in what is termed “fluctuating symmetry.”

Since only one gene codes for both the left and right side of an organism, the two should, theoretically, be identical – or symmetrical.

If they are not identical, something has gone wrong, according to Phelan.

Asymmetries, then, can be viewed as developmental noise.

“The gene instructions are not being played out the same way for both sides,” Phelan said.

There are two reasons for asymmetry. Either the gene is imperfect or the environment was tough, making proper development difficult.

An example of the environment’s effect on development is fetal alcohol syndrome, which can result in a 3 to 4 percent difference on both sides of the body, according to Phelan.

Symmetry, he found, was greater in heterozygous organisms. In other words, organisms are more symmetrical – and therefore potentially more “fit” – when their genes have two different alleles (for instance, one dominant allele and one recessive allele rather than two dominant or two recessive alleles).

Crossing organisms from different populations, he believed, would result in “hybrid vigor.” The theory was that their heterozygosity was making them stronger and healthier.

Genes produce enzymes that assist in bodily processes. When two slightly different enzymes are produced by heterozygous genes, the organism is “covered under a wider range of conditions,” he said.

Most humans are heterozygous in about 20 percent of their genes.

Assuming that biracial people are more heterozygous since they come from different populations (despite the debate surrounding the relative amounts of genetic variation within and among populations), Phelan started by measuring the symmetry of 99 UCLA student volunteers who were either biracial or uniracial.

Biracial people were defined as those whose mother and father were of different races, but each of their parents were uniracial. Both parents of the uniracial subjects were of the same race.

Phelan’s study concluded that biracial people were significantly more symmetrical than “uniracial” people. All 25 of the least symmetrical subjects were from uniracial groups, which were either Asian, black, Hispanic or white. Seven of the eight most symmetrical subjects were from biracial groups (Hispanic-white, Asian-white, black-white or Asian-Hispanic).

In addition, Phelan found that symmetry was about the same for all uniracial people no matter which group they were in, and about the same for all biracial people, regardless of racial background.

Phelan, however, did not want to stop merely with symmetry. He hypothesized that those who were more symmetrical would also be perceived as more attractive.

To determine attractiveness, 30 people then rated photos of the subjects who had been measured for symmetry on attractiveness, ranking them from one to seven (seven being the highest).

The results: Biracial people were perceived as significantly more attractive than “uniracial” people.

According to Phelan, this means that symmetry, and its correlate, attractiveness, are indications of fitness.

They are important for reproductive success because people are selected as mates partly based on such characteristics.

Becky Sweet, a fourth-year molecular, cell and developmental biology student, participated in the study as a first-year because it was a fundraiser for her sorority.

“Biracial people have certain disadvantages, (so) it’s nice to know we have certain advantages as well,” said Sweet, who is half Filipino and half white.

While she finds the research interesting, Sweet hopes that it will lead to more scientific studies.

“What genes control symmetry?” she asked as a potential research question.

The fact that biracial people are more symmetrical and attractive is “a nice conclusion,” she said, “but what’s next?”

Emily Shin, a third-year psychology student and president of the UCLA Hapa Club, also appreciates Phelan’s work.

“I think that it’s really great that people are doing research on hapa people, generally a group that’s marginalized,” Shin said.

She added, however, that there is some dissent in the hapa community about research like Phelan’s, which perpetuates the stereotype that hapas are on average, more attractive people.

“It makes hapa people, especially hapa girls, feel very objectified,” Shin added.

Like Sweet, Shin expressed interest in what kind of studies will come out of Phelan’s work.

Phelan is well aware of the controversy surrounding his work, particularly his use of race as a category for grouping subjects.

In the meantime though, Phelan hopes to follow up on his work by looking at the parents of his subjects for this study.

He hopes to confirm that the parents are of normal symmetry, and not symmetrical anomalies, in order to validate the idea that heterozygosity is responsible for the increased fitness and symmetry of biracial people.

Unless you can find similar comparative data on Icelandic children born to third-cousins, the study itself does not invalidate the concept of genetic fitness gained by genetic diversity and heterosity but only re-confirms some well-established facts:

Those who marry third cousins usually live in less populated rural areas.  This is true in Iceland as would be the case in United States and elsewhere.  The less people there are, the less number of potential mates to attract unless one develops and attraction for one’s own cousins or distant cousins.  It is also true that in rural areas throughout the world, siring a large number of offspring is considered more the norm than in urban areas.

Icelandic couples who are genetically unrelated live primarily in urban settings where siring a large number of offspring may be less desirable for a variety of reasons.  The most obvious being, it is more likely that the couples are more educated and each have a career.  They are therefore less likely to have a large number of children.  This is also the case in the United States and elsewhere.

Posted by barbiplease on November 22, 2008, 08:37 AM | #

Here, read this, and then read the book, you dumb cooze (and don’t forget to get checked at the free clinic):
[...]

....His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).....

I would be very wary of using such information to support the cause for “racial purity” or racial superiority.  The same study could be used to turn against you to support “East Asian purity” were the Chinese to become the next superpower and decide to use it against the comparatively less-intelligent caucasian immigrants in their nation.  Those in Hong Kong even score a higher average I.Q. of 107.  Biracial Asian-caucasians are even shown in one study to score higher than both whites and Asians, with a SD of .26 above monoracials from any race with similar socio-economic backgrounds.

What if biraciality became the majority and decided to legislate institutionalized racism based on these I.Q. scores against the pure white populations?  Or what if Caribbean minorities or African minorities became the majority in the UK and decided to use this study to legislate affirmative action and other social practices to “level the playing field”?  If they or other non-whites become the majority in the UK (which they will before long), it is reasonable that they would be disposed to think that these differences in I.Q. scores are the result of social inequities and thus would change policies in your nation to even the playing field.

There is no scientific consensus as to cause(s) for these I.Q. score differences between the various populations.  They may be related to genetic factors, environmental factors, or a host of other causes such as social inequities, malnutrition, or education or a combination of “all of the above.” The education system in Georgia continues to be woefully underfunded.  The lack of funding, combined with segregation, produced many generations of disadvantaged black youths who score significantly lower on I.Q. tests.  Indicating that education and social background seem to continue to play a role in I.Q. scores despite efforts to make these tests universally applicable and “culturally-neutral.”

The tests themselves may be even flawed.  Some critics argue that I.Q. tests are based on dated methodologies devised 50 years ago and are in need of a major overhaul.  Additionally, they do not accurately measure the I.Q. of those who have certain developmental disorders, such as autism and Asperger, who are often underestimated by these tests by as much as 50 points below their actual I.Q. 

There are some who argue that intelligence isn’t quantifiable.  In terms of Sub-Saharan Africa and other third-world nations, nutritional deficiencies and lack of micronutrients are thought to be a significant factor.  In America, black children during the 1970s and in previous generations were exposed to high amounts of lead, which are correlated with reduced I.Q. scores depending on amount of toxic exposure of the children growing up. 

The only thing that has been determined are that there are differences in scores between various populations or ethnic groups.  In any event, an I.Q. score of 75 is defined in psychiatry as borderline mentally-retarded.  An I.Q. score of 50 is regarded as full-blown mentally retarded.

The study above suggests that Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines are somewhere in between full-blown mentally-retarded and borderline mentally-retarded. 

Most people are capable of spotting a mentally-retarded person out in public.  It’s not very difficult.  It wouldn’t take much longer to spot a borderline mentally-retarded person, either.  Usually, a mentally-retarded person will possess certain mannerisms and facial features that make it very obvious that he or she is afflicted with a mental disability.  In either case, whether borderline or full-blown mentally-retarded, they are not capable of living independently.  And they don’t look or act a thing like any Sub-saharan Africans whom I’ve met in person (who by contrast appear very normal in both mannerisms and adaptability to social rules to out any possibility of “mental retardation").  I’d imagine this would also be the case for Australian Aborigines though I’ve never met any in person.

There is obviously something fundamentally flawed in these I.Q. tests themselves.

Let us also not dismiss the Flynn Effect, which, in spite of the author’s claim that its impact can only be seen in scores on the lower-ranges of I.Q., has still tracked an average overall intelligence increase in every developed nation around the world by about .3 points per decade from the 1920s until the 1990s.

Perhaps this fact is overlooked because it is incompatible with your basic worldviews, which is largely anti-African.  But the truth of the matter is that today’s African Americans have higher average I.Q. scores than whites from two generations ago.

Posted by a Finn on November 22, 2008, 11:03 AM | #

Barbiplease: “… intelligence increase in every developed nation around the world by about .3 points per decade from the 1920s until the 1990s. ... But the truth of the matter is that today’s African Americans have higher average I.Q. scores than whites from two generations ago.”

- Barbi, it is about 3 points per decade, not 0,3. Two generations is about 40 years x 3 = 12 points, which means they have not reached the whites of two generations ago.

But, let’s see. Flynn effect rises almost exclusively the low end of the IQ’s. IQ tests of today have e.g. less practical science tasks and more 2 dimensional visual tests, corresponding to the increased TV and computer 2 dimensional practice of today. Peoples’ ability to solve practical science tasks have weakened, e.g. estimating water level in different size containers after dividing it according to rules. Add some increased schooling and the Flynn effect is imaginary.

I don’t care what IQ this or that group has. I want live with my people. I don’t want my people to be ruled by another people. I don’t want my people to rule other peoples. What you describe in your text is one of the endless threats waiting Europeans in multiracial societies and many has already materialized. Other races don’t need specified facts to legislate against us, in matter fact they don’t need facts at all. If necessary, they invent “facts”, using e.g. social construction theory.

Ps. As long as Finns beat east Asians (We have more or equal numbers of lower IQ immigrants) in Pisa tests, I am happy. smile I admit we have some advantage over other Europeans because of lower numbers of immigrants, but we are losing that fast.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 22, 2008, 01:03 PM | #

If “beauty is symmetry” why don’t Hollywood plastic surgeons sculpt movie stars’ faces to look exactly like symmetrical wart hog faces, symmetrical crocodile faces, or symmetrical orangutang faces?  Obviously beauty isn’t “symmetry.”

“Well no, we meant human beauty is symmetry of the human face, not the wart hog face.”

OK, why aren’t the Hollywood plastic surgeons sculpting movie stars’ faces to look exactly like symmetrical West-Central African Negro faces in all details?  Answer:  because symmetrical West-Central African Negro faces aren’t beautiful.

“Oh so I guess there’s something more to human beauty than symmetry.”

Looks like it, doesn’t it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 22, 2008, 01:07 PM | #

If the misshapen features of the Elephant Man’s face had happened to come out perfectly symmetrical it would be a beautiful face according to the “beauty is symmetry” rule.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 22, 2008, 01:14 PM | #

The Hollywood and Haute Couture Jews and homosexuals are choosing more primitive-looking female faces for their stars and fashion models these days:  less feminine, even less human (more prognathic for example, hence more ape-like).  As to why they’re doing it, we can easily speculate.  Regardless of why, their efforts to shift public perceptions of beauty away from the Euro standard toward some other standard can be rejected.  No one has to welcome the Jewish and homosexual attempts to annihilate Euro civilization and genocide European peoples.  Remember Nancy Reagan’s campaign-againg-drugs slogan?  “Just say no.”

Just say “No!” to the Jews and the homosexuals who are trying to harm us and all we hold dear in this life.

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.
 @ 
<a>
Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: (not needed for preview)

captcha shown here

Next entry: The Bear’s Lair: Is the world global?

Previous entry: New mouse may mean new hope for Europe.
image of the day

Existential Issues

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Englander commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 03/19/10, 08:25 PM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 07:37 PM. (go) (view)

Anacleto commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 03/19/10, 07:01 PM. (go) (view)

kurt9 commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/19/10, 06:59 PM. (go) (view)

Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)

Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 05:03 PM. (go) (view)

Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 04:14 PM. (go) (view)

Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)

ilan commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder' on 03/19/10, 11:56 AM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 11:38 AM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)

Drifter commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go) (view)

cladrastis commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)

Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go) (view)

Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go) (view)

Wandrin commented in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go) (view)

Borvo commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)

Maximilio commented in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)

Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)

PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 07:44 PM. (go) (view)

Recent Posts

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa