Leftist White Supremacy: not in my name

Posted by James Bowery on December 12, 2006, 05:06 AM | #

I basically agree with your post but there are some important nuances here:

First, the situation in which a woman is in some other ethnicity’s country is different than the situation in which a man is some other ethnicity’s country.  If a native man and foreign women become involved it isn’t the kind of assault that it is when a foreign man becomes involved with a native woman.  Of course it is no assault at all if all the parties subject to the mixing of ethnicities are agreeable to it without government coercion—however that is rarely demonstrable these days.  Its sort of like wondering whether a prisoner would have freely chosen to have sex with a prison guard or dominant gang member within prison had they been freed.  The real problem isn’t the choice made by the individuals but the removal of freedom from the parents by the state or other organization wielding power over them against their beliefs and judgment.

Second, we need to recognize that even in the situation where a woman is in a foreign country, it may be the result of the imposition of ideologies on her people that prevent her from proper rearing by her parents.  In that sense the Korean man’s actions in Australia aren’t entirely out of line, but one really has to question what he is doing in Australia if he really believes as he does.

In short, while somewhat suspicious, I’m not hostile to mixed race marriages between native men and foreign women—I am hostile toward governments and other agencies that remove parents from authority over their children and prevent assortation in accordance with their judgment and beliefs.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 12, 2006, 09:55 AM | #

An extremely unpleasant thread to that post, too.  How do these retards come to think that racism is in the righteous Korean males anger at sex-hunting foreigners when, clearly, the only espousal of dismissive supremacism resides in the attitudes of the foreigners.  Maybe they have been so inculcated with applying the racism label to everyone and everything but themselves they just can’t see the nature of their own actions.  Mechanical defamation.

Posted by !!! on December 12, 2006, 10:30 AM | #

“I’m not hostile to mixed race marriages between native men and foreign women..”

Really??!!

Posted by Lurker on December 12, 2006, 11:12 AM | #

A minor nitpick - “That Korean should’ve looked at dogbert (see the original post for details) and told him, “what ****ing business is it of yours what I and my countrywoman discuss, eh?  Remember whose ****ing country you’re in!”

This interchange took place in Australia, not Korea. Just thought I would mention it.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 12, 2006, 12:05 PM | #

That’s a valid point, Lurker.  So the focus changes from the right to defend Korean EGI in Korea to the right to defend it in a foreign country to which said Koreans have migrated.  So what changes?  Not much beyond the consideration that domestic Korean EGI is unaffected by maladaptive pairings in Oz.

Morally, nothing changes.  There is no moral standard that places miscegenation in someone else’s country above in-group pairing.  EGI is EGI regardless.  More, it is not supremacist to act in accordance with our natures.  It is supremacist to ascribe to oneself the right to damage other peoples’ EGI, whether or not that right is grounded in the leftist inevitability of the Dogbert post.

After all, what is this Dogbert creep selling: “Some day we will all copulate on demand in the street with whomsoever we see or sees us.” The acme of a choice-based freedom (ie, the freedom of moral poverty).

Posted by Bo Sears on December 12, 2006, 05:17 PM | #

“It is supremacist to ascribe to oneself the right to damage other peoples’ EGI...”

Exactly right. Supremacy claims by all kinds of people are all over the place, and they should be labeled as such when they enter public discourse. (It’s not just a white thing no matter how carefully you have been taught that it is.)

Supremacy claims are the foundation for whenever members of one group take it upon themselves to name, define, or direct members of another group; tell them how and what to think and feel; or preach self-destruction to them.

Sometimes we can determine who is actually supreme in our societies by determining which groups’ members can make their supremacy claims stick. Don’t think for a second that we don’t live in a highly hierarchical society. And Euro man is not at the top of that society by any means. If he were, he wouldn’t be the demonized and silenced creature that he is today.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 12, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

This interchange took place in Australia, not Korea. Just thought I would mention it.

Ah, my mistake.  I’d’ve been one foolish-looking Korean at that point. 

Posted by James Bowery on December 12, 2006, 08:09 PM | #

!!! is surprised that I’m not outraged by the general idea of women migrating into a territory and mating up with native men.  I gave caveats on that in the current situation and that obviously isn’t sufficient in the minds of some.  So here’s further clarification that may have the outraged understand my reluctance to vilify mating between native men and foreign women.

In the natural environment, males compete for territory, hence they compete for females in virtually all vertebrate species.  Females aren’t generally the ones roaming out to the edge of a territory hunting for food, or being driven out to the edge of a territory by polygynous males.  However, we see evidence that the mtDNA is far less territorial than the Y chromosome.  It is apparent that natural rates of gene flow are primarily via exchange of females between adjacent populations. 

That’s the primordial origin of my lack of hostility toward “invading” females.

There is another, more pragmatic and present problem that is somewhat ameleorated by “invading” females:

It is highly likely that our people, particularly northern European people, evolved in an environment with a surplus of females due to high male mortality rates.  This has been addressed on this blog before but to make a long story short—any decrease in the female to male ratio is far more toxic to our people than it is to other people—particularly in the presence of invading males of other peoples sometimes called “guest workers” or “illegal aliens”.  How can we change this ratio to be more favorable for our people?  War?  Really?  The current situation where females, particularly Asian females, come to our territories is a substantial relief for our people—not just for the males of our people who find mates but for the human ecology for our own family formation.  I believe it more than compensates for the somewhat reduced ethnic genetic interests and, in the case of northern Asians, is an amplification of a very old circumpolar gene exchange.  If you think the results of this gene exchange are horrible then you and I differ on some important points.  Again my objection is to the high flow rates supported by theocratic indoctrination enforced by state powers—not to the gene flow itself.

This is a very oppressive time for our people and we should be happy to get any relief.

Posted by !!! on December 12, 2006, 08:40 PM | #

“If you think the results of this gene exchange are horrible then you and I differ on some important points.”

This is indeed the case.  I do believe such an exchange is horrible.

To each his own.

Posted by Pobble-Face on December 12, 2006, 09:48 PM | #

“The current situation where females, particularly Asian females, come to our territories is a substantial relief for our people”.

Mr. Bowery, I don’t want to sound overly harsh here, but your posts consistantly lack the real-world grounding that Guessedworker and Igorevitch demonstrate. One often has the feeling that you stretch your theoretical framework to encompass things which require another model.

You’re argument in favor of miscegenation of ‘native men’ with ‘foreign women’ seems to be one such example of getting carried away with concepts and theory.

“It is highly likely that our people, particularly northern European people, evolved in an environment with a surplus of females due to high male mortality rates.” ..ETC.ETC.ETC.

There is absolutely no need, in seeking to establish whether miscegenation with foreign people’s benefits us, to conjecture a hypothetical prehistoric past for European man, and then to speculate on how possible sex ratio’s effect ‘family ecology’.

And your statement that the detriment of this to EGI - which should be clear to all of us, by the way, as the offspring of said couples are then given citizenship - is compensated for by the positive effects which you failed to sufficiently demonstrate, means to me nothing other than that you yourself have some emotional investment in legitimizing this practice, i.e. that you yourself are hungry for something unpronounceable, smothered in duck sauce.

Either describe in precise terms, the EXACT benefit that accrues to us via miscegenation of ‘native men’ with ‘foreign women’, or have the decency to leave space for posters whose commitment to the existence of their people trumps their desire for a romp in the rice paddy.

Posted by VanSpeyk on December 12, 2006, 09:59 PM | #

Mr. Bowery, whose intelligent and well-argued comments are always appriciated by me, seems to have forgotten that those of mixed race tend not to support European EGI, indeed at times work actively against them. This is a major reason for not looking favorable to such intermarriage, although not the only one.

As for Mr. Pinochet, he exemplefies some of the qualities I like to see in a leader but it was unfortunate that he should have used so much violence. This would seem to be the major drawback of a non-democratic government (atleast in modern times). There is no legitimate way for the opposition to express them self which tends to result in violence. Perhaps corporatism solves this problem?

PS Apologies for (somewhat) derailing the thread. Perhaps someone should start a separate thread on the subject of Euro-Asian miscegenation?

Posted by Matt on December 13, 2006, 01:15 AM | #

How on earth am I a left wing white supremacists? And how on earth can you advocate discrimination or racial hatred by non whites against whites for any reason? It seems like you have twisted priorities, Svyatoslav Igorevich.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 13, 2006, 02:06 AM | #

“How on earth am I a left wing white supremacists?”

All groups have a right to exist as they are and free of outside interference. Says so in international law. The majority of Koreans doesn’t want whites practicing racial engineering on their society, so who the hell do you stalinoids think you are to impose it on them?

If you want to create some racial engineering manga fantasyland where everyone has bright purple hair, big eyes and the ability to transform into robot, then buy a little island and father your racial engineering experiments over there.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 13, 2006, 05:12 AM | #

How on earth am I a left wing white supremacists?

An unfair question (unfair to you), since as far as I know I’m the only one who uses the term, but I’ll make a case anyhow: you assume that Koreans are basically white people with yellow skin (cultural differences aside), and that the current western fad of egalitarianism and aracialism is a universal, objective good that is suited to Koreans; that Koreans will and indeed must embrace this “good.”

You assume because the west has deemed so-called “anti-racism” ipso-facto good in no need logical of underpinnings, Koreans must do so as well.

Like all leftist white supremacists, you deny self-determination to the whole world.

And how on earth can you advocate discrimination or racial hatred by non whites against whites for any reason?

I do not advocate them, per se, but I do recognize the Korean’s right to be Korean, and to ensure Korea and his posterity are Korean.  In fact, I assert he has these as duties.

I also recognize his right to hate and discriminate against you, which flows from his right to free association.

It seems like you have twisted priorities, Svyatoslav Igorevich.

Au contraire, it is you who has the twisted worldview and priorities, something I can demonstrate with science and logic, to say nothing of plain common sense.

Posted by James Bowery on December 13, 2006, 06:41 AM | #

It’s understandable that people react so strongly against rational consideration of miscegenation just as a rape victim reacts negatively to rational consideration of sex.  I have no interest having a rational discussion about sex with rape victims nor do I wish to provoke victims of the current miscegenation theocracy.  I merely wished to present nuances as I see them.

Those who question my motives are quite entitled to do so since they don’t know me and the most likely explanation for my broaching this rational approach to miscegenation is a desire for a “romp in the rice paddies” but the reality is that I have foregone such opportunities precisely because my preference is preservation of my EGI as well as the fact that I value the potential for friendship with east Asians who are already suffering from an overabundance of males due to infanticide encouraged by government policy as well as culture.

BTW: I have no personal friends who are east Asian, nor do I have have business dependence on them nor do I have lovers past, present or intended from that EGI.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 13, 2006, 06:43 AM | #

“How on earth am I a left wing white supremacist?” (—Matt)

What you are, Matt, is a shallow narcissist without a moral compass or esthetic sense who, to be perfectly frank about it, is not extremely bright.  You “disgust” one of the commenters in the thread, I forget which one.  You know, that’s funny because you have exactly that effect on me!  What a coincidence ...

Posted by Matt on December 13, 2006, 07:13 AM | #

“An unfair question (unfair to you), since as far as I know I’m the only one who uses the term, but I’ll make a case anyhow: you assume that Koreans are basically white people with yellow skin (cultural differences aside), and that the current western fad of egalitarianism and aracialism is a universal, objective good that is suited to Koreans; that Koreans will and indeed must embrace this “good.”

You assume because the west has deemed so-called “anti-racism” ipso-facto good in no need logical of underpinnings, Koreans must do so as well. “

I do not push any agenda nor am I for or against miscegenation. Most people have a tendency to associate with people of the same race, so race mixing does not have the potential to destroy the white race if that is what you are worried about. Immigration is another issue.

“I also recognize his right to hate and discriminate against you, which flows from his right to free association. “

He can discriminate or hate me all he likes. I am also a supporter of freedom of association. However, I also have freedom of association to associate with any person that consents to do so, regardless of his opinions about it.

There is no way you can stop the small amount of race mixing going on without reducing immigration. I would think that would be a much bigger issue for you guys.

Posted by James Bowery on December 13, 2006, 08:46 AM | #

Most people have a tendency to associate with people of the same race, so race mixing does not have the potential to destroy the white race if that is what you are worried about. Immigration is another issue.

Immigration and anti-discrimination laws are of a piece.  Both violate freedom of association at different levels of organization.  Both work toward the same end and that end is not nearly so benign as you maintain. 

People’s “choices” in the present circumstances really can be compared to the “choices” presented to prisoners.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 13, 2006, 10:57 AM | #

Matt,

Your problem, really, is that sentence, “Korea will join the 21st century on the issue of inter racial dating.” Especially, the word “will”.

There is NO freedom inherent in the glib leftist notion, so well addessed by Svi, that individualism will conquer all, geddit.  Apart from the distasteful leftist inevitability syndrome, individualism is not freedom.  It is an imposed ideology, for one thing.  Most people do not, in fact, choose to sever the bond of kin.  Those that do, like you, generally have to be badgered or bribed into it or simply never understand the ideas that have possession of them.

Further, even individualism’s own adherents cannot demonstrate its bounty, because that bounty is anomie and lightness of being.  Your post about Koreans is a plain statement of anomie, if you could but see it.  This we deplore for it is not becoming to Western men, both at the personal level and at that of the kin-group, to reduce themselves so.

I commend you for one thing.  You have thusfar avoided the usual language trap.  Right liberals, when challenged by us, invariably respond with the defamatory label “collectivist”, and of course left-liberals slur us as “racists”, “fascists” and the rest.  We are used to it, and understand that they are unprepared for a moral attack from the presumed morally deficient racialist right.  But one of our principle strengths is the higher morality of our argument (witness the fact that I’ve just been ticked off by my own commentariat for swearing in an earlier post!) ... another its foundation in Nature ... another its prospect of freedom and greatness.

Liberalism has given you pettyness.  If you are capable of something more than that then look beyond it.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 13, 2006, 09:52 PM | #

I do not push any agenda nor am I for or against miscegenation.

Kant’s categorical imperative suggests you are for miscegenation, at least on some level, or is my impression that you go running about after Korean females a mistaken one?

Further, as GW points out, your ”will” statement (emphasis yours) belies this subsequent claim.

Most people have a tendency to associate with people of the same race, so race mixing does not have the potential to destroy the white race if that is what you are worried about. Immigration is another issue.

If you take a good, long look at the writings on Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI) here at MR you’ll see that there’s a whole hell of a lot to be said contra your assertion.  The fact is that EGI is not binary, it’s a sliding scale or a spectrum if you will, and its pursuit does not conform to simplistic questions like “will this destroy the white race?” That’s like asking “will investing $1000 with this possible grifter ruin me (if not, I shouldn’t worry over being defrauded by him)?”.

I commend you for one thing.

I have one thing too, which I was remiss in not mentioning in my post: Matt doesn’t lie down and take the seldom-stated leftist double-standard in the ass, like most.  No, he demands reciprocity (even though this amounts to a hegemonic assumption of a liberal universe, and it’s probably motivated by miscegenation-urges), and condemns in non-whites what whites and non-whites condemn in whites.

He can discriminate or hate me all he likes. I am also a supporter of freedom of association. However, I also have freedom of association to associate with any person that consents to do so, regardless of his opinions about it.

Mmm, not quite.  Individuals also have the right to act as parts of collectives, and collectives have the right to choose their members and member conduct, sort of a collective right to free association.  Collectives also have the right to manage their territory.

There is no way you can stop the small amount of race mixing going on without reducing immigration. I would think that would be a much bigger issue for you guys.

It is, but we keep big plates in our cupboards.

Posted by babo on December 18, 2006, 04:03 AM | #

“Mmm, not quite.  Individuals also have the right to act as parts of collectives, and collectives have the right to choose their members and member conduct, sort of a collective right to free association.  Collectives also have the right to manage their territory.”

What the hell? So you and a bunch of your buddies have the right to harrass me and my Korean wife because you collectively think she is operating against your group ideology by marrying a foreigner.

Self-determination, eh. I remember Hitler’s demand for self-determination. You guys are clearly on the same wavelength.

Posted by iheartblueballs on December 18, 2006, 04:16 AM | #

oh man...this is some funny, funny stuff.  thank allah i stumbled upon this site, because i haven’t laughed so hard in years.

seriously fellas, keep up the good work.  i’m trying to imagine a group of right-wing nutjobs more deluded and flat-out retarded than your crew...and i can’t.  you all are as good as it gets.

so dumb and yet so serious about your own stupidity.  a better combination is hardly possible.

Posted by Hugh on December 18, 2006, 04:28 AM | #

“collectives have the right to choose their members and member conduct, sort of a collective right to free association.  Collectives also have the right to manage their territory.”

What a lot of wordy bullshit.  Why don’t you just say it forthright:  we have the ‘right’ to manage (harass, firebomb, beat, etc) people we don’t agree with on our territory.  And since I am white, I am part of your little ‘collective’ or tribe whether I want to be or not, and you are going to ‘manage’ my conduct. 

Fuck you.  Now go ahead and blather about my ‘liberalness’ or whatever.

Posted by Brock on December 18, 2006, 04:35 AM | #

I’ve never seen such a confused set of commenters.  Right is Left, up is down, racist is shouting racist.  Amazing!!

When I lived in Korea I was attacked 3 different times for being white.  I never touched a koran woman either.  Just for being white. 

Maybe before you clowns start taking things out of context, you might want to think about the context, eh?

Posted by Interracialist on December 18, 2006, 04:50 AM | #

As babo pointed out, self-determination has its limits.  An individual’s rights to freedom of association and safety have precedent over the cultural aspirations of tribalism.

PS.  Guys, put away your thesaurus.  Using big words does not enhance your arguments when you don’t know their proper usage in a sentence.  What it does highlight, however, is your inability to organize your points in a cohesive manner.

Posted by Top on December 18, 2006, 06:24 AM | #

Why is it that every genius that drops by this site… like babo, Hugh, Brock, etc. has to resort to strawman arguments and slurs in their entries?  Such enlightment!  And they wonder why more and more people are getting fed up with this tactic!  The funniest - ok fine, saddest part is that what they denounce in their strawman arguments is exactly what they engage in in their dialogue tactics. 

Same old, same old…

Anyway:

“An individual’s rights to freedom of association and safety have precedent over the cultural aspirations of tribalism. “

Finally… Interracial presents an argument!  And he did it without mentioning Hitler.  Bravo!

I think you would be surprised to find out Interracial that most people on this site advocate freedom of association (but there is diversity of opinion here) and ALL (that I know) advocate safety in the sense that you mean it!

At the same time I think it is silly to dismiss ‘the aspirations of tribalism’ as just something irrelevant.  Or let me ask you- in your view is there ANY room for aspirations of ethnic/tribal/racial groups?  And if you are of the view that there should be no such aspirations - would you allow others to engage in such aspirations?  I.e.  do you really mean it when you say you are for freedom of association?

I think it’s one thing to say that you do not believe in ethnic/tribal/racial aspirations, but it’s a whole other thing to try and impose that view on groups of people who do not agree with you. 

I, for example, think it’s silly to think that ‘tribalism’ doesn’t matter since it has been one of the primary forces that has shaped human history.  I believe that the formation of ethnic European countries has been a good thing because it has elevated us from extended family-type alliances into something greater.  I also believe that given time European countries would find a way to merge into even larger structures maybe something with a weak central structure, but strong regional presence - Switzerland jumps out as an example of this type of arrangement.  After that who knows.... The USA and other western countries were taking their own paths in this regard.

At the same time I believe that mass migration of people who are too far genetically and culturally removed from the Europe is a mistake and will have unpredictable results.  ALL of history shows that mass human migration and demographic transformations lead to conflict.  Why take the chance when progress was being made and when there were was so much potential after WW2?  It took Europe 2000 years to sort itselt out into workable states that actually respect each other.  And now we are going to transform the demographics of that region (and other western regions) in less than 100 years??  It’s madness!  If communism taught us one thing it’s that ideology and wishful thinking don’t trumpt human nature.

Enough of my beliefs… there are plenty of other beliefs discussed here.... my point is that the arguments here are more complex than you and your buddies give us credit for.  Frankly I could care less if you and couple of your friends “bang some Korean chicks”.  There are larger issues than your sex life at stake.  The whole western world is going through the fastest demographic transformation in history.  We have groups in the States, Canada, UK, etc… that organize and persecute the majority members for doing what they do - group aspirations.  Our leaders appear to be more corrupt than ever with no long term vision what-so-ever, and with ‘democracy’ being surpressed by big money.  Tony Blair and other leaders are ready to transform their countries into some sort of utopian post-cultural police states - read their freakin speeches.  US senators are caught on public record complaining about how they wished their demographics were more like Mexico so that they could party it up more and face less opposition to corruption. 

I could go on… there are so many issues to be tackled.  What is your purpose in engaging us?  Name calling?  Debating strawman arguments with yourselves?  To feel morally superior as per your anti-white programming?

You do not hold the moral high-ground just because you have sex with Korean girls and think anyone who even considers tribe/ethnicity/race is ‘scum’ or ‘subhuman’.  There are other things to consider.

Posted by Hugh on December 18, 2006, 06:39 AM | #

“but it’s a whole other thing to try and impose that view on groups of people who do not agree with you.  “

Dating or marrying someone outside your race is not ‘imposing views’ , it is simply dating, a free choice made by both people.  If the Korean man in this case, or you when you see a couple you think don’t belong together, thinks it is proper to rudely intervene and criticize them for not following your demented logic, then you are imposing views on that couple. 

You seem quite concerned with preserving your white DNA - may I suggest instead of writing this blog you get out and about, meet some ladies and spread some of your precious DNA around.  Buy a wife from Russia or Czech if you can’t meet them the normal way.

My reason for engaging you is to point out how wrong you are, and hope you reconsider.

And, have you realized that you are the one graphically bringing up “having sex with Korean girls” etc, when commenters have just said ‘my Korean wife/girlfriend.  Sex on your brain?  DNA boiling in the nutsack?  Time to start looking through ‘Russianbride.com”, fella.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 18, 2006, 07:46 AM | #

Can I be the first to call bullshit on this entire thread?

I will paraphrase Bill Maher by saying that sometimes, cultures aren’t just equal, they’re better.

This guy was responding to an article that was *obviously and purposely* chastising foreigners as having some acidic, corrupting influence on the oh so pure Koreans.

Fuck that, I’m sorry, but if Korea wants to “play ball” with the G8 countries then this xenophobic, Confucian bullshit needs to go out the window.

Posted by Al Ross on December 18, 2006, 08:16 AM | #

Why would anyone consider (even sometimes) that cultures “arent just equal” without taking the assertion to its logical conclusion by adding “because races (who inform culture) arent equal”?

As for ‘Confucian bullshit’, ther is much more practical wisdom in the Analects than can be found in that risible collection of Jewish-Supremacist Yahweh-jabber called the Old Testament.

Life in a well-run Confucian-influenced city (Singapore) wont compare of course to the democratic joys of, say, Detroit or Gary, Indiana.

Posted by hardyandtiny on December 18, 2006, 08:31 AM | #

If I em der and I da guy I say to duh guy dogbert, hey dogbert uh, what right you have to uh be thinking about what I say to my country woman, duh.....huh?  huh? What right you have uh dogbert? dats what i say to the guy.

and if I run in Matt he have split wig, uh huh uh hhuh huh huh, uh.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 18, 2006, 08:38 AM | #

“Life in a well-run Confucian-influenced city (Singapore) wont compare of course to the democratic joys of, say, Detroit or Gary, Indiana.”

I’m officially dealing with morons.  Cultural superiority has nothing to do with racial superiority, numb nut.  Humans are the same, but sometimes they have stupid ideas, sometimes they have good ones.  The renaissance, good idea.  The inquisition, not so great.  The preservation of mathematics by muslims, nice stuff.  Sharia law?  Pretty retarded.

I’m living in Korea right now.  You know what?  It’s safe.  Safe like America in the 40’s.  It’s safe because the “dirty” stuff is just hidden, it’s in no way absent.  Domestic abuse, drugs, etc, you just don’t see it.

And actually, confucian heirarchy and judeo-christianity are going together like bread and butter here in Korea.

Finally, Gary and Detroit are the result of a retarded american car industry that *refuses* to innovate.

God, you typed, maybe, 3 sentences, and I just ripped you to shreds.  I have officially pwned this site.  Good day to you.

Posted by richard on December 18, 2006, 09:16 AM | #

Vocally practicing birth-control takes away the racialist argument from Koreans and others. Nowhere in the original post does Matt say anything about wanting to procreate with Koreans. If this is true, and foreigners in Korea are getting harassed for wanting to have casual, consensual, non-procreative sex, their defense is simple. The next time a Korean comes up to you (a white man, for example) in the company of your Korean girlfriend and begins to tell her she is betraying her race, interrupt him and say, “Thank you for your interest in our relationship. At present we are practicing birth control and do not intend to disrupt your bloodlines...” If they continue to harass you, you could say, “I recently had a vasectomy,” or “I’m infertile” and then see where there argument goes…

Posted by Guessedworker on December 18, 2006, 09:29 AM | #

jdog250, you have proved only that you are superficial and unintellectual.  If personal experience ("you don’t see it") must be your to guide, move to Lagos or Joburg.  You wouldn’t last five minutes.

You wouldn’t last five minutes on the threads of “this site” either, come to that.

Lightweight!

Posted by Silly Sally on December 18, 2006, 09:31 AM | #

I love it.

Finally the mediocrities meet their superior.

Posted by hardyandtiny on December 18, 2006, 10:06 AM | #

and I say it to the guy too, I say it, I say hey, you I am tawking to you, I say it, I say it to the guy, I say hey i’m saying this to you, I’m saying this, I say what do you think about this and I look at the guy and i say it, i look right at the guy and I say, look guy, dogbert, look I’m saying this to you, and i just look at the guy and I say it like that, I say it to him, I don’t look around or something, i say it right to the guy, I look right at the guy and I say it I say it.

Posted by hardyandtiny on December 18, 2006, 10:12 AM | #

that guy should have looked right at dogbert, right at him and he should looked right at him, right at him and he should have said LOOK, WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH MY CONVERSATION WITH MY COUNTRYWOMAN!
I wish I was there!
I would have said that! really!

Posted by brock on December 18, 2006, 11:08 AM | #

Uh, so you are saying that because dogbert has a different nationality he ought to be value neutral on how they treat their women?  Do I own canadian women?  Am I more entitled to speak to them than someone else? 

Maybe, hardyandtiny, you are having a bad day?

Either way, I said that I had never touched a korean women, and was still assaulted.  But that clown still went on a rant about this and that.

This site is amazing!  You all need hero cookies.

Posted by hardyandtiny on December 18, 2006, 11:45 AM | #

what I’m saying brock is that if I was there and if I was that Korean guy I’d tell that dogbert guy to F##k off my woman! My woman from my country! Because he should just do that.
It’s what I would do, if I were that Korean guy, that’s what I would do, that’s what I would say.

Posted by Volksgenossen on December 18, 2006, 11:49 AM | #

“what I’m saying brock is that if I was there and if I was that Korean guy I’d tell that dogbert guy to F##k off my woman! My woman from my country! Because he should just do that.”

Yeah, she’s YOUR property, and damn her if she thinks otherwise!

Posted by Richardson on December 18, 2006, 12:41 PM | #

Hi, glad I found your site.

My racial make-up is 25 percent German, 25 percent African, 25 percent Japanese, and 25 percent Native American.

I’m chairman of a society to help preserve the unique genetic makeup of those like me; or as we refer to ourselves, Gerafasimans.

Sometime we hire couples to breed offspring (a German woman and African man, for example) to ensure we have enough stock to ensure our numbers at this critical time, but our numbers our growing, so not for long.

It is very important to us to preserve our racial pureness, which we have found to be far superior to mere Aryans. I would also like to commend you on your site, which is pretty good for someone of mere Euro ancestry.

Good luck,

Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society

Posted by jdog2050 on December 18, 2006, 01:21 PM | #

Richardson,

I am also, like you, of mixed heritage, Scottish, African, and Native American to be exact; and have also formed a society--Scafrinatican’s for the Preservation of Scafrinatican History; otherwise known as SftPSoH.  Perhaps our groups can work towards a mutual goal.  Creating a hybrid, ultra race of Scafrinatigerafisimans.  I believe our blood lines will create a telekinetic demi-god capable of creating entire universes.

Anyway, @guessedworker, I guess that wonderful euro bloodline did not give you the magical ability to see the point of other people’s arguments.  Again, I fucking live in Korea.  And again, the ills of any other society exist here.  But because of the northeast asian tendency towards discreetness, you simply do not see it.  So, has their pure, hermetic Korean bloodline allowed them to escape any of the problems the rest of us humans face?  No.  It’s quite the social study here--did you know that Koreans are the most homogenous, i.e., “pure” people on Earth?  And yet, the same fucked up shit goes on here as on the rest of the planet.

And did you even just bring up Lagos and Africa in General?  I’m sure I wouldn’t last in Lagos...or Russia, or the balkans in the 90’s.  Poor people are fucking violent, what is your point?

Posted by Al Ross on December 18, 2006, 02:26 PM | #

‘Scottish, African and Native American’?

Your non-White savage heredities account for the fact that you are obviously a mattoid.

Posted by Richardson on December 18, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

jdog2050,

Excellent proposal. I have two suggestions;

1) We begin work on co-opting/subjugating the white race immediate through intermarriage, and;

2) We call our movement the, “Alliance to Create One Coffee-Coloured World Race”

Regards,
Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society

Posted by Guessedworker on December 18, 2006, 02:50 PM | #

My point, dear fellow, is that you are too limited in intellect and emotional maturity to evaluate what is being said here.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 18, 2006, 03:43 PM | #

@Richardson,

I agree fully, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by Interracialist on December 18, 2006, 03:50 PM | #

“Generally, degree of mixed heritage increases the longer one’s ancestors have lived in the United States”. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_American_ancestries

In other words, most of you ‘white boys’ most certainly have Native American blood.  Need proof?  All right…

French-Americans (descendants of the first French people to settle in Canada and the US)

Today, they make up a significant percentage of the American population with some high concentration along the east coast.  So, it’s not unthinkable that most ‘white’ Americans could probably find some Acadian and Quebecois ancestors on their family trees (as they could also find some Irish, Scot, and German ancestors).  Now, Acadians and Quebecois are...brace yourselves...all descendants of Native Americans.  Yup.  It’s a commonly known fact that the first French settlers were mostly single men...well, single until they married Native American women, that is.  They had children, and their children had children...400 years later and here you are. 

I could also get into details about how many of you have African blood, but I’ll just leave you with this: some of the original French settlers were African slaves who married white women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_American

So, why would you be against something that put you on this earth?

Posted by jdog2050 on December 18, 2006, 04:07 PM | #

@guessedworker

...mmm...noooooo.

What I say is a rallying cry for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Majority rights people remind me of people who play Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft for all the wrong reasons--to feel like they are needed, and to satiate mild delusions of grandeur (notice my correct usage of large, multisyllabic words...am I mature yet?).  Problem is, D&D players put the dice away, and WoW players turn off the computer.

Did you know that “whiteness” as a concept, didn’t really exist until the early 1900’s?  You call for a “pride” in “whiteness” as a cultural concept, but it’s an entirely empty shell.  What is “whiteness”, when, really, the groups that would make up that term are comprised of cultures utterly different, and at times in history even antagonistic towards each other.

It’s as silly, shallow, and ultimately *disrespectful* towards cultural identity as the word African-american (which I am).  I’m fine with people being proud germans, proud italians, spaniard, even “American”.  But this idea of being proud for being white is ultimately meaningless, and immediately racist because it’s only definition is being “not brown”.

Damn that was good...think I’m gonna save this to a word file and just copy paste it to other ridiculous sites.

Posted by intra-racialist brute on December 18, 2006, 04:20 PM | #

“So, why would you be against something that put you on this earth? “

Because, retard, every generation of every people has their own set of genetic interests based on their genetic profile and not based upon how that profile was generated.

According to your “logic” the populations of, say, Puerto Rico and Mexico have no genetic interests at all because those populations are a mix of Iberian, African, and Amerindian.  According to your “logic” a Puerto Rican of mixed Spanish-African ancestry would lose no parental kinship by mating, and producing children with, a person of Chinese heritage.

Your “logic” is wrong on all counts.  The overall population of Puerto Rico, for example, has a set of genetic interests based on the average set of genetic information/ancestry of that genepool, and this gene pool would suffer a significant loss of genetic interests via immigration of genetically alien peoples or by signficant outmarriage of Puerto Ricans with immigrants of markedly different genetic heritage.

The same applies to individuals, a Eurafrican Puerto Rican would lose significant parental kinship by marrying a Chinese; in fact, since parental kinship would be optimal by marrying a fellow hybrid, even marriage to a representative of a pure strain of one of the parental stocks would also cause a loss of parental kinship, albeit less than that of marrying an East Asian.

Looking at the possibility that a fraction of white Americans MAY have some low level of inter-continental admixture in no way justifies further racial crossing.

By this “logic”, if you have a small dent on your car, the “rational” action is to drive recklessly so you smash up the entire vehicle.

Now, if you yourself are of mixed ancestry, one can understand your inability to reason as would a member of one of your parental strains, but, hopefully, after adequate explanation, things can be clearer even for you.

Posted by brute on December 18, 2006, 04:31 PM | #

“Damn that was good...think I’m gonna save this to a word file and just copy paste it to other ridiculous sites.”

It is not surprising that a member of a low IQ, high testosterone group has an inflated sense of self-esteem, uncoupled to any actual accomplishment, but your “damn that was good” is quite laughable.

Both genetics and physical anthropology separate humans into different races (’biogeographical population groups” for the politically correct and effete), and members of these groups are - despite these differences - more similar to each other than to other groups (as are dog breeds to each other).

Culturally, people with an understanding of history would divide humanity into various civilizations, of which one is “western” - you can debate Samuel Huntington on this, if you wish, but it is obvious to those white-skinned peoples who actually think before posting on the internet.

Further, your implication that intra-white hostilities in the past means that there is no intrinsic white identity would also lead you to believe that the history of conflict between all humans (including those of different races) means that there is no intrinsic identity of “human.”

And, of course, ethnic identities would be suspect; after all, “Germany” and “Italy” are, according to your train of “logic”, “recent creations”, and thus meaningless?

It is, after all, expected that a member of a minority group would have an interest in dividing members of the majority against each other, confusing identity.

Unfortunately for you, the IQ of the majority exceeds that of your people by at least one SD.

Posted by brutally brutal brute on December 18, 2006, 04:38 PM | #

Further, it is not the place of an “African-American” to preach to European-Americans ("whites") what our identity should or should not be.

That’s our right, based on our understanding of our history, culture, and ancestral background.

It is up to us, and not you, to decide what is, or is not, disrespectful to our cultures, and it is up to us, and not you, to decide with whom we feel a sense of biological and cultural kinship.

“and immediately racist because it’s only definition is being “not brown”.

No, you ignorant hybrid, the meaning here is “of European descent.”

Don’t you have anything better to do with your time - playing basketball, for example?

Posted by Volksgenossen on December 18, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

“Because, retard, every generation of every people has their own set of genetic interests based on their genetic profile and not based upon how that profile was generated.”

And what, pray tell, is a “genetic interest”? Care to define that phrase in a manner a geneticist would appreciate, or would you prefer to simply keep it as a meaningless but learned-sounding generality in a pompous effort to impress?

“It is not surprising that a member of a low IQ, high testosterone group has an inflated sense of self-esteem, uncoupled to any actual accomplishment, but your “damn that was good” is quite laughable.”

You’re one to talk! Not only do you have a low IQ, but you’re also obviously lacking both in testosterone AND any meaningful achievements whatsoever, otherwise you wouldn’t be so hung up on group “achievements” to cover up the lack of any to your own name. Let’s face it, you “majority rights” types are just a bunch of losers fetishizing your skin color to make yourselves feel better - “white” isn’t some kind of elite club one’s membership in automatically makes one any better than banjo-loving, Ozark-dwelling trailer trash.

Posted by banjolover on December 18, 2006, 04:56 PM | #

“Let’s face it, you “majority rights” types are just a bunch of losers fetishizing your skin color to make yourselves feel better - “white” isn’t some kind of elite club one’s membership in automatically makes one any better than banjo-loving, Ozark-dwelling trailer trash. “

Have you ever noticed what terrible snobs most “antiracists” are?  On the whole, it’s not racial harmony they care about but social exclusivity.

Posted by high IQ brute on December 18, 2006, 05:21 PM | #

“And what, pray tell, is a “genetic interest”?”

And what, pray tell, can we make of your apparent inability to open the link on the upper-left side of the blog’s home page, never mind your inability to “google” the phrase, and never mind your inability to search this blog’s archives for voluminous posts and commentaries on the concept?

Oh, wait, that’s right, you’re an idiot.

“Care to define that phrase in a manner a geneticist would appreciate...”

Nah..I’ll let Dr. Frank Salter, a political scientist at the Max Planck Institute do the honors for me.  See above.

“...or would you prefer to simply keep it as a meaningless but learned-sounding generality in a pompous effort to impress? “

You are confusing the brute with other MR participants.  Genetic interests are explained, as stated above, at various points on this blog and elsewhere and the explanations are available to anyone with a triple-digit IQ.

Sorry if they are not therefore available to you.

“Not only do you have a low IQ...”

Which, is of course, obvious from the content and style of my comments on this blog.  I certainly can’t compete with you, for example.

“...but you’re also obviously lacking both in testosterone...”

Well, yes, compared to members of r-selected ethnies known for high rates of criminal violence, my testosterone levels may be on the low side.

“..AND any meaningful achievements whatsoever..”

Certainly, I’ve never done any crack smoking, mugging, or carjacking, nor am I good at basketball, so I am ashamed at my lack of achievement.

“...otherwise you wouldn’t be so hung up on group “achievements” to cover up the lack of any to your own name.”

When have I made an issue of group achivements that I am affiliated with?  Your are just spewing forth the usual nonsense, un-connected to the actual content of this thread.

“Let’s face it, you “majority rights” types are just a bunch of losers fetishizing your skin color to make yourselves feel better...”

Let me know where I have emphasized phenotype, never mind the single phenotypic marker of skin color.  Conflating race to skin color - such as done by morons such as yourself and “jdog” (assuming you are two separate featherless bipeds), and parodied by the rest of us - is a leftist canard.

“white” isn’t some kind of elite club one’s membership in automatically makes one any better than banjo-loving, Ozark-dwelling trailer trash.”

Thus, you are a hateful, white-hating racist, spewing forth venom against rural white Americans who have every right to enjoy membership in a nation their forefathers founded.

Please note that the issue here is not one of superiority, or of ranking any group on phenotypic characters, but pursuit of group interests, of which genetic interests are the most important.

Posted by bemused brute on December 18, 2006, 05:31 PM | #

Perhaps “Volksgenossen” believes the following incoherent insanity is indicative of a high IQ:

“I am also, like you, of mixed heritage, Scottish, African, and Native American to be exact; and have also formed a society--Scafrinatican’s for the Preservation of Scafrinatican History; otherwise known as SftPSoH.  Perhaps our groups can work towards a mutual goal.  Creating a hybrid, ultra race of Scafrinatigerafisimans.  I believe our blood lines will create a telekinetic demi-god capable of creating entire universes.”

Of course, I admit the possibility that “jdog” is simply a WN (or some other bored person) making an amusing parody of a unbalanced hybrid.  If that is the case, hats off to him; I always enjoy a sarcastic parody.  If on the other hand, he is “sincere”, then well....

Speaking of parody, in response to this amusing comment by “Richardson”:

“jdog2050,

Excellent proposal. I have two suggestions;

1) We begin work on co-opting/subjugating the white race immediate through intermarriage, and;

2) We call our movement the, “Alliance to Create One Coffee-Coloured World Race”

Regards,
Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society”

“jdog” replied:

“@Richardson,

I agree fully, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.”

Now - hello GW - I think the case for a moderated comments forum is being made stronger than ever.

It seems to me that after MR’s attack on TIW, the signal-to-noise ratio here as gone in the toilet, and it is getting fairly difficult to distinguish between retarded “sincere” lunatics and parodying trolling.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 05:48 PM | #

To all self-hating racial engineers:

Fact one. Only a minority of whites supports immigration.

Fact two. Only a minority of whites has no pride.

Self-hating racial engineers represent a minority, just like the Oregon loggers. The loggers were determined to drive the spotted owl into extinction, claiming “property rights” and “individual rights”; but the majority was against. Democracy prevailed and the loggers lost.

Once we restore democracy, we’ll take care of your anti-white race hatred just like we took care of the loggers.

Group rights vs. individual rights

Racism is discrimination or prejudice based on race. Under international law all groups have a right to protect their identity (see Genocide Convention of 1948). Racism would occur if whites - and only whites - were denied this right. That would be discrimination (against a GROUP) and therefore racism. In contrast, allowing whites the same rights that all groups have is non-discriminatory and therefore non-racist.

Yet, anti-miscegeneation laws are discriminatory against INDIVIDUALS and that’s racism too. So the question becomes: Are laws against GROUP discrimination superior or subordinate to laws against INDIVIDUAL discrimination?

Laws against group discrimination are grounded in international treaties whereas those against individual discrimination are (mostly but not entirely) drawn from national law. Since treaties supercede national law, a group’s right to resist discrimination is superior to an individual’s.

All clear now?

Posted by Volksgenossen on December 18, 2006, 06:05 PM | #

“Have you ever noticed what terrible snobs most “antiracists” are?  On the whole, it’s not racial harmony they care about but social exclusivity.”

Damn right I’m a snob! I’ll take well-educated, well-traveled companions of any ethnic origin any day over racist trash like you lot with whom I happen to share the same skin color, and I make no apologies for it. I’m not going to spend my life around losers obsessed with race because they don’t have anything personally going for them.

And what, pray tell, can we make of your apparent inability to open the link on the upper-left side of the blog’s home page, never mind your inability to “google” the phrase, and never mind your inability to search this blog’s archives for voluminous posts and commentaries on the concept?

Written by a cretin so lacking in the capacity to define the vague terms he’s been pretentiously throwing about that he reaches for the red-herring of “just Google it!” as justification, as if a Google search on any term whatsoever couldn’t turn up dozens of mutually contradictory definitions.

You’re so stupid it’s a wonder you’re able to tie your shoes in the morning - if you had a brain and actually knew what you were talking about you’d just have supplied the definition yourself instead of spitting out the offal you did, but the fact is that it means absolutely nothing. You can name drop about Herr This at Institut That all day long, but until you can muster the minimal amount of energy required to put down what you mean in your words, I’ll have every reason to take you as just one more pompous, intellectually insecure gasbag with a racial fixation.

Posted by brute on December 18, 2006, 06:18 PM | #

Actually, I am not a geneticist and never claimed to be.  With respect to defining “genetic interests”, read the F*cking article under the “important issues” fold, you moron.

In case you are congenitally retarded and cannot open links, I’ll explain it so maybe your caretaker can understand it, and draw a picture for you to look at.

All organisms, including humans, have genetic variation.  Looking at human genetic variation, some fraction of that is randomly distributed between all humans, and some is “structured” so that it is distinctive between groups of people.

For example, a “family” is a group of people that share a greater number of distinctive alleles compared to other families.  Likewise, larger population groups share greater or lesser degrees of genetic similarity; at the simplest level this is measured by Fst, but at higher levels (not discussed by Salter) genetoic structure is involved.

The importance of this can be quoted from the article that you are unable to open:

“I begin with a qualitative argument based on evolutionary theory before introducing quantitative theory and data from population genetics.

From the neoDarwinian perspective the issue is whether being altruistic towards one’s ethny can be adaptive in the context of ethnic rivalry. Behavior is adaptive when it maintains or increases the frequency of one’s distinctive genes in the population. Rivalry can involve peaceful as well as violent means. The latter consist of armed conflict, including warfare both defensive and aggressive. Examples of peaceful means are competitive breeding (Parsons, 1998; 2000) and discrimination, for example in controlling borders and in economic affairs (Bonacich, 1973; Landa, 1994; Light & Karageorgis, 1994).

In neoDarwinian theory, genes are the basic unit of selection and humans are ‘survival machines’ evolved to perpetuate them into succeeding generations (Dawkins, 1976). Conversely, for humans and all other organisms, reproductive interest consists of perpetuating their distinctive genes (Hamilton, 1964). ‘[H]umans like other organism[s] are so evolved that their “interests” are reproductive. Said differently, the interests of an individual human (i.e., the directions of its striving) are expected to be toward ensuring the indefinite survival of its genes and their copies, whether these are resident in the individual, its descendants, or its collateral relatives. . . . ’ (Alexander, 1995/1985, p. 182). Thus genetic interests are the number of copies of our distinctive genes carried by reproducing individuals. Individual genetic interest is the number of copies carried by offspring. Familial genetic interest is carried by close kin, and ethnic genetic interest by one’s ethnic group. Genetic interests are often confused with ‘inclusive fitness.’ The latter concept was coined by Hamilton (1964) to describe his theory of altruism. It refers to the effect that an individual has on the reproduction of his distinctive genes, not to a static gene count. Thus a parent who has ceased reproducing and aiding her many offspring has no individual fitness. The two concepts are closely related, since an individual with positive fitness is acting so as to perpetuate his distinctive genes.”

Posted by smart brute on December 18, 2006, 06:33 PM | #

“I’m not going to spend my life around losers obsessed with race because they don’t have anything personally going for them.”

And yet, you are so threatened by the material on this website, that you are spending your precious time with “racist losers.” Why not go along and listen to your black friends talk about the latest grandmother they just mugged? 

“what you were talking about you’d just have supplied the definition yourself”

You need to explain to us brainless people why it is necessary for us to write a definition of something that is explained quite well in an already-written academic article linked to on this very blog?

Either you believe you are too stupid to understand the article, or you’ll find it too painful to understand how your entire worldview is entirely wrong, so you avoid anything that disrupts your small-minded conformist mindset in any way.

Here’s a brief definition:

Genetic interest: the copies of any organism’s (distinctive) genetic information, found in the organism itself, other organisms of the same type.  From a human perspective - the copies of a person’s or group’s distinctive genetic information found in oneself, one’s family members, co-ethnics, or others.  The actual “interest” one has in these levels of relative genetic differences or similarities is relative, in the sense that one needs to look at context.  For example, if the world were a single ethnic group, ethnic genetic interests would not exist, and all human genetic interests (distinctions) would be based on a personal or family level.

However, ethnic groups and races do exist, and these are important repositories of genetic interest. 

I can go on and further explain the concept, but what’s the point.  I obviously can do so, but there is no reason for me to state something already on the website.

If you are incapable of opening a link, your caretaker can do so, after spoonfeeding you your mush and changing your diapers.

Posted by patient teaching brute on December 18, 2006, 07:00 PM | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

Now let us look at this slowly, so even the retard’s caretaker can understand it.

Quote 1: “Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation.”

After all, that’s what life is ultimately about, passing down genetic information to the next generation.  OK, caretaker, wipe off his drool, and let us continue:

Quote 2: “As fitness measures the quantity of the copies of the genes of an individual in the next generation, it doesn’t really matter how the genes arrive in the next generation. That is, for an individual it is equally “beneficial” to reproduce itself, or to help relatives with similar genes to reproduce, as long as similar amount of copies of individual’s genes get passed on to the next generation.”

Right, and if does not matter HOW the genes are passed on, then it does not have to be just “relatives” in the immediate sense.  As long as we understand that all that is important is the relative quantity of genetic information (which, actually is more than just the mere copies of genes, but let us not confuse the caretaker with extra complexity now…), then these genes can be passed down by co-ethnics as well, since co-ethnics share more genes, over and above random gene sharing (*), than members of genetically more distant groups.

So, if co-ethnics tend to share more distinctive genetic information with you than others, and if fitness is defined as the (relative) quantity of that genetic information passed on in future generations, it is quite obvious that one has a greater genetic interest in peoples more genetically similar than more different; i.e., self > family > ethnic group > race > humanity > primates, etc.

Context is important as well, if you are equally genetically distant from two groups, but group A is demographically endangered, and group B is not, the genetic interest you have in group A becomes paramount, since it is in danger of being lost.  As well, larger groups, all else being equal, are larger stores of genetic interest than smaller, as there are more copies of distinctive genetic information there.

So: Relative concentration of distinctive genetic information x size of group, modified by context = genetic interests, which is related to “fitness” in its pure, biological definition.

OK, caretaker, draw a picture now.

(*) People share most of their genes with, say, tomatoes, but a tomato patch is not a genetic interest for a person.  Genetic information that is randomly distributed, and whose frequency would not change if one group or another is eliminated, is not a genetic interest.  If all tomatoes died off, the same genes would be shared at similar frequencies by, for example, strawberries, or potatoes, and would be more concentrated in apes and, of course, fellow humans.  Genetic interests are in that subset of genetic information that is distinctive and specific, at each level of comparison

I’ll go tie my shoes now

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 07:02 PM | #

Richards, “My racial make-up is 25 percent German, 25 percent African, 25 percent Japanese, and 25 percent Native American. I’m chairman of a society to help preserve the unique genetic makeup of those like me; or as we refer to ourselves, Gerafasimans.”

Gerafasimians? Pfft. Rent the movie “The Island of Dr. Moureau” if you want to see what really cool racial engineering looks like. Some of the racial engineering experiments in that movie have wings. Got that? Wings. In comparison, you gerafasimians are just wannabees.

Posted by cretinous brute on December 18, 2006, 07:05 PM | #

“Written by a cretin so lacking in the capacity to define the vague terms he’s been pretentiously throwing about”

has the cretin now defined the terms to the satisfaction of that fraction of the readership with a cranial capacity greater than 600 cc?

Posted by Richardson on December 18, 2006, 11:12 PM | #

Stephen,

Well, we may breed with aliens soon, so not only will the White Race be mixed with others, but extraterestrial DNA as well.

Resistance is futile,

Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society

Posted by Sambo Heil 88 on December 18, 2006, 11:24 PM | #

Your nefarious plan will never succeed, Richardson! The noble association of Gay Ethiopian Female Jewish members of the KKK will oppose you at every step!!

Posted by Alien Force Commander on December 19, 2006, 12:08 AM | #

Richardson,

The vast islamofascist-hitler-nazi conspiracy has retaliated by broadcasting Susan Estrich at our home planet:

We believe they are plotting to kvetch us out of the galaxy. We have no choice but to withdraw to defend our home planet. Sorry and good luck.

Best regards,
Alien Force Commander

Posted by Lurker on December 19, 2006, 12:11 AM | #

jdog2050, you wrote “God, you typed, maybe, 3 sentences, and I just ripped you to shreds.  I have officially pwned this site.  Good day to you.”

“pwned” hmmm. I presume you meant ‘owned’, still its the thought that counts. You thought that you would inform us that you are the sort of person that actually uses the term ‘owned’. I bet you write ‘lol’ a lot too, even when you and the person you are communicating with have not typed anything funny - ever.

As someone (Geoff Beck) once said, automatically deduct 10 points from the IQ of anyone who wears a baseball cap the wrong way round. The online equivalent is of course using the term ‘owned’.

Posted by Al Ross on December 19, 2006, 12:29 AM | #

Without the cultural contibutions of pariahs like jdog2050 the art of bubble-gum snapping might be lost forever.

Posted by 1337 on December 19, 2006, 12:38 AM | #

jdog2050: omg lol dude wtf lurker pwned u

Posted by Botswana Jadeena Osterreich Zundel Sean Hannity Co on December 19, 2006, 01:25 AM | #

Take that, ET! Chalk up another victory to the GBLT KKK of color!

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 03:46 AM | #

“So, why would you be against something that put you on this earth? “

Because, retard, every generation of every people has their own set of genetic interests based on their genetic profile and not based upon how that profile was generated. “

Oh, so now I’m a retard?  Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

Let me stoop to your level for a second...What have you personally achieved that would make sperm banks lineup to pay you hefty sums of money for a dixie cup of your ‘genetic profile’? 

Puerto Ricans, to take your example, come in all colours, shapes, and sizes.  And for that reason, if they had any interest in protecting what is theirs, it would be their language and culture, not their ‘genetic interest’.

Posted by fencerider on December 19, 2006, 04:09 AM | #

Card-carrying miscegenist here and proud of it.  I think it was a Seinfeld episode I heard the real truth of the matter:  “to hell with the rest of the world, I can make my own people.”

Sounds like that Korean guy in Australia was just a little frustrated that he was in a bar and couldn’t get his wickywacked by a hot blonde sheila while he saw how well the whitey at the bar was progressing he wanted to attempt blatant cockblocking by playing the ‘oorinarayeoja’ (our countrywoman) card.  And if that aforementioned sheila would have taken him home and rocked his stiffy we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Posted by Al Ross on December 19, 2006, 05:28 AM | #

Admittedly, one can learn a little about Jewish tribal attitudes from watching Seinfeld and ‘fencerider’, whether he knows it or not, has gleaned a nugget from watching this particular show on talmudvision.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 19, 2006, 05:59 AM | #

oh, well now this site is just becoming comedy gold.  Someone up above mentioned that the moderator start filtering people?  Seriously, if this is the worst “forum war” you’ve ever had, you need to lurk more.

I think we’re all just trying to understand the position of the people on this site.  Which, to me, as stated before, sounds like you’re all trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

I’ll ask 2 questions, in all seriousness, which I’d like to see answered.

1.  If all “white” people, or even culturally/ethnically related people were placed in one area, only bred with each other, and not allowed contact with other races, etc, what physical or genetic superiority would arise out of this?  Has it not been shown, constantly in the animal kingdom, that genetic bottlenecks only create a group that is more susceptible to external and internal diseases and physical flaws?

2.  What is to say that even if left in genetic and cultural isolation, a cultural/genetic group would not develop the exact same social ills as those present throughout the world today with all of it’s melting-potism?

3. (optional) Why do you, as a person, have such a vested interest in the personal lives of others?

P.s.
Someone pointed out my use of the word “pwn”.  It’s a joke douchebag, welcome to the interwebs.

Posted by The Western Confucian on December 19, 2006, 07:11 AM | #

Right you are, Svyatoslav Igorevich!

I’m a White American living in Korea, and I, too, am disgusted by these self-described “despoiler[s] of Korean maidenhood” who insist that “Korea will join the 21st century on the issue of inter racial dating.”

In the grand “sexual politics” tradition, these globalist despoilers are trying to elevate their sexual liaisons to some great geopolitical plane. Perhaps these sex Jacobins see themselves as doing their small part to help the Wilsonian endeavor to bring Democrazy to the world, or to “Take Up the White’s Man’s Burdon” where that vile progressivist imperialist poet left off.

That said, I’m a Steve Sailor-esque “citizenist” who sees both nationalism and globalism as just more baggage from the vile French Revolution. I am a localist, as everyone used to be. I have dual loyaties: my native Upstate New York and my adopted Yeongnam.

Posted by Luch on December 19, 2006, 09:02 AM | #

First came a relatively reasonable discourse between the author and matt, then a rather big chunk of stuff from lame morons, and right at the end, a sensible comment. Such irony.

Posted by brute on December 19, 2006, 10:24 AM | #

You know, things have reached the point of absurdity.  No matter how many times one says the issue is not one of “superiority” or “achievement” or “color”, but the legitimate rights of group preservation and genetic interests, those unable to open a link and read keep on trolling here.

Very well, use your bloodlines to create a “telekinetic” demigod who can “create universes.”

There you go.  That’s serious.  Peer-reviewed academic articles are, of course, not.

By the way, with respect to Puerto Ricans, I mentioned the gene pool as a whole, and I mentioned individual Puerto Ricans, with an example being a Eurafrican one.  Obviously, Puerto Ricans of different ancestries have different genetic interests, a pretty good reason right there not to build a society on extensive miscegenation.

Let’s take selected quotes from my original statement:

“The overall population of Puerto Rico, for example...”

Note: “overall population”

“...has a set of genetic interests based on the average set of genetic information/ancestry of that genepool...”

Note: “average set of genetic information”

“...outmarriage of Puerto Ricans with immigrants of markedly different genetic heritage.”

Note: markedly different heritage than the Puerto Rican average gene pool - no where has it been declared that this gene pool is homogenous.

“The same applies to individuals...”

Note: “individuals”

For example: “...a Eurafrican Puerto Rican would lose significant parental kinship by marrying a Chinese...”

To which the reply was:
“Puerto Ricans, to take your example, come in all colours, shapes, and sizes.  And for that reason, if they had any interest in protecting what is theirs, it would be their language and culture, not their ‘genetic interest’. “

Thus, the “reply” is completely disconnected to the text of my comment.  Stop sniffing glue, it is damaging your “brain.”

Posted by Retew on December 19, 2006, 10:57 AM | #

Am I the only one thinks that this site is increasingly blighted by insults and ad hominems, such as the final comment above (though there are others in this thread)?

A polite request; please guys, knock it off. It is my belief that you can have serious and productive debate or you can have the knockabout “fun” of throwing around insults, flames and ad hominems, but you can’t have both.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 19, 2006, 11:57 AM | #

I second that, Retew.  Thank you.

Please all, if you have something intelligent and useful to contribute to the thread you are welcome here.  If you haven’t, please do not post.  We are unmoderated here because it is my instinct to trust the good in people.  Please do not abuse that trust.  There are many fora where pointless “noise” is apparently welcomed.  MR is not one of them.

Posted by re-tew bru-te on December 19, 2006, 12:54 PM | #

The following was written before GW’s latest comment, but the points still stand:

Retew, if you think you can do a better job and with more civility, you are welcome to take over this thread.

The real problem is the unwillingness of the powers-that-be here to exert any quality control over the blog’s content.  Scroll up and look at the initial by-play between “jdog” and “Richardson,” which preceded my first comment here.  Is that the harbinger of any sort of productive debate?

With all due respect to GW, he confuses the public right to free speech with a private obligation to listen to everything and anything.  Take the Mike Richards-"Kramer" incident for example.  Richards had every right to his public “racist tirade.” However, I think we all agree that a black family has no obligation to have to listen to the same tirade on their public property?  That’s part of freedom of association.

It seems that people here are over-compensating because of their negative experiences at GNXP.  The difference is that GNXP will ban/delete based on the ideological content of the argument, while what I am saying is to look at the style of the argument (or, more often, non-argument) or silly trolling comments, and do the right thing at that point.

For example, let’s look at miscegenation.  When Alon Ziv showed up here we were all happy – nay, eager! – to engage him and we wanted more of his participation, certainly not to ban/delete him.  On the other hand, what do you do when people start talking about breeding bloodlines to make “telekinetic demigods capable of creating universes?” What do you do when individuals respond to detailed counter-arguments invoking genetic interests by either completely ignoring the riposte or by repeating like a broken record “define genetic interests, cretin” – while, all the time, Salter’s original article is sitting there linked at the front page, and that fact is made clear?

Answer: you tell the people to be serious and argue in good faith, or leave.  Put your finger on the “ban button.” That is no violation of free speech; these people are free either to re-state their “argument” in a mature fashion, or to start their own blog.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 19, 2006, 01:08 PM | #

Alright, fine, still, I asked 3 questions, have yet to be answered:

1.  If all “white” people, or even culturally/ethnically related people were placed in one area, only bred with each other, and not allowed contact with other races, etc, what physical or genetic superiority would arise out of this?  Has it not been shown, constantly in the animal kingdom, that genetic bottlenecks only create a group that is more susceptible to external and internal diseases and physical flaws?

2.  What is to say that even if left in genetic and cultural isolation, a cultural/genetic group would not develop the exact same social ills as those present throughout the world today with all of it’s melting-potism?

3. (optional) Why do you, as a person, have such a vested interest in the personal lives of others?

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 01:48 PM | #

brute,

How is that reply disconnected?  You claimed they have a ‘genetic interest’ to protect, to which I countered that, if anything, they cherrish their cultural heritage.

Obviously, you’re projecting your own views onto them to create the illusion that you’re justified in your beliefs, that it’s only tit for tat, a response to dreamt up racism against whites.  “Look at the Puerto Ricans, they hate the white.  They don’t want us to marry their kind.”

“Stop sniffing glue, it’s damaging your brain”?  Man, you’re an open book.  Any psychologist will tell you that such attacks illustrate a certain lack of confidence in what you have to say.

PS.  You still haven’t answered my question.

Posted by ben tillman on December 19, 2006, 01:51 PM | #

Why do you, as a person, have such a vested interest in the personal lives of others?

Politics and life in general are team sports.  The “others” are part of our team, part of ourselves.

Posted by why doesn't retew answer? on December 19, 2006, 01:56 PM | #

1. It probably doesn’t matter how may times we repeat it, but the preservationist impulse has nothing to do with “claims” of “superiority.” It does have much to do with the desire for the continuity of one’s people, in the total sense, and, in particular, looking at fundamentals, genetic interests:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/egi

There is in fact no evidence for any benefit from crossings between wide racial divides that would result in an increase in real fitness (*); even if you wish to define “fitness” in a sloppy, layman’s, Zivian fashion, there is still no clear evidence, weighing all the costs and benefits, of a net positive increase in naïve “fitness” through wide miscegenation, AND this topic has already been discussed in detail, which is why most here are completely ignoring your comments:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/david_b_on_interracial_marriage/
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_health_consequences_of_race_mixing/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

2. Every society has its problems, the obvious point is that the extent of these problems is different in varying societies, with race and diversity being factors.  With respect to diversity, of all kinds, itself:

Even a liberal, pro-diversity academic admits the damage it causes:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2584c7b6-56ea-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
and engages in desperate hand-waving to find a “solution”

See here, especially the graph:
http://foster.20megsfree.com/444.htm

This fits into the pattern as well:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=88828

And current news about increasing USA crime rates linked to “youth gang resurgence”, “career criminals leaving prison” and “youths with guns” makes one suspect that they are not talking about rural whites from the “Ozarks.”

3. You are mixed up.  It is not we who are pushing ourselves into other’s lives; we believe in freedom of association, based on informed choices, in the free market of ideas.  It are, instead, the purveyors of “diversity” who – backed by right and left globalist elites – are pushing multiracialism and multiculturalism on people, enforcing integration, promoting miscegenation, etc. 

(*) a previous comment, stripped of the “ad hominem”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)
Quote 1: “Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation.”
After all, that’s what life is ultimately about, passing down genetic information to the next generation. 
Quote 2: “As fitness measures the quantity of the copies of the genes of an individual in the next generation, it doesn’t really matter how the genes arrive in the next generation. That is, for an individual it is equally “beneficial” to reproduce itself, or to help relatives with similar genes to reproduce, as long as similar amount of copies of individual’s genes get passed on to the next generation.”
Right, and if does not matter HOW the genes are passed on, then it does not have to be just “relatives” in the immediate sense.  As long as we understand that all that is important is the relative quantity of genetic information then these genes can be passed down by co-ethnics as well, since co-ethnics share more genes, over and above random gene sharing, than members of genetically more distant groups.
So, if co-ethnics tend to share more distinctive genetic information with you than others, and if fitness is defined as the (relative) quantity of that genetic information passed on in future generations, it is quite obvious that one has a greater genetic interest in peoples more genetically similar than more different; i.e., self > family > ethnic group > race > humanity > primates, etc.
Context is important as well, if you are equally genetically distant from two groups, but group A is demographically endangered, and group B is not, the genetic interest you have in group A becomes paramount, since it is in danger of being lost.  As well, larger groups, all else being equal, are larger stores of genetic interest than smaller, as there are more copies of distinctive genetic information there.
So: Relative concentration of distinctive genetic information x size of group, modified by context = genetic interests, which is related to “fitness” in its pure, biological definition.
Note: no claims of “superiority” enter this definition.

Now, Retew, you take over.

Posted by why doesn't retew answer? on December 19, 2006, 02:12 PM | #

“Any psychologist will tell you that such attacks illustrate a certain lack of confidence in what you have to say. “

No.  That is simply frustration at your seeming inability to follow a logical argument.

Here is what I mean.  I quote you, and demonstrate that you cannot follow the argument:

“You claimed they have a ‘genetic interest’ to protect, to which I countered that, if anything, they cherrish their cultural heritage.”

You are incapable of distinguishing between positive/descriptive statements, and normative/prescriptive statements. 

Yes, Puerto Ricans do have an interest in genetic continuity - that is a normative statement based on the combination of a) genetic data (itself descriptive/positive), and b) values - that fitness and continuity is of value (a value which you or anyone else are free to disagree with, if you believe that fitness is irrelevant).

Now, if you argue that Puerto Ricans “cherrish” (sic) their culture, while ignoring their genetic interests, you may well be right.  I never said that Puerto Ricans DO pursue the genetic interests (descriptive) but that it would be in their best interests to behave in that fashion (prescriptive).

NOWHERE in my argument did I say that “Look at the Puerto Ricans, they hate the white.  They don’t want us to marry their kind.”

To imply that you are either a liar or incapable of understanding an adult argument (sorry, retew, thems the facts).

To put it simply so you can understand: Puerto Ricans have genetic interests in their individual and group genetic continuity (descriptive statement).  To pursue these genetic interests - which would be the adaptive, “fit” choice - they should eschew both alien immigration and outmarriage (prescriptive statement).  Whether or not they do so is another matter (descriptive), and whether or not they do or do not act in a maladaptive fashion does not logically imply that whites must act similarly.

“Obviously, you’re projecting your own views onto them to create the illusion that you’re justified in your beliefs”

As I have just explained, this comment is absurd.  If I said that Puerto Ricans WERE behaving in a Salterian fashion, and if you could prove they were not, you would be correct.  I merely state that they SHOULD behave in such a fashion - and that distinction is quite clear in my initial comment.

By question, I presume you mean this:
“Let me stoop to your level for a second...What have you personally achieved that would make sperm banks lineup to pay you hefty sums of money for a dixie cup of your ‘genetic profile’? “

I am not asking sperm banks to “lineup to pay me”, so the question is completely irrelevant.  If I were asking for such a payment, I would need to answer, but this is not the case.

In response, one can ask why you so eager to mongrelize humanity?

Posted by ben tillman on December 19, 2006, 02:27 PM | #

If all “white” people, or even culturally/ethnically related people were placed in one area, only bred with each other, and not allowed contact with other races, etc, what physical or genetic superiority would arise out of this?

They would adapt to their environment:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html

Biologist Ernst Mayr sees the species as a small gene pool protected from too much variability by a reproductive barrier. In other words, the species is a population adapted to a certain niche, and if the members of different species could interbreed with each other, too much genetic variability would occur, reducing the success of the adaptation. “The basic biological purpose of the species,” says Mayr, “is the protection of a harmonious gene pool.”

Posted by Guessedworker on December 19, 2006, 02:45 PM | #

jdog,

One does not require a particularly large gene pool to contain quite enough within-group diversity for there to be no negative inbreeding characteristics.  In any case, there are genetic clines as well as clusters, and gene flow between genetically close populations is a normal experience.  Flow between genetically distant populations is not.

I would add that there are no fabulous benefits for European genetic populations from the latter.  We will not sink into oblivion without the wonders of negroid or mongoloid genes in our blood.

Regarding the social ills of the West, this is a rather large question.  From where did these ills arise?  Not from nature, obviously, and not hrough any kind of single line or course of human progress.  No such line or course exists.

Very quickly then, let’s start with an acknowledgement that adaptive behaviours, ie sociobiologically-derived mores, are largely synonimous with those in Western society that are called socially conservative.

This does not apply only to the West, of course.  If you take the social pathologies of black societies in Western countries it is perfectly sensible to conclude that the Western urban environment is destructive of these peoples’ sociobiologically-derived mores, ie those developed over a hundred-thousand years or more of high-r tribal village life in Africa.

However, in itself the unnaturalness or maladaptiveness of modern Western environments only really falls into the category of a true observation.  These damaging environments did not come about though accident or bad luck.  Good was engineered into bad, or unnaturalness, by many factors, of which the exercise of political, military, economic and cultural power was by no means the least.

And that’s the fundamental problem that all - all ... left, right, black, white, brown - who are interested in issues of power and society and who sense themselves disadvantaged in some way by them, are struggling to resolve, both in our own understanding and in fact.

So, although it may seem an obvious, rather reflexive statement that social ills are not natural end-products but the consequences of many often purely political, maladaptive choices, that is the case.

Your question, then, would better be phrased: Who’s to say that social groups living more adaptively, according to their long-derived mores, will not develop the same social ills we see about us now?

In which case, I hope you can see that it is not a sensible question to ask.

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

Please.  I’m more than capable of following your arguments.  I’d tell you what I do for a living, but that is besides the point.

What gets you going is that I call them for what they are: distortions and half-truths.  Although you can articulate your points with a certain amount of success, the ideas themselves have little weight. 

Prescriptive and descriptive?  My, my, such big words.  You sure showed me.  If I wasn’t so naive, I’d think that was a sorry attempt at an ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ .

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 03:13 PM | #

tillman,

Since there is only one species of humans, Homo Sapiens, that’s a moot point.  The theory that you refer to concerns interspecies comparisons, and thus is not meant to be applied to different populations of the same species.

Posted by Alien Force Commander on December 19, 2006, 03:21 PM | #

Actually, Africans are just Sand People from Tatooine without the robes. Some of them hitched a ride on our Star Destroyer when we came to Earth a couple million years ago to kill the dinosaurs. Sorry you white folks had to clean up that mess, our bad.

Posted by where are retew's civilized comments? on December 19, 2006, 03:35 PM | #

“I’m more than capable of following your arguments.”

No.  You have clearly demonstrated otherwise.

“What gets you going is that I call them for what they are: distortions and half-truths.”

You can “call” them whatever you want, but everyone is noticing that you cannot refute them.

“Although you can articulate your points with a certain amount of success, the ideas themselves have little weight. “

Because you say so.  That is not an argument.  If the ideas “have little weight” one wouldn’t need to “refute” them in such an absurd manner.

“Prescriptive and descriptive?  My, my, such big words.  You sure showed me. “

That’s not an argument.  This is simply the juvenile response of someone too graceless to admit they have lost an argument.

Let me explain to the challenged a practical example of prescriptive vs. descriptive arguments.  I’ll try not to use “big words”:

Data suggest that cigarette smoking contributes to cancer and heart disease - descriptive, as, is describing something.

A longer healthier life is more important than whatever enjoyment people derive from smoking - that is a values statement, which is, of course, subjective.

Therefore, people who smoke should quit and those who do not smoke should not start - prescriptive, that is, prescribing a course of action.

Now, those words aren’t “too big”, are they?

Let’s see how this applies to the example that you demonstrated an incapacity to understand:

Puerto Ricans have specific sets of group and individual genetic information that constitute genetic interests - a description

I believe that the pursuit of these genetic interests is something that Puerto Ricans should do, since I believe that enhancing biological fitness is a good thing, and central to life - an expression of subjective values

Therefore, Puerto Ricans are best served by pursuing their genetic interests, and I encourage them to do so - prescription

You can make all the asinine comments you wish, but it does not change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, GW’s refusal to “do the right thing” here is, to my mind, remarkably disturbing.  Remarkably.

Posted by hey, where's retew? on December 19, 2006, 03:39 PM | #

“The theory that you refer to concerns interspecies comparisons, and thus is not meant to be applied to different populations of the same species.”

Subspecies can be adapted to particular niches as well as species.  Indeed, since some species can inter-breed, the difference is questionable.

Posted by warning! big words! on December 19, 2006, 03:47 PM | #

http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil440/hdnorm.htm

meanwhile:
“Actually, Africans are just Sand People from Tatooine without the robes. Some of them hitched a ride on our Star Destroyer when we came to Earth a couple million years ago to kill the dinosaurs. Sorry you white folks had to clean up that mess, our bad”

Yeah guys, the reason why KMacD and others won’t post here is that, well, yeah, you are just TOO controversial!

After all, a guy who testified for David Irving would find a blog just too controversial.

It has, nothing, of course, to do with the abysmal quality of the comments threads.

Posted by Zionist Conspiracy Overlord on December 19, 2006, 03:55 PM | #

Actually, it’s because we’ve brainwashed Dr. McDonald and turned him away from his WN allies. That’s why he refuses to join forces with MR. See, this is the last bastion of White resistance against the Insidious Sneaky Gordian Jewish Worm! Resistance is futile, europeans! Your ethnic genetic interests are doomed!

Posted by hey, retew on December 19, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Let’s remember the quote from the definition of biological fitness:
“As fitness measures the quantity of the copies of the genes of an individual in the next generation, it doesn’t really matter how the genes arrive in the next generation.”

So, that is, given human genetic variation, people will have increased fitness by increased representation in future generations of people more similar genetically to themselves.  This of course includes family, but also ethnies.

So, let us look at the chain here.  Genetic differences, relative differences in genetic similarity exist, all along the continuum of ancestry.  Given “fitness” differences in the relative concentration of non-random genetic information can be considered an “interest”, since it is directly related to fitness.

The only question that remains is one of values.  If someone has no consideration of their fitness and adopts the view that “life has no interests”, then the existence of genetic interests (an objective fact) will be meaningless to them.  Very well, and one cannot debate values by citing facts.  Of course, such a person, believing that “life has no interests” would be hard-pressed to defend any choice as being “better” or “worse” than any other, from the human perspective; if “life has no interests” then what difference does it make?

If however, you believe that fitness is important and that life does have an interest in its own continuity, and that it is reasonable to care about fitness, than a pursuit of genetic interests is the logical conclusion.

In other words, as both Salter and David B (foes that they may be) realized the only argument against genetic interests is “who cares?” The “problem” there is that those who do not care do not have the right to interfere with those who do care.  The pursuit of some trivial proximate interest, with no impact on fitness, should not trump the desire of others to pursue their basic biological fitness needs.

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 04:09 PM | #

“Subspecies can be adapted to particular niches as well as species.  Indeed, since some species can inter-breed, the difference is questionable.”

You’re stretching it a bit.  He’s obviously talking about cows not being able to breed with flounders because the offspring not survive in either of the parents’s niches.

Species who can breed with others are closely related and their hybrid offspring are generally sterile because their chromosomes do not line up.

Posted by civil retew on December 19, 2006, 04:10 PM | #

By the way, I’m NOT posting these:
“Actually, it’s because we’ve brainwashed Dr. McDonald and turned him away from his WN allies. That’s why he refuses to join forces with MR. See, this is the last bastion of White resistance against the Insidious Sneaky Gordian Jewish Worm! Resistance is futile, europeans! Your ethnic genetic interests are doomed!

Posted by Zionist Conspiracy Overlord on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 03:55 PM | #”

That’s someone else.

Whether they are doing it because they agree about quality control. or are just mocking the fact that there is no such control, I have no idea.

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 04:28 PM | #

retew, you obviously don’t get sarcasm or Latin.

“Prescriptive and descriptive?  My, my, such big words.  You sure showed me.  If I wasn’t so naive, I’d think that was a sorry attempt at an ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ .”

You need to learn to read behond the confines of the sentence and consider at each paragraph as a cohesive text.

Hint: I was pointing out that you were using, yet again, a logical fallacy.

As for me not wanting to mention what I do for a living, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that had I done so, I would have made the same error that you commited by using such ‘big words’ (obviously, I was being sarcastic because I felt ridicule was the appropriate response to such an obvious use of an argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy).

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 19, 2006, 04:33 PM | #

Am I the only one thinks that this site is increasingly blighted by insults and ad hominems, such as the final comment above (though there are others in this thread)?

A polite request; please guys, knock it off. It is my belief that you can have serious and productive debate or you can have the knockabout “fun” of throwing around insults, flames and ad hominems, but you can’t have both.

Is this comment a joke? What really detracts more from the level of debate at this site: A. One throwaway insult at the end of a long, well-argued post by Brute, or B. A multitude of trolls who have yet to make a single substantive point between them?

Let’s get serious here. It’s wholly possible to have a productive debate with an occasional insult thrown in, so long as the debaters A. argue in good faith, and B. don’t let the insults take the place of meaningful, logically sound arguments.

It is *not* possible to have a productive debate with an army of trolls who do use ad hominems in place of an actual argument, and refuse to argue in good faith.

To put it simply, what would make for a more productive debate? A thread entirely full of Brutes or a thread entirely full of interracialists, jdogs, and volks?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 19, 2006, 04:40 PM | #

Interracialist, do you have an ethnic genetic interest?

Posted by ben tillman on December 19, 2006, 04:40 PM | #

Species who can breed with others are closely related and their hybrid offspring are generally sterile because their chromosomes do not line up.

Ligers and tigons are not sterile.  Nor are the mixed offspring of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and foxes.  But that’s beside the point.  Cows and flounders or Europeans and Africans, the principal is the same.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 19, 2006, 04:55 PM | #

jdog,

I’ll answer your questions. Please answer my riddle in return,

“All white haters agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All white haters also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is a white hater?”

Question 1:"If all “white” people, or even culturally/ethnically related people were placed in one area, only bred with each other, and not allowed contact with other races, etc, what physical or genetic superiority would arise out of this?  Has it not been shown, constantly in the animal kingdom, that genetic bottlenecks only create a group that is more susceptible to external and internal diseases and physical flaws?”

The answer to the first part is none. No physical/genetic superiority arises out of isolation except via natural evolutionary processes that are too slow to be significant.

The answer to the second part is that it has been shown that small populations are subject to regression, not large ones. Specifically, Jews, owing to their culture’s formidable resistance to assimilation, have managed to inbreed all manner of unique genetic diseases into themselves, such as Tay-Sachs. Yet, the populations around them haven’t because they had sufficient numbers.

The answer to the unwritten question, “are you interested in developing genetic and physical superiority?” No. Those who are call themselves “eugenicists” and their plans involve selective breeding, not cross breeding. I am against all racial engineering, particularly since screw-ups are paid for by innocent children, not by the delusional racial engineers who are responsible for them.

(A minor point. You place “white” in quotes. Why? White is very well defined in legislation that discriminates against us, such as affirmative racism. It’s only when we object to racism that white haters - being unable to justify their race hatred - play dumb and pretend there is no “white”. Too bad we’re not dumb enough to forget that, when it comes to shafting us, nobody has any problem whatsoever defining us.)

Question 2: “What is to say that even if left in genetic and cultural isolation, a cultural/genetic group would not develop the exact same social ills as those present throughout the world today with all of it’s melting-potism?”

Well, take for example the fact that an election in any American big city is simply a racial census. Everyone engages in ethnic block voting. In the democratic ideal, people vote for policies and competence. In our democratic farce, people vote straight ethnic loyalties - not politcal policy or competence. Result: Our large cities are corrupt third world shitholes. An American is far more likely to be murdered in Chicago than Baghdad.

And don’t get me going about the racial extortion coalitions that form to carve up whites and divvy the spoils - welfare transfers, affirmative racism, anti-white job quotas, political correctness, slandering our “dead white male” heritage, subsidies to minority colonies in Palestine, etc. You name it, they’re doing it to us.

I’ll add that racially engineered populations with enough critical mass form a new group that can be very hostile to its parent group. Look into what’s happened in Haiti since the French were wiped out and the mulattos were left to fight it out with the pure blacks. Two centuries on, Haitian blacks and mulattos are basically two tribes locked in perpetual war.

None of the social ills I have described so far would even exist absent mixed race populations.

(A minor point. You must mean throughout the western world plus S America. I’m astonished that an Asia-phile would talk about “world” melting-potism. Haven’t you been to Asia yet? It’s nothing like manga - nobody has red, green or purple hair in Asia. Nobody. Unlike us, they have democracies over there so the people get what they want: no immigration (google up “Japan” “annual immigration").

Question 3. “(optional) Why do you, as a person, have such a vested interest in the personal lives of others?”

Because “others” add up to form a society and I happen to live in one. Moreover, when these “others” are mixed race offspring, these “others” WILL join and support the racial extortion coalition in order to draw benefit from the harm they do to my children with affirmative racism, job quotas, ethnic block voting etc etc.

And - here’s the best part - their white parent will join the racial extortion coalition as well! Once a white person has a mixed race child, that’s where their loyalties go - toward promoting more racial engineering so that their entire extended family - fellow whites - can get shafted even harder!

Ok your turn. Note that I have even answered your optional question. Now please answer my riddle:

“All white haters agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All white haters also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is a white hater?”

I look forward to your reponse.