Leftist White Supremacy: not in my name

Posted by Interracialist on December 19, 2006, 05:19 PM | #

tillman,

Male ligers and tigons are sterile.  The hybrid offspring of wolves, dogs, coyotes generally aren’t generally sterile, but I thought I had made that clear in my previous post that such hybrids were a possibility.

Cows and flounders are two different species.  Africans and Europeans are not… Besides, many, if not most, Europeans have African genes (those Moors sure got around).

Posted by interracial retard brute on December 19, 2006, 05:24 PM | #

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdVerecundiam

There is no appeal to authority in any of my arguments.  There is a logical chain of analysis.

Here’s a new fallacy for you: claiming an argument is a fallacy without bothering to demonstrate in what way the argument is wrong.

Call it the interracialistretard fallacy.

“by using such ‘big words’

Using the words “prescriptive” and “descriptive” is somehow a logical fallacy?  An appeal to authority?  Should we restrict ourselves to your level of reading material - the children’s section of the library - in order to avoid this dreaded “fallacy?”

Again, then using “big latin words” to falsely accuse someone of “appeal to authority” is itself “appeal to authority.”

We all notice your continued inability to actually refute any arguments made against you.  Juvenile sarcasm and shooting off accusations of “fallacies” does not constitute a refutation.

Posted by ben tillman on December 19, 2006, 05:42 PM | #

Male ligers and tigons are sterile.

May I take that as a concession that the females are NOT?

The hybrid offspring of wolves, dogs, coyotes generally aren’t generally sterile, but I thought I had made that clear in my previous post that such hybrids were a possibility.

Right.  A possibility, not a commonplace.

Cows and flounders are two different species.  Africans and Europeans are not.

That’s a matter of opinion, but irrelevant as the principle applies equally to subspecies.

Besides, many, if not most, Europeans have African genes (those Moors sure got around).

What do you mean by “African gene”?  Anyway, humans are full of onion genes.  Or is it the other way around?  No matter.

Are you really alleging that natural selection has not worked to select more “harmonious” combinations of genetic structures for different environments?  Could you really be arguing that?

Posted by my english degree is a sham on December 19, 2006, 10:11 PM | #

This discussion is seriously, the saddest thing ever witnessed on Earth. Sadder than the dying chirp of a baby bird peirced by a automatic rifles bullet.

All this talk of genetic purity, whiteness, and social/cultural right is absurd.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT KOREANS FORCING KOREANS TO MATE WITH KOREANS! This is about individuals rights, if a Korean girl wants to have a relationship with a male from any land mass or body of water, it’s here perogative. If a majority of Korean males are concerned for Korean females dating outside their “race”, if Korean is in fact a race and not a local identifier, then they should spread they seeds forth into other cultures. Maybe, it’s that Korean males are desirable to Korean females. OR MAYBE IT’S JUST STUPID AND DULL TO START SOME BULLSH*T COFFEEHOUSE ARGUEMENT OVER THE INTARWEBZ!

OH NO! NOT CULTURAL BIAS AND CONCEPTULIZATION OF INDENTITY!

If a person wants to bone a person of another sex, race, or whatever status you wish to insert, then they have a right to as long as there is concept.

Pfft, this is silly and enraging.

Just remember everyone with your big words and prententious attitudes, don’t make my latte to hot or I will call your manager.

Posted by Heaving Sigh on December 20, 2006, 12:23 AM | #

“Jdog” the only relevant question is why blacks have a vested interest in the sexual choices(exclusivity) of other races more than any other race I have ever seen. You people act as though you own the very concept of race pertaining to ALL races. As long as it’s your peoples’ decision of how other races(especially whites)conduct their racial groups… and make certain to include you...then race means a hell of alot to you. Otherwise, “we is all the same.”

Do you just not want to be left behind like you always are when left to your own devices?

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 01:25 AM | #

“Interracialist, do you have an ethnic genetic interest?”

What you guys suggest is inbreeding, which is totally illogical as it increases the chances that your kids get genetic diseases.  A mixture of genes also increases the chances of survival, which is why many organisms reproduce sexually.  It’s an evolutionary development from assexual reproduction.  You can debate it all you know, it doesn’t change that it is a scientific fact.

Ethnic genetic interest is for the birds.

Tillman,

Reread my post.

Male ligers and tigons are sterile. 

The fact that wolves and dogs’s hybrid offspring can reproduce doesn’t change the fact that the above mentioned theory concerns species that are relatively different from one another (cows and flounders).  Wolves and dogs are obviously closely related along the evolutionary ladder (domestic dogs, after all, are product of selective breeding by humans of wolves over thousands of years).

Africans and Europeans?  Most Europeans have African and Asian genes (never heard of the Moors and the Barbarian invasion?).

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 01:34 AM | #

“Cows and flounders are two different species.  Africans and Europeans are not.

That’s a matter of opinion, but irrelevant as the principle applies equally to subspecies.

Besides, many, if not most, Europeans have African genes (those Moors sure got around).

What do you mean by “African gene”?  Anyway, humans are full of onion genes.  Or is it the other way around?  No matter. “

Subspecies?  You’re reaching. The man was obviously talking about interspecies breeding.  Besides, subspecies are taxonomically irrelevant.

Genes...DNA...African genes, genetic mutations that are predominantly found in Africa.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 01:39 AM | #

“If a person wants to bone a person of another sex, race, or whatever status you wish to insert, then they have a right to as long as there is concept. ... Just remember everyone with your big words and prententious attitudes, don’t make my latte to hot or I will call your manager.”

All of this has already been answered and remains unrefuted:

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?

Now go ahead and call my manager - tell him we’re being so unfair and insensitive that we’ve reduced you to petulant hysteria. He has a small violin attached to his keychain that I’m sure can adequately express our sympathy for you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 03:18 AM | #

Interracialist, the sterility-of-hybrid-offspring “species criterion” has long since gone by the board:  it’s no longer a criterion and hasn’t been for a while.  (Even when it was considered pretty standard it was still rejected by many scholars for a variety of excellent reasons, so was never firmly established.  It was first proposed by a Frenchman whose name I forget and was immediately rejected by a number of contemporary scholars.  Today it is rejected by most scholars.) True Europeans and True West-Central-African Negroes are properly classified as different human species (not different “sub-species,” or different races, of the same species).  That they aren’t so classified is due to a wish not to hurt feelings, and to pure politics along the same lines.  Saying they’re different species is not to say one is human and the other sub-human.  Both are human (belonging to the genus Homo) but the species category sapiens sapiens either needs to be divided or needs to be “added to” to give all human species a name.  In other words, contrary to present-day understandings about there being only one living human species, there are two human species living (at least two; conceivably more:  it may be, for example, that pygmies are properly classified as a human species distinct from True Negroes and True Europeans — which would make three living human species).  The fact that classification as different species of human no more implies inferiority/superiority than classification as different species of bear (polar, grizzly, black bear) can be seen with a fictional example:  if the “Vulcan Mr. Spock” character in Star Trek is human( * ) he obviously belongs to a different human species from Capt. Kirk who is Homo sapiens sapiens just like us.  Mr Spock is not just a different human race from Kirk but, clearly, a different species.  We see that in Spock’s and Kirk’s case classifying them as different species of human, not just different races of the same human species (which they most definitely are not) isn’t at all to assign inferiority/superiority.

Besides, many, if not most, Europeans have African genes

People share some 98% of their genes with chimpanzees, some 90% with mice, and some 40% with yeasts.  Are we yeasts, mice, or chimps?  Are Europeans and Negroes each other?  To insinuate they are is race-denial, the favorite tactic of today’s genocidal race-replacement engineers.
______

I skipped over “My English Degree’s” comment instantly upon catching a glimpse of the third line — skipped right to the next comment.  Have no idea what the rest of the thing said.
______

( * which he obviously is unless the species Vulcan is fundamentally different from humans, an example of parallel evolution)

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 03:48 AM | #

“Interracialist, the sterility-of-hybrid-offspring “species criterion” has long since gone by the board:  it’s no longer a criterion and hasn’t been for a while.  (Even when it was considered pretty standard it was still rejected by many scholars for a variety of excellent reasons, so was never firmly established.  It was first proposed by a Frenchman whose name I forget and was immediately rejected by a number of contemporary scholars.  Today it is rejected by most scholars.)”

Not a criterion to what?  Basically, what you are doing is typical cult-like logic.  When faced with undeniable proof that your arguments are flawed, you turn around and claim that the point you were originally trying to make is irrelevant to the big picture.

“True Europeans and True West-Central-African Negroes are properly classified as different human species (not different “sub-species,” or different races, of the same species).  That they aren’t so classified is due to a wish not to hurt feelings, and to pure politics along the same lines.  Saying they’re different species is not to say one is human and the other sub-human.  Both are human (belonging to the genus Homo) but the species category sapiens sapiens either needs to be divided or needs to be “added to” to give all human species a name.  In other words, contrary to present-day understandings about there being only one living human species, there are two human species living (at least two; conceivably more:  it may be, for example, that pygmies are properly classified as a human species distinct from True Negroes and True Europeans — which would make three living human species). “

Although there were originally more than one Homo Sapiens subspecies (actually, only two, ours Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu), only ours still exists.  The differences that exist between races are too superficial to claim otherwise. Unlike other species that have ‘racial groups’ and subspecious, the intervariability of our genes between “racial groups” is incredibly small, only 5 to 15%.  So, yes, Pigmees are of the same species as the other Africans.  The relatively small genetic differences are a matter of geographic isolation and inbreeding, and possibly malnutrition (compare the height of North and South Koreans.  6 feet tall South Koreans isn’t a rarity now, especially amongst the ones in their teens).

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 03:57 AM | #

“People share some 98% of their genes with chimpanzees...” Your numbers aren’t quite right, but in any case, that is a misleading assertion as many of genes that we have in common with other mammal produce enzymes and other proteins that are key to our metabolism.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 04:13 AM | #

“if the “Vulcan Mr. Spock” character in Star Trek is human( * ) he obviously belongs to a different human species from Capt. Kirk who is Homo sapiens sapiens just like us.  Mr Spock is not just a different human race from Kirk but, clearly, a different species.  We see that in Spock’s and Kirk’s case classifying them as different species of human, not just different races of the same human species (which they most definitely are not) isn’t at all to assign inferiority/superiority.”

That’s a moot point because Star Trek is fiction.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 04:39 AM | #

Not a criterion to what?  Basically, what you are doing is typical cult-like logic.  When faced with undeniable proof that your arguments are flawed....

What proof, regarding what arguments?

I don’t recall you saying anything relevant to any of the points made by anyone.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 04:41 AM | #

“What you guys suggest is inbreeding, which is totally illogical....”

Uh, yeah.  Flounders should mate with cattle.  Good one!

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 04:47 AM | #

Ethnic genetic interest is for the birds.

Living things have no interest in staying alive.  You’re quite the comedian!

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 04:49 AM | #

The fact that wolves and dogs’s hybrid offspring can reproduce doesn’t change the fact that the above mentioned theory concerns species that are relatively different from one another (cows and flounders).

I know what a tautology is.  Do you?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 05:02 AM | #

The difference between humans who build skyscrapers and humans who build fires is “incredibly small.”

Hookay then.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 05:04 AM | #

Tillman,

I’m not easily swayed by your circular reasoning.  A point was made, whether you want to admit it or not.  Denial is a defence mechanism and an attempt to transfer responsibility. I don’t blame you, though, what I’ve been saying must have cause a cognitive dissonance in you. 

When it all comes down to it, you guys are simple propagandists using scapegoating because you aren’t capable achieving group solidarity in a more productive manner.  Another way to look at it would be to say that you’re all projecting you unwanted thoughts and feelings unto others who become the scapegoat of your problems.  It’s the easiest way of dealing with one’s fears.

Again, deny is all you want, but it won’t change that I’m right.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 05:09 AM | #

“Not a criterion of what?” (—Interracialist)

It’s no longer considered that a criterion, or a condition, for being classified as distinct species is sterility of the hybrid offspring.  Distinct species can have fertile hybrid offspring.

“Basically, what you are doing is typical cult-like logic.  When faced with undeniable proof that your arguments are flawed, you turn around and claim that the point you were originally trying to make is irrelevant to the big picture.” (—idem)

Sorry, I don’t get your point.

Although there were originally more than one Homo Sapiens subspecies (actually, only two, ours Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu), only ours still exists.  The differences that exist between races are too superficial to claim otherwise. Unlike other species that have ‘racial groups’ and subspecies, the intervariability of our genes between “racial groups” is incredibly small, only 5 to 15%.  So, yes, Pigmees are of the same species as the other Africans.  The relatively small genetic differences are a matter of geographic isolation and inbreeding, and possibly malnutrition (compare the height of North and South Koreans.  6 feet tall South Koreans isn’t a rarity now, especially amongst the ones in their teens).

This is largely garbled.  To the slight extent it’s intelligible it’s either irrelevant, wrong, or refutes nothing of what I posted.  Some doesn’t even seem to address what I posted.  When I replied to Interracialist I was under the impression for some reason that he was educated.  I must not have been following the thread very carefully:  reading this particular reply of his I see how wrong I was, and I regret engaging him.  I apologize to the readers.  I’ll finish, then won’t reply further. 

“People share some 98% of their genes with chimpanzees...” Your numbers aren’t quite right, but in any case, that is a misleading assertion as many of genes that we have in common with other mammals produce enzymes and other proteins that are key to our metabolism.

But that comment of mine was intended to show how utterly irrelevant was your own statement about Euros and Negroes having genes in common.  You appear to have missed my point:  whatever genetic endowment they have in common, they remain genetically distinct and if majorities of whites don’t wish their communal racial identity forcibly changed it’s their perfect right to expect that wish to be honored by those with power to force change. 

That’s a moot point [about Mr. Spock and Capt. Kirk being different human species,] because Star Trek is fiction.

It’s fiction but I don’t think the point I sought to make (a relatively minor point) is “moot,” namely, categorization as distinct species is not the same as assigning inferiority or superiority.  To say we and Neanderthals are distinct human species (which we are, of course) isn’t by itself to assign inferiority or superiority.

The floor is all yours, Interracialist.  I’m out.  I’ll not engage you again unless you get better knowledge of biology.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 05:09 AM | #

A tautology?  Like ‘Either all humans are of the same species, or none are’?

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 05:12 AM | #

“ “Not a criterion of what?” (—Interracialist)

It’s no longer considered that a criterion, or a condition, for being classified as distinct species is sterility of the hybrid offspring.  Distinct species can have fertile hybrid offspring.

“Basically, what you are doing is typical cult-like logic.  When faced with undeniable proof that your arguments are flawed, you turn around and claim that the point you were originally trying to make is irrelevant to the big picture.” (—idem)

Sorry, I don’t get your point.

Although there were originally more than one Homo Sapiens subspecies (actually, only two, ours Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu), only ours still exists.  The differences that exist between races are too superficial to claim otherwise. Unlike other species that have ‘racial groups’ and subspecies, the intervariability of our genes between “racial groups” is incredibly small, only 5 to 15%.  So, yes, Pigmees are of the same species as the other Africans.  The relatively small genetic differences are a matter of geographic isolation and inbreeding, and possibly malnutrition (compare the height of North and South Koreans.  6 feet tall South Koreans isn’t a rarity now, especially amongst the ones in their teens).

This is largely garbled.  To the slight extent it’s intelligible it’s either irrelevant, wrong, or refutes nothing of what I posted.  Some doesn’t even seem to address what I posted.  When I replied to Interracialist I was under the impression for some reason that he was educated.  I must not have been following the thread very carefully:  reading this particular reply of his I see how wrong I was, and I regret engaging him.  I apologize to the readers.  I’ll finish, then won’t reply further.

“People share some 98% of their genes with chimpanzees...” Your numbers aren’t quite right, but in any case, that is a misleading assertion as many of genes that we have in common with other mammals produce enzymes and other proteins that are key to our metabolism.

But that comment of mine was intended to show how utterly irrelevant was your own statement about Euros and Negroes having genes in common.  You appear to have missed my point:  whatever genetic endowment they have in common, they remain genetically distinct and if majorities of whites don’t wish their communal racial identity forcibly changed it’s their perfect right to expect that wish to be honored by those with power to force change.

That’s a moot point [about Mr. Spock and Capt. Kirk being different human species,] because Star Trek is fiction.

It’s fiction but I don’t think the point I sought to make (a relatively minor point) is “moot,” namely, categorization as distinct species is not the same as assigning inferiority or superiority.  To say we and Neanderthals are distinct human species (which we are, of course) isn’t by itself to assign inferiority or superiority.

The floor is all yours, Interracialist.  I’m out.  I’ll not engage you again unless you get better knowledge of biology. “

Round and a round Tillman goes, where he stop, no one knows.

Keep up with the circular reasoning for as long as you want, you’ll be going in circles alone. I’m done with you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 05:14 AM | #

Oh yes, and an IQ boost.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 05:21 AM | #

By the way, how would you know I’m not a biologist?  Better yet, a university professor.  I did make it clear that I wasn’t trying to appeal to authority, after all.

Instead of wasting your energy on such conspiracy theories and racist nonsense, you might want to put your intellect to better use and find productive ways to make the world a better place.  And stay out of other people’s bedroom, it’s not your place to be unless they invited you.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 05:25 AM | #

IQ boost?  How creative.  Thanks for sharing that one with us, Shakespeare.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 20, 2006, 06:14 AM | #

@Steven Palese

Steven, I really don’t understand your question as I don’t hate ethnic groups.  I hate people, I dislike or sometimes hate other cultures (will never understand the tolerance of Shari’a law).  But I have long since learned that hating skin color was futile and immature.  I do not think that a person who values their culture is ridiculous.  I *DO* think that a person who sees a post-civil rights, possibly temporary, boom of interracial relationships is the end of this or that race.

To address a minor point, I am actually typing this in Asia, which is probably why you don’t see my comments until the next day.  No, Korea, Japan, and China have low immigration because they are, in two cases, tiny countries with massive populations, and in the case of China, countries where no jobs can be spared because everyone must work to keep everything afloat.  HOWEVER, Japan and Korea, since becoming 1st world countries, have even begun importing migrants to take care of jobs Koreans either won’t touch or would demand more money for.  So, I guess need outweighs race in that matter.

Also, it’s actually very easy to get a korean or japanese VISA...if you marry a korean or japanese person, which is fair considering their populations vs. land mass.

On to your answers:

1:  That’s fine that you’re against racial engineering.  I don’t think *anyone* is for it.  But that is the fallacy of this website, and why I say it raises a cry for a problem that doesn’t exist.  There simply is no concerted effort by *anyone* to forcibly change the demographic of a country through breeding.  If the populations of non-whites have risen in historically caucasian countries, then whose fault is that?  The people who come there for opportunity, or the home countries lax immigration and (in the case of America) horrendously bad border enforcement?

2:  Well, first, you didn’t answer my question, really, but I guess you bring up another point.  Look, I love in Korea, the most genetically homogenous and historically isolated country in the world (there’s a reason there’s so many “Kim’s"), and like I brought up in a previous post, I see just as many social ills here as I do back home...in fact, this country has a level and tolerance of prostitution (ehem, as long as you don’t get caught) that will redden the face of even the most jaded westerner.

I simply don’t buy the idea that people will live harmoniously in the presence of only their own kind.  Were Europeans burning Africans during the Inquisition?  Were Koreans killing Japanese during the Korean war?  No.  Problems won’t stop, you’ll just have different fucking problems.

3.  Again, your third answer is based on the idea that there is a concerted effort to dissolute caucasians.  There really isn’t.  Not only that, but you, and the take of everyone on this site, seems to be so myopic as to laughable.  AA has existed for, what?  30 years?  40?  And it’s doubtful that it will even be around longer than another 20?  Why are you protesting this issue, and not the fact that the american government is now OFFICIALLY INSOLVENT BECAUSE OF AN UNWINNABLE WAR?  That is what I don’t get...the dedication of such a tremendous amount of energy towards an issue that won’t be solved unless you guys somehow figure out how to crackdown on “love”.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 20, 2006, 06:20 AM | #

@guessedworker

Actually, my last question is still pertinent as I am living in the most homogenous society in the world, and “social ills” (I think what we can all agree upon as social ills, domestic abuse, prostitution, etc) are more than abundant here.  I just want to know where this magical land is where nothing ever happens just because everyone is the same.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 07:15 AM | #

Jdog is a complete airhead.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 07:20 AM | #

Actually, Scrooby, Jdog is totally right.  The numbers don’t lie.  Korea is recognized as one of the most, if not the most homogenous country in the world, and its crime rate is comparable to that of Canada and the UK, both of which are multicultural societies.

Posted by Ferdinand on December 20, 2006, 08:06 AM | #

“Why are you protesting this issue, and not the fact that the american government is now OFFICIALLY INSOLVENT BECAUSE OF AN UNWINNABLE WAR? “

I suspect many people at this site would suggest that one particular ethny’s devotion to the promotion of its EGI is HIGHLY relevant to this fact.

Posted by Al Ross on December 20, 2006, 08:15 AM | #

The incidence of rape per 100000 people is 34.2 for the Nigger and Mestizo infested USA.

The incidence of rape per 100000 people is 4.38 for homogeneous South Korea.

The incidence of violent theft/robbery per 100000 people is 169.02 for that racial cesspool the USA.

The incidence of violent theft/robbery per 100000 people for anthropoid sewage free South Korea is 11.74

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 08:43 AM | #

Al Ross,

Rapes are rarely reported in Korea.  Just a few decades ago, Korean women still carried around a small knife, which was not for protection, but to slit their wrists in the event that they were raped as they would have become impure and therefore shamed their families and ancestors.  In their eyes, death was the only acceptable solution.

Besides, if you want to compare South Korea with a country, don’t compare it with the US.  Compare it with Canada, which has a population that is closer to that of South Korea.

Total crimes in Canada, 2003: 2,572,243
Total crimes in South Korea, 1999: 1.73 million

Now, you might want to know that Korea has strict gun control laws and that a positive urine test for drugs will send you to jail for several months as it is considered possession.  Consequently, drug and weapons related crimes are relatively rare in South Korea.  But, one of the main reasons the crime rate is low in South Korea is that until a few years ago, it was a dictatorship.  If you said and did something the government didn’t like, you could find yourself being thrown out of a window after having been tortured by the police.  But, nowadays, the Korean police force is inefficient and enforcement of the law is lax, which leads to me to believe that the crime rate is higher than stated.  No conviction, no crime.

Posted by jdog2050 on December 20, 2006, 09:06 AM | #

Interracialist already said it better than me:  crime simply isn’t reported in this country because the police here border upon useless.

Also, thanks to Al Ross for just coming out and exposing the underlying crassness of this website.  You can give this site a clean interface.  You can link wikipedia.  You can throw out as many half-researched and disputable articles and contextless statistics as you like, and once someone presents level-headed and precise questions, you simply go back to being “nigger haters”.

You can label this as “majority rights”, but none of you will ever be able to answer this simple question: who fucking cares?  Very few people, otherwise this site wouldn’t exist.

Please, put a Dungeons and Dragons playset on your christmas lists, so that you can have some little “war” to fight against...you’ve already lost this one

Posted by Al Ross on December 20, 2006, 09:15 AM | #

The figures quoted by Interracialist arent similar inasmuch as 2,572m for Canada is about 45% higher than that of 1.73m for South Korea.

Also Canada’s 32.6m people enjoy a population density of just 8.3 per sq. mile wheras the , in no way similar sized, South Korean population of 48.9m (notice the 50% increase in numbers over Canada) live cheek-by-jowl at a density of 1274 people per sq mile. The pop. density figures should favour Canada in crime rate calculations but since Canada decided to abolish itself and replace the White majority with the detritus of the Third World, all bets ought to be off.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 09:41 AM | #

I wasn’t done....Take the UK, another multicultural country...one in which firearms are strictly controled (just as in South Korea).  By your logic, the crime rate should be higher there than in South Korea… as you were more than happy to point out with Canada and the US.  Well… UK: 60 million people, 716,500 reported crimes a year.  So?  How are you going to twist this one to justify your irrational fears?

Posted by skeptical of the webmaster's judgement on December 20, 2006, 09:44 AM | #

“What you guys suggest is inbreeding, which is totally illogical as it increases the chances that your kids get genetic diseases.”

As stated here multiple times, European ethnic groups are of sufficient size - and white America sufficiently is - to prevent “genetic diseases” from inbreeding. 

“A mixture of genes also increases the chances of survival, which is why many organisms reproduce sexually.”

Intra-ethnic breeding is, if you haven’t noticed, sexual as well.  If you actually have evidence that racial admixture enhances biological fitness (which would include compensating for lost parental kinship), where is it?  Even Alon Ziv ran away from here rather than provide this non-existant evidence.

“It’s an evolutionary development from assexual reproduction.  You can debate it all you know, it doesn’t change that it is a scientific fact. “

As are genetic interests.  And, hey, “evolutionary development” are, like, real big words!  Stop appealing to authority!

“Ethnic genetic interest is for the birds”

That about summarizes the level of “argument” by “interracialist”

“The relatively small genetic differences are a matter of geographic isolation and inbreeding, and possibly malnutrition”

Really?  “Malnutrition” causes the genetic differences observed between racial groups?  Now, that’s REAL interesting.  Is that an appeal to INauthority?

“All this talk of genetic purity, whiteness, and social/cultural right is absurd.”

Gee, why, then, such a statement - saying something is true because you say it is true, that certainly is no logical fallacy, it’s a perfectly good argument!

“This is about individuals rights, if a Korean girl wants to have a relationship with a male from any land mass or body of water, it’s here perogative”

I assume you meant “her.” Very well.  Freedom of association is an individual right.  Pursuit of fitness is an individual right.  Or, perhaps, you think “individual rights” are only for those who agree with your choices?

“You can label this as “majority rights”, but none of you will ever be able to answer this simple question: who fucking cares?  Very few people, otherwise this site wouldn’t exist. “

Wow, good argument.  Flawless logic there.

“Please, put a Dungeons and Dragons playset on your christmas lists, so that you can have some little “war” to fight against...you’ve already lost this one”

Hmm...you may not realize this through your low-OQ, high-hormone induced mental haze, but it is unlikely that we “lost this one” as your side has been unable to refute our positions beyond the level of

“who fucking cares?” and

“Ethnic genetic interest is for the birds”

We’ve refuted Alon Ziv, Peter Gray, and GNXP, you guys are small potatoes with an inflated sense of grandeur.

Posted by skeptical of webmaster on December 20, 2006, 10:01 AM | #

Of course, consideration of the crime rate of a nation like the UK would, reasonably, include a comparison of the per capita rate before and after mass immigration.  Perhaps our English friends here can enlighten us.

From a purely anecdotal perspective I notice that the “strict gun control” and the “bobbies” carrying guns were post-migration events - as are such niceties as “happy slapping”, “no go zones”, “race riots”, and other benefits of “diversity.”

I notice as well no arguments against the links I previously provided suggesting net negative outcomes from increased diversity.

As I stated previously, of course, all societies, even homogenous ones, have their problems.  The question is whether “increased” diversity makes things worse - and yes, even a liberal like Putnam agrees (oopps, appeal to authority!!, even a pro-diversity authority- oh well.  but then there are the statistics, as well as Easterly and Levine’s peer-reviewed study - I thought accepted peer review is “acceptable” authority?).

I notice as well how the retard brigade have shifted the “argument” to one of debating national crime rates, as if a snapshot of different societies’ crime rates somehow justifies miscegenation, which was the actual topic of the original post.

The actual argument should be balancing benefits (sic) and costs of miscegenation.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2006, 12:05 PM | #

jdog and interracialist, especially interracialist,

In deference to the brutal but entirely well-meant skepticism I have, at times, to contend with around here, can I ask you either to evidence your assertions or leave it at that? 

Currently, we are going around in circles centred on our respective ethnic interest.  If our differences were philosophical, scientific or political there would be some prospect of a useful outcome.  But there is nothing edifying or useful about conflicted ethnic interests.  You are not going to grant European Caucasians our right to our own living space where we can live free of the Third World.  We are not going to cease asserting our moral right to, and Nature-given interest in, the same.

Absent those evidences you need, let’s agree to differ and leave it a that.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 12:21 PM | #

““The relatively small genetic differences are a matter of geographic isolation and inbreeding, and possibly malnutrition”

Really?  “Malnutrition” causes the genetic differences observed between racial groups?  Now, that’s REAL interesting.  Is that an appeal to INauthority? “

No, you’re ignoring my example, which make it’s it a denial of fact by omission.

Once again, Koreans that are over 40 years old are considerably shorter than those in their teens and twenties.  6 feet tall Korean middle school kids aren’t rare nowadays.  Some researchers have argued that this is due to the fact that high-protein food (milk, cheese, beef) is increasingly popular with young Koreans.

I remember reading a study about 20 years ago that was made on a certain tribe of Native Americans from New Mexico.  Their bodies had become adapted to conserve energy in order to survive periods of famine.  Unfortunately, this trait now caused them a lot of trouble.  They would easily gain weight, even on a balanced diet of 1200 calories a day.  Obesity and heart disease was found to have been on the rise among the younger members of the community.

The ability to digest lactose is another example of the relationship between nutrition, lifestyle, and physical adaptations.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=727EA883-E7F2-99DF-36D89AB12E930315

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 12:28 PM | #

“Of course, consideration of the crime rate of a nation like the UK would, reasonably, include a comparison of the per capita rate before and after mass immigration.  Perhaps our English friends here can enlighten us.”

Good old Victorian England?  Don’t see how it is relevant to a discussion about modern times.  Criminals and crime fighers have evolved since then, so it’s only natural that more crimes are being investigated.  Besides, prisonners back then didn’t make it out of prison alive very often, so recividivism probably wasn’t the problem that it is now.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 12:35 PM | #

It appears to me like you want the moon, literally and figuratively.

Ok, start packing your bags.  I concede.  You can have Antartica.  I promise, I’ll never visit.

Posted by Interracialist on December 20, 2006, 12:54 PM | #

By the way, why is your site called ‘Majorityrights’? Whites as you define them are essentially a minority, no?  (I take it that your are refering to the US, right?)

“The term White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(United_States_Census)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg

Europeans barely make up 50% of the US population (I didn’t count ‘American’, that could mean anything)...and that’s from the 2000 census, 6 years in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_US_immigration#Immigration_2000.2C_2004_and_2010_.28projected.29

Posted by jdog2050 on December 20, 2006, 01:09 PM | #

Well, I’m sorry if you find the question “who fucking cares” distasteful, but it’s a completely pertinent one.

So, to not offend your obviously dainty sensibilities, let me put it another way--humans are not plants.  We are not showdogs.  We are no longer in a vicious fight against nature just to get our daily bread.  The days of the need to breed specifically for traits are over.  Join me in a moment of silence.

Now, let me ask one more fun happy-time question, because I know you guys love answering them.

You keep pointing out testosterone and aggression as one reason why african/african american males are...ahem...less than suitable.

So, let us continue this line of reasoning.  Males themselves, as, up until this century, the leaders of most nations, are also the aggressors of most wars, and the major aggressors of petty and major crimes throughout the world.

Males, by virtue of their nature, are walking engines of testosterone.

With that said, couples now have the ability to chose the sex of their offspring.  Seeing as males are the aggressors of a majority of crime and violence throughout the world, is it not in the genetic interest of women to simply start their own colony?  No males allowed?  That’s question number one.

Question number two, and this is much more hypothetical:  very soon, it will be completely feasible to create gene-tailored viruses and diseases.  In the spirit of preemptive action, let’s say, magically, women across the world suddenly saw it as their right to protect themselves against historical male aggression.  Would they be in the wrong to kill us all off?

Posted by Really now, GW. Really. on December 20, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

“Seeing as males are the aggressors of a majority of crime and violence throughout the world, is it not in the genetic interest of women to simply start their own colony? “

Let’s see.

Fitness is defined as the continuity and/or expansion of genes to the next generation.  I don’t know - how many times has that been defined here over the last several days?  Humans are a sexually reproducing species.  Sexual reproduction entails both sexes.  An “all-women colony” could not reproduce.

“women across the world suddenly saw it as their right to protect themselves against historical male aggression.  Would they be in the wrong to kill us all off?”

Good luck reproducing after that.  By the way, gender is not a genetic interest.  A white woman shares genetic interest with her male family members and male co-ethnics, rather than with some female featherless biped in Africa.

Never mind of course that genetic interests are an ultimate interest, while crime and violence are proximate interests and there is no direct relationship between the two.

Really now, GW.  Really.  Really.

I’ll tell you what GW.  Let’s see if we can do this.  Let’s interest the local zoo in an experiment.  We’ll give LSD to the chimps and have them type on the keyboard and then post the comments on Majority Rights.

Is that going to be any worse than the “comments” left here by “jdog” and “interracialist?”

defending genetic interest by starting a single sex colony?

who the fuck cares?

ethnic genetic interests are for the birds?

breeding telekinetic demigods?

they are making a mockery of your blog.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 02:19 PM | #

I don’t see what Jdogmess/Interracialist and his various aliases are contributing to any discussion here.  There’s no way to get rid of him?  This is pure psychopathic or drug-induced logorrhea.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2006, 03:45 PM | #

He/they is/are not making a mockery of the blog but of his/their own pretentions. to intellect.  If you mean Jdog and Interracialist are spamming, I agree.  I have requested a cessation, and if he/they cannot abide by that there will be the customary assistance to the same end.

In general, and with one or two noted exceptions, I try to accomodate free speech up to the point where the malign intent of the speaker is exposed.  I have no problem with non-whites here per se, providing they accept that rights and interests attach to equally to all ethnies - their own as to ours.  But when they deny that clear principle so as, actually, to deny us the right of self-defence and grant themselves free licence oer us, then that is not part of why we doing this at MR.

Therefore, the only available option is to ban them insofar as it is practicable.

Bye, boys.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 07:52 PM | #

Once again, Koreans that are over 40 years old are considerably shorter than those in their teens and twenties.  6 feet tall Korean middle school kids aren’t rare nowadays.  Some researchers have argued that this is due to the fact that high-protein food (milk, cheese, beef) is increasingly popular with young Koreans.

You don’t have to keep bringing up 6 foot plus Koreans, I roomed with one in college.  What’s your point anyway - that improvements in Korean diet will eventually lower Korean IQ to parity with whites, or even blacks?  I’m not following you, please explain.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 01:21 AM | #

Koreans are getting dumber because their size is increasing?  I doubt it.  Read up on the Flynn effect.  Average worldwide IQ has been found to be rising in the 20th century at a rate of 3 points per decade (IQ tests are constantly being rewritten to maintain the average at 100).  It is attributed to nutrition, smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis (hybrid vigor), all of which have been occuring in South Korea since the end of the Korean War, particularly in the last 20 years.

Again, scientific research that supports eugenics and dysgenics is meager and questionable.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 21, 2006, 01:35 AM | #

Oh for Christ’s sake, you’re as dumb as a post, aren’t you?  I’m not going to hold your hand and teach you reading comprehension.  Get Hooked on Phonics or something.

(If any non-sock-puppet poster here shares his confusion let me know and I’ll explain my original meaning)

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 01:45 AM | #

I’m as dumb as a post?  I’m not the one who’s resorting to ad hominem attacks after being presented with a strong arguement, not tha I have yet.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 21, 2006, 02:01 AM | #

Yes.  You’re a nimrod.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 02:21 AM | #

“Yes.  You’re a nimrod. “

You’re obviously a child.  You shouldn’t come to this site.  It’s for adults only.

Posted by jdog2050thesequel on December 21, 2006, 02:41 AM | #

“No, interracialist and I aren’t the same

@anonymous who actually responded–

So, I guess invitro-fertilization, which I was hoping you could easily guess I was alluding to, doesn’t exist? You say that crime and violence are proximate interests, and yet, I’ve seen in this thread, multiple times, this idea that blacks aren’t worth, ehem, “mating” with because we’re just so gosh-darned violent.

I think you said it best. Starting a single sex colony is a silly idea. It’s possible, but it’s fucking stupid. No one cares enough to do anything like that.

By “care” I don’t mean, myspace-”whatever”, I mean, normal humans, on a day to day basis, do not look at each other in terms of mating for good spatial awareness, high testosterone, etc, although at some subconcious level it certainly does…there is no “intent”. There is no purposeful dissolution of the white race. There is no cause for alarm.

Except for a few earlier comments (which were purposeful trolling), no one made a mockery of this blog, this blog made a mockery of itself, especially after Al Ross and some others quickly showed that sincere questions get met with hails of “niggers suck”.”

Posted by jdog2050thesequel on December 21, 2006, 02:46 AM | #

Nice job on the ban attempt.  Glad to see that this is where posing a serious question gets you.

I asked about the women’s only colony because, with invetro-fertilization and, in 20 years, low-level cloning, the idea isn’t science fiction anymore at all.

But, the response I got veered into nigger hatin’ territory

how is gender not a genetic interest when there’s possibly more genetic difference in gender than between races (seeing as an entire half-gene must be missing to create a male)?  I’m sorry but if you can’t answer a simple question like that without resorting to out and out racism or banning, then your site is more of a mockery than any of my internet humor can account for.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2006, 03:15 AM | #

If this microcephalic won’t stay banned, I’d say the only way to deal with the creep is to ignore him, otherwise you’ll just get more of him.  We’ve dealt with his type before:  he’s in the Simon category.  Sam the Aussie, bad as he was, was different, Robert Lindsay was different, June Gordon is different; this one’s the Simon type.  I’d strongly recommend ignoring this piece of walking talking excrement till he fades away.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 04:01 AM | #

Ad hominem attacks, straw man arguements, and pigeonholing… Oh, my.  Do you want an honest and open debate or are you simply seeking agreement for your own ideas?

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 21, 2006, 04:07 AM | #

There is no purposeful dissolution of the white race.

It’s fundamental evolutionary principle. It does not have to be purposeful to be destructive. For instance, anti-miscegenation laws proved, historically, to be a viable strategy to enhance group survival.

how is gender not a genetic interest when there’s possibly more genetic difference in gender than between races

With all due respect, the point is irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective. If such a strategy enhanced reproductive fitness, and therefore survival, then it would have advanced through natural selection. However, despite the legend of ancient tribes of female Amazons, such tribes do no exist.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 04:14 AM | #

I appreciate the fact that guessedworker is able to debate his position with a modicum of intelligence and civility (which is more than I can say for the most of the people on his side of the fence). However, as Jdog pointed out (I give you props for your skillful use of the Socratic method with your 3 questions, by the way), the meer suggestion that we should be banned for challenging what we recognize as, at best, ill informed ideas makes for a strong arguement that this site was a mockery long before we stumbled upon it.

Posted by JB on December 21, 2006, 04:53 AM | #

I hate it when potentially good threads are polluted by pranksters, they get less views.

jdog2050:

Humans are the same

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

jdog2050:

I’m living in Korea right now.  You know what?  It’s safe.  Safe like America in the 40’s.

you mean like in the 40s when racial segregation was the rule ?

Interracialist:

Now, Acadians and Quebecois are...brace yourselves...all descendants of Native Americans. 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.

let me guess, you learned that in college in the course on White Skin Privilege.

seriously, you’re completely wrong. Only a tiny number of native americans and french settlers got married according to the Church’s records. The added whiteness in some natives is obvious (i.e. The mohawks in the south near the US border) but the reverse would be visible if it were true. You can raise you hat to the mohawk tribes for having been not as racist as they should have been but you should spend some time searching for proof of that mass interracial mixing between the natives and the french settlers.

http://www.francogene.com/quebec/amerin-f.php

En fait, si nous regardons dans les registres anciens du Québec (1621-1765), nous trouvons environ 78 couples avec un homme autochtone et une femme européenne, 45 avec une femme autochtone et un homme européen et 540 avec 2 autochtones.  La base compte en tout plus de 44 500 couples, dont certains vivant en France.  Le pourcentage de couples métis mariés est très petit, moins de 0.3%.

78 amerindian-white couples between 1621 and 1765, less than 0.3 % of the 44 500 recorded.

Interracialist:

some of the original French settlers were African slaves who married white women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_American

I don’t see any mention of race mixing

Volksgenossen:

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

you have to multiply the units by thousands and millions to understand the relationship between race, culture and civilization. Sure, we can’t always use the group to describe an individual member of the group but individuals by virtue of their individuality don’t have the influence that you think they have.

For example some africans may do well in our universities but the african race has had hundreds if not thousands of years to try their hand at civilization and they have not succeeded very well compared to other races to say the least. That’s something that can’t simply be explained by socioeconomic factors or ignored because some Senegalese has earned a Ph.D in Medecine at McGill.

Interracialist:

Besides, if you want to compare South Korea with a country, don’t compare it with the US.  Compare it with Canada, which has a population that is closer to that of South Korea.

Total crimes in Canada, 2003: 2,572,243
Total crimes in South Korea, 1999: 1.73 million

more details ? how about separating violent crime from non-violent crime ?

Canada is still 85 % white and the multiculturality is thankfully limited to the major cities. If you have the numbers that don’t lie about the violent crime rate in korean cities compared to canadian cites, post them here.

Interracialist:

Take the UK, another multicultural country

its multiculturality is limited to London I believe.

Posted by Al Ross on December 21, 2006, 04:54 AM | #

When Sambos and Mulattos endeavour to simulate White intellectual activity there is always amusement to be derived from their attempting this impossible task.

Posted by ben tillman on December 21, 2006, 05:06 AM | #

I asked about the women’s only colony because, with invetro-fertilization and, in 20 years, low-level cloning, the idea isn’t science fiction anymore at all.

You may be right.  But is it relevant to any of the issues under discussion? 

The answer is no.

Posted by JB on December 21, 2006, 05:08 AM | #

jdog2050:

But I have long since learned that hating skin color was futile and immature.

skin color again. Skin color is only one of the most visible racial feature. There’s a lot more differences under the skin. some examples here:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/racial_differences/

jdog2050:

If the populations of non-whites have risen in historically caucasian countries, then whose fault is that?

that of the traitors who run western governments and those who collaborate with the media barons to push their poison, their fallacies and falsehoods in the mind of our people.

Eisenhower deported 1 millions mexicans 50 years ago, today the so called conservative president wants amnesty for millions of illegals immigrants. How do you explain this degradation of character in politicians and this corruption of the US government ?

Bill Clinton gloated about the demographic demise of whites in America, pointing out that in 50 years or so whites will be a minority at the national level. Now let’s do a little thought experiment.

Imagine the South Korean president announcing that the country will be diversified and that it will be a great day in the country’s history when koreans will be a minority at home and imagine the korean media going along with his plans.

Imagine the korean entertainment industry producing movies and music promoting this agenda of “diversity” and attacking anyone who opposes it. In korean movies the bad guys would be those opposed to the racial mixing of koreans with africans and against mass immigration. The good guys would be anyone pooping on the korean nation and encouraging its destruction through race mixing, mass immigration and deculturation.

Imagine the korean media covering up the crimes committed by the non-koreans imported by the government. Imagine the korean media making a big deal out of a racial epithet uttered by a korean celebrity towards a non-korean while not reporting the murder and rapes of korean girls committed by agents of Diversity, say africans. Murders, rapes, pffftt that’s not important, right ? Well it would be important however if a non-korean was murdered by koreans in a crime that is without a doubt a racial crime (unlike the gang rapes and murders of korean girls by non-koreans of course), you know if the non-korean was dragged to death behind a pickup truck, that would provoke a national mediatic and political outrage and the korean president would make a press conference condemning the vile crime. When non-koreans are killed at the hands of presumably racist koreans, even if the reverse happens a lot more frequently and violently, it would be treated as a very serious problem.

Imagine the korean government spying on groups opposed to the destruction of their nation and setting up traps for korean nationalists to fall into to get them emprisoned. Imagine non governmental groups monitoring korean groups opposed to the destruction of their nation and being often quoted by the media whenever some of these bad korean groups do something.

Imagine korean universities and colleges filled with traitors who support the government’s agenda of national self-destruction. Imagine them holding abortion as a high moral virtue and patriotism as the worst sin imaginable. Imagine these places having speech codes to stifle any opposition to their agenda.

Imagine koreans after years of propaganda culturally degenerating and getting into all sorts of self-destructive trends. Imagine koreans thinking that it’s not cool to be korean, that being a nigger is Wow Man! the real thing u no wam sayin ? Imagine them looking ridiculous with their nigger uniforms with baseball caps, gold chains, baggy pants, etc. listening to the music promoted by the korean entertainment industry. Imagine that the most popular TV channel among young koreans would be a channel pushing for race mixing and the de-culturation of their viewers’ minds. Anything that isn’t korean would be promoted as fashionable and Cool. Imagine young korean girls thinking that it’s not cool at all to have sex with men of their own race/nation, that the coolest thing to have sex with is an african man, a strong entertaining black man, like the one who stars in MTV’s series Real World Denver, he’s so cool !

Imagine the korean army being sent to bring Democracy in some sand filled hole thousands of miles away while the country is being invaded by illegal immigrants from the neighboring country, an invasion the media covers up by calling it a “diversification” of the country.

Is reality beginning to penetrate your foggy little mind ?

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 05:18 AM | #

“With all due respect, the point is irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective. If such a strategy enhanced reproductive fitness, and therefore survival, then it would have advanced through natural selection. However, despite the legend of ancient tribes of female Amazons, such tribes do no exist.”

Maybe so, but who can predict what the future holds? 

Besides, it obvious that the point that he was trying to make was that the genetic differences that exist between male and female individuals are just as great as the differences that exist between races. 

Marked differences do exist between males and females, some more obvious than others.  Case in point, the primary and secondary sexual characteristics aren’t the only products of the sexual differentiation, or the expressions of the sex-determining chromosomes, of the presence or absence of the SRY gene.  The SRY gene, and hence the Y chromosome in male mammals, is, as all genes, a product of evolution (the X and Y chromosomes diverged 300 000 million years ago, to be more exact).  The X chromosomes contains 153 million base pairs (900 and 1200 genes) and the Y chromosome contains only 58 million pairs (78 genes) out of an estimated 20000 to 25000 genes.  As you can see, the differences are significant.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 21, 2006, 05:20 AM | #

I asked about the women’s only colony because, with invetro-fertilization and, in 20 years, low-level cloning, the idea isn’t science fiction anymore at all.

It’s also irrelevant because in runs against evolutionary principle. IVF and cloning are not required to make a women’s colony work. If it enhanced fitness and thus survival it would have advanced through natural selection.

the meer suggestion that we should be banned for challenging what we recognize as, at best, ill informed ideas makes for a strong arguement that this site was a mockery long before we stumbled upon it.

Such a statement can be made of many things. The ideas here are ill-informed, only in your opinion. However, even the high priest of libertarianism, J.S. Mill recognised that his principles of liberty can only function in a homogeneous environment. Thus, as others have said before, freedom of association is paramount and the limits of speech will be defined by the group interest.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 21, 2006, 05:27 AM | #

As you can see, the differences are significant.

Again, respectfully, the point is moot because it advances no means of enhancing fitness. Survival is dependent on more than just impregnating a female.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 05:57 AM | #

JB,

Last year, 13.6% of all marriages in South Korea were interracial.  So, yeah.  Whatever.

And 85% of Canadians are white?  That’s not quite right.

“members of visible minorities” means persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_(people)#Canada

http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/2003/diversity.htm

13.4% are members of a visible minority, and 4.4% are aboriginal.  That’s 17.8%...or ‘82.2’ percent identify (keyword) themselves as being white.  How many do you figure are actually Metis?  Most French Canadians are, but few of them are aware or willing to admit it.  Considering the fact French Canadians are the Europeans that have been in Canada the longest, it’s safe to say that many, if not most, Canadians are descendants of the original French settlers and their Native Canadian wives.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 06:13 AM | #

“Again, respectfully, the point is moot because it advances no means of enhancing fitness. Survival is dependent on more than just impregnating a female.”

How is it so?  If all organisms in a species share the same genes, wouldn’t this lack of genetic variety make it more likely for it to perish under sudden environmental changes (competition, disease, etc)?  How did evolution occur, then?  A series of random changes that did not help in one way the organisms to survive better than its competition?  Ponder this:  we don’t see many flying cows.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 21, 2006, 06:42 AM | #

organisms in a species share the same genes

No two individuals have the same DNA sequence, with the exception of identical twins or clones. This genetic variation contributes to phenotypic variation.

Ponder this:  we don’t see many flying cows.

What is the relevance of this statement?

Considering the fact French Canadians are the Europeans that have been in Canada the longest, it’s safe to say that many, if not most, Canadians are descendants of the original French settlers and their Native Canadian wives.

Again, even if that’s true, it’s moot because the issue is not purity of race. It’s about “the probability that an allele taken randomly from one will be identical to an allele taken at the same locus from another.”

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 08:54 AM | #

“ Ponder this:  we don’t see many flying cows.

What is the relevance of this statement? “

I was pointing out that if a mutation does not help an individual to survive, gives it an edge over its competition, it is unlikely that it will eventually become a common trait within its population (which would take several generations).  To put it simply, if a mutant cow is born with wings, it wouldn’t be able to fly as it lacks the other adaptations that are key to flight.  In all likelyhood, the wings would hinder the cows movement and make it a choice target to predators. 

“organisms in a species share the same genes

No two individuals have the same DNA sequence, with the exception of identical twins or clones. This genetic variation contributes to phenotypic variation. “

“If all organisms in a species share the same genes, wouldn’t this lack of genetic variety make it more likely for it to perish under sudden environmental changes (competition, disease, etc)?”

You’re putting words in my mouth.  I was obviously talking about organisms that breed asexually.  Once more, denial of fact by omission.

“Considering the fact French Canadians are the Europeans that have been in Canada the longest, it’s safe to say that many, if not most, Canadians are descendants of the original French settlers and their Native Canadian wives.

Again, even if that’s true, it’s moot because the issue is not purity of race. It’s about “the probability that an allele taken randomly from one will be identical to an allele taken at the same locus from another.” “

Funny, I thought you guys were arguing, among other things, that interracial relationships were bad because it somehow classes with your own self-important image of what it is to be white.

Posted by Interracialist on December 21, 2006, 08:57 AM | #

Typo..."they somehow clash"…

Posted by Kulturkampf on December 21, 2006, 09:00 AM | #

Great post JB.  Obviously, Interracialist doesn’t care about the subversion of free speech and representative government, as in his mind the only right worth defending is the right to have a partner of a different race.

As a matter of fact, I’m friends with a Korean academic.  When she visited England, the first thing she noticed about the country was the number of Muslims at Heathrow airport. Her comment? ‘I was very disappointed. It didn’t look like England.’ There’s no danger of Korea stepping into the same looking-glass world as us, at least not any time this millennium.

Posted by dainty delicate brute on December 21, 2006, 01:51 PM | #

Feeding the trolls is a waste of time, but two comments are in order.  First, by their behavior, “jdog” and “interracialist” clearly demonstrate that our fears of an intrusive multiculturalism are justified.  These “noble” purveyors of multiculturalism, diversity, multiracialism and miscegenation do not respect freedom of association nor private property.  ‘Jdog” has the “chutzpah” to ask us why we want to intrude in other peoples’ business, while he and his shadow thrust their odious presence where they have been told they are not wanted.  Intrusion, indeed!

To shatter any delusions they have that their ban was because their idiotic “arguments” – less reasoned than what would be produced by a mouse randomly running back and forth across a computer keyboard – are “too much” for us, I now get to my second point, an answer to the retarded claims of a genetic interest in gender, based on male/female sex chromosome differences.

Women are XX; men are XY.  The X chromosome, as well as the Y, like the rest of the genome, show population-specific genetic distinction.  After all, for example, the NRY is very popular in population genetics for this reason (with a myriad of papers every year using NRY) and the X can be used as well (for example: Lovell et al. Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and western Eurasian. Ann Human Genet 2005, 69, 275-287.)

These genetic differences in gender-lined alleles do not constitute a “genetic interest” in gender, but the exact opposite, and if the differences are greater than what is found in the general population, this represents negative kinship.  Negative kinship harms genetic interests, so it is hardly in the interest of a man or woman to “prefer” a co-gender racial alien to a co-ethnic of the opposite gender.

So, the X of a woman is going to be more similar to that of a co-ethnic man than to a non-ethnic woman.  Yes, the women have 2X and the men one, but how is that a “genetic interest”, when the women’s sequences are different?  In any case, one X in every female cell is always inactivated, so the levels of functional X-linked genes are the same in men and women.  But, that’s really irrelevant, since doubling the X dosage in women would merely double the extent of genetic differences between population groups.

Men have a Y and women do not.  This is not a “genetic interest” between males with different Y sequences, as these represent competing patrilineages and may, in cases of widely divergent ethnies, represent negative kinship and harm to genetic interests.  Even if the Y sequences were exactly the same (which one would expect from shared patrilineages), these sequences (the Y is small and contains few genes) are a tiny fraction of the total.  Genetic interests are based on overall genetic distinctiveness, not the presence or absence of a Y, which is a prerequisite of the reproductive strategy of higher animals (*).

As any genetic test, even a simple paternity test, can clearly demonstrate, a man is going to be more genetically similar (by a large margin) to his mother, daughter, or sister than to an unrelated male, particularly one from a different ethny.  This is true even if the Ys are identical.  But as stated, it is likely that very dissimilar groups will have marked differences in Y sequences, making the presence of the Y a net decrease, small but real, in male genetic interests in the presence of these alien males.  Thus, once again, across racial lines, these sex chromosomes represent a loss of genetic interest based on population-type, not a “gain” based on gender.

(*) Differences in sex chromosomes between male and female are part of the evolved method of reproduction; reproduction being essential for fitness and genetic interests, these gender differences are hardly a source of intra-group genetic conflict!  If anything, they are the requirement for furtherance of genetic interests.  Science fiction fantasies of alternative sexless methods of reproduction, by the way, do not in any way diminish the fact that population differences in X and Y sequences represent a loss in genetic interest and there is no inherent genetic interest in gender, for the reasons already explained.

It is not “ad hominem” to label as stupid people who have objectively demonstrated their shocking lack of human-level cognitive abilities. The trolls here have amply given such a demonstration, justifying their ban, and justifying comment deletion if GW so decides.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 21, 2006, 06:17 PM | #

Funny, I thought you guys were arguing, among other things, that interracial relationships were bad because it somehow classes with your own self-important image of what it is to be white.

Funny, you are still (deliberately?) obtuse; the white race, the European races, whatever (wherever one wishes to draw the lines) are what they are - their interest is in remaining such, as is ours, and ancestral non-white admixture is irrelevant as that too constitutes our interests now (even if it originally constituted a loss in EGI).

I’d like to see some support for your assertion above that 13% of all marriages in Korea are interracial (and your implication that these marriages involve Koreans).

And no, simply calling you stupid isn’t an ad hominem fallacy, as I’ve pinned no arguments on the assessment.

Posted by Thoughful Round Eyed McBrutry on December 21, 2006, 06:43 PM | #

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6075

In 2003, less than 10% were “inter-racial.”

Please note that Koreans seem to consider marriages with Chinese, Japanese, and other Asians as “inter-racial” - combining the male and female statistics, most of these “inter-racial” marriages were actually inter-ethnic but within the same race.

Genetic studies put Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese as very similar, not the same that is true, and there is a fitness cost.  But similar, very similar, the fitness costs are a very small fraction of a true inter-racial marriage.

To call a Korean-Japanese marriage “inter-racial” is a joke.  And misleading, but then, what do you expect? 

More to the point: relevancy?  That increasing numbers of Koreans are stupid enough to outmarry does not logically suggest that the practice is a net positive.

And Korea remains perhaps the most homogenous nation(s) on Earth.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 21, 2006, 06:59 PM | #

To call a Korean-Japanese marriage “inter-racial” is a joke.  And misleading, but then, what do you expect?

Uh, yeah.  And I’m “mixed-race” because I have Irish, English, and Dutch blood...and white Americans have an interracial marriage rate of what, 90% then?

With all that race-mixing, one wonders why we need to import 3rd-worlders.

Posted by JB on December 21, 2006, 09:30 PM | #

Interracialist:

How many do you figure are actually Metis?

the Métis National Council says that according to the census they are 26 % of the aboriginal population, therefore 1.1 % of the total population of Canada. There are certain advantages one can get by claiming aboriginal ancestry so perhaps these figures are exagerated.

http://www.metisnation.ca/who/index.html

here’s their definition for what it’s worth :

http://www.metisnation.ca/who/definition.html

“Historic Métis Nation” means the Aboriginal people then known as Métis or Half-Breeds who resided in Historic Métis Nation Homeland;

“Historic Métis Nation Homeland” means the area of land in west central North America used and occupied as the traditional territory of the Métis or Half-Breeds as they were then known;

“Métis Nation” means the Aboriginal people descended from the Historic Métis Nation, which is now comprised of all Métis Nation citizens and is one of the “aboriginal peoples of Canada” within s.35 of the Constitution Act of 1982;

get this:

http://www.metisnation.ca/who/faq.html

Q: What are the goals of the Métis National Council?

A: The Métis National Council reflects and moves forward on the desires and aspirations of the Métis Nation governments at a national and international level. Overall, the Métis National Council’s central goal is to secure a healthy space for the Métis Nation’s on-going existence within the Canadian federation.

you see, even these half-breeds are a bunch of exclusivists racists bigots !

Interracialist:

Most French Canadians are, but few of them are aware or willing to admit it.  Considering the fact French Canadians are the Europeans that have been in Canada the longest, it’s safe to say that many, if not most, Canadians are descendants of the original French settlers and their Native Canadian wives.

first, you have ignored my link posted above. Only 0.3 % of the unions recorded by the Church between 1621 and 1765 were between aboriginals and whites.

And I personally knew one métis - 1/4 aboriginal blood - and it shows so there would be visible signs of that mass miscegenation in the canadian population of french descent. The signs of miscegenation are however visible in many tribes of aboriginals in Canada. For example this is James Gabriel former grand chief of the Mohawk tribe at Kanesatake.

he sort of looks white and that’s because - you guessed it - he has white blood. We can presume the results of the race mixing either ended up in aboriginal tribes where it shows because of their small numbers or was sumberged early in the large european gene pool making it not significant nor noticeable.

According to canadian law one doesn’t have to be a full blooded aboriginal to be legally considered one, only a certain proportion of aboriginal blood is necessary. I didn’t find the text of the law but I remember a story about a guy claiming aboriginal ancestry to be able to shoot deers without a permit and I believe he said he had 1/8 amerindian blood or something like that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2006, 10:52 PM | #

“It is not ‘ad hominem’ to label as stupid people who have objectively demonstrated their shocking lack of human-level cognitive abilities. The trolls here have amply given such a demonstration, justifying their ban, and justifying comment deletion if GW so decides.” (—Brute)

“And no, simply calling you stupid isn’t an ad hominem fallacy, as I’ve pinned no arguments on the assessment.” (—Svy)

Remember Simon?  He didn’t know anything and never had anything legitimate to contribute but was constantly talking, talking, talking, talking non-stop — he had logorrhea, verbal diarrhea, and was here solely to evacuate his diarrheic bowels all over the site’s threads day after day.  That’s what this guy (Jdog/Interracialist) comes here for:  to use this site as his toilet bowl.  His presence has one effect only:  to pollute a few really worthwhile comments threads, making them so no one wants to read them.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 02:11 AM | #

JB, you’re refering to those who know and recognize that they are Metis.

Dainty, I’m hardly impressed.  You’re essentially repeating what I said and using it against arguement, which was that large differences will exist between individuals of the same race.  Oh, and your reference to the paternity test is a moot point.  What you’re talking about is mitochondrial DNA, which only affects the traits of the mitochondria.  It is not nuclear DNA. 

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

Mc Brutty,

2003?  I’m surprised you didn’t quote the stats for 1990, when it was less than 1% of all marriages.  Come on, I’m talking about last year.  13.6%.  Look it up.  You’ve got Google.

Kulturkampf , so you know a Korean academic? Ever heard of what is an ipsedixitism? 

Also, there are no more significant genetic differences between Koreans and South East Asians than Europeans and Africans.

What’s increasingly clear is that you only believe what feeds your arguement.  Cognitive dissonance and obfuscation.

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 22, 2006, 03:06 AM | #

there are no more significant genetic differences between Koreans and South East Asians than Europeans and Africans.

Nonsense.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 03:29 AM | #

typo...there are no more or fewer…

Posted by JB on December 22, 2006, 03:37 AM | #

Interracialist:

JB, you’re refering to those who know and recognize that they are Metis.

you still haven’t brought up any evidence that most french canadians have aboriginal blood while I brought up the fact that less than 0.3 % of the unions recorded by the Church before the british conquest were between aboriginals and whites. Put up or shut up, boring troll

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 03:50 AM | #

Nonsense?  It’s obvious that obfuscation and pigeonholing are the modus operandi here.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 04:08 AM | #

jb,

It’s an historical fact that many the first French settlers married native women.  I doesn’t take much of an effort to find proof of that.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=french+settlers+native+women&btnG=Search

What’s this all got to do with you guys feeling you have the right to dictate how others live their lives?  Nothing, except for the fact that it proves my point about obfuscation and doublespeak arguements.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 04:30 AM | #

0.3%?  Couldn’t find it in the links you posted.  Besides, what you failed to consider is that unions between natives and French mostly occured in the earlier years of immigration (hence, the misleadingly small number if you group it with the period where whole families began settling in Canada) and that the descendants of the early settlers married and had children with newcomers.  It’s only natural that present day French Canadians are product of the unions of early French settlers and native women.  The longer a population has existed in an area, the more likely it will be present day family trees.  For example, if you look at my family tree, you’ll find the family names of almost every person who settled in Port Royal, not that you’d never guess from my last name. 

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/ns/portroyal/natcul/histor_e.asp

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 22, 2006, 04:45 AM | #

typo...there are no more or fewer…

Even bigger nonsense.

Nonsense?  It’s obvious that obfuscation and pigeonholing are the modus operandi here.

Cavalli-Sforza.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 22, 2006, 04:59 AM | #

It’s an historical fact that many the first French settlers married native women.  I doesn’t take much of an effort to find proof of that.

Actually the google search link you provided, a very interesting article, thank you, supports JB’s position. While some of the ‘first’ French settlers married aboriginals it was a contentious issue.

The marital union of European and Aboriginal was perceived as problematic because it symbolized the mixing of irreconcilable dichotomies: civilized versus primitive and Christian versus heathen. It must be remembered that even though such notions are discredited today, Europeans in the past were quite apprehensive about mixing with those they categorized as being of a different and lesser race and whose “degenerate” qualities they thought could be transmitted by blood.2

Ultimately it was a practice that was abandoned.

In Acadia and New France, fur trade and military concerns were intertwined with small-scale settlement projects, which contributes to the perception that intermarriage was more commonplace than it actually was. There is a general impression that intermarriage was widespread in New France and that Frenchmen had a natural predilection for Aboriginal women. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the French Canadian experience can be differentiated in terms of context: the settler colony along the St. Lawrence was ultimately far less enthusiastic about intermarriage than were fur traders in the hinterland. At the beginning of the colonization of New France during the early seventeenth century, it appears that intermarriage might have been a key component of French colonization policy. This stems from Champlain’s famous remark, “Our young men will marry your daughters and we shall be one people,” but far too much can be made of this.5 By the time a Crown Colony was established in 1663, it was acknowledged that intermarriage had failed to produce a stable demographic base. The new approach was to begin state-supported importation of French women, the filles du roi.

Therefore, according to the sources you provide, aboriginal admixture in the Quebecois is not relevant vis-a-vis an EGI strategy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3687/is_200201/ai_n9030035

Posted by Interracislist on December 22, 2006, 05:39 AM | #

That does little to detract from my point that from the original couple of thousand French settlers, many of which were married to native women, there are now millions French Canadians...and therefore the odds are that every single French Canadian has at least one Native Canadian ancestor.

And you still haven’t answered Jdog’s 3 questions.  Once again, obfuscation, doublespeak arguements and cognitive dissonance.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 22, 2006, 05:52 AM | #

Ah but it does detract from your assertion, because the settler colony on the St. Lawrence, from which the Quebecois are derived, was based upon the importation of French women.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2006, 05:54 AM | #

It makes no difference what white people did race-wise four hundred years ago, four thousand years ago, four billion years ago, four years ago, or four minutes ago:  if people want to remain what they are they have the right not to be coerced otherwise by arrogant Euro élites, Christian-Euro-hating Jews, “self-abnegating” Christians, clueless women in the voting booth who don’t belong there, capitalists seeking slave-labor, communists of every stripe including a communist-tilted pro-race-replacement possibly homosexual-influenced Vatican Curia, “racial-realist” desi bloggers, Jewish-financed, backed, and whipped-up organizations of Euro-loathing dagoes and wogs such as MECHA and The National Council of La Raza, and so on.  If science discovered that all four grandparents of every white person alive today had been pure Congolese Bantus black as the ace of spades and could prove it I’d have no hesitation whatsoever accepting it and it would change strictly nothing in regard to legitimate opposition to forced race-replacement of white people — nothing whatsoever:  what we are, no matter how, when, or where we got this way, is what we want to remain.  If we got beamed down to earth from the Planet of the Orcs five milliseconds ago and were all gorillas until that very moment or if we arrived here as pure snow-white blond blue-eyed albino Aryans with IQs of 200 in a flying saucer from the planet Zorg orbiting Betelgeuse ten-thousand Big Bangs ago or if the Witch of Endor waved a magic wand and we all suddenly parachuted out of the sky with fake memories implanted in our brains of having been here all our lives or if we all got extruded out of a rhinoceros anus the way Jim Carey did in that Ace Ventura Pet Detective movie, or if we got here the way Charles Darwin said we did, no matter:  what we are right now is what concerns us and what we are is what we want to stay thank you very much all you race-replacement engineers out there.  The volumes and volumes of diarrhea this piece of sewage keeps spraying out of his anus all over this thread are the irrelevant fixations of a compulsive coprophiliac/coprophagiac with a triple-digit IQ of which unfortunately only two are to the left of the decimal place — sorry, Jdog/Interracialist, 78.7 isn’t an IQ that’ll qualify you to comment at this site so go vomit your stinking psychotic putrefaction elsewhere.  Have a nice day.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 22, 2006, 06:12 AM | #

As for the questions:

1. EGI is about, as Fred so eloquently describes, about preservation of uniqueness not superiority.

2. Again, it not about social ills, it’s about preserving uniqueness.

3. A vested interest in personal lives - to convince them of the virtue, as their forefathers instinctively realised (see above) of preserving uniqueness.

The questions are irrelevant to the discussion of EGI.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 07:00 AM | #

“Ah but it does detract from your assertion, because the settler colony on the St. Lawrence, from which the Quebecois are derived, was based upon the importation of French women.”

And where many of the men were Metis Acadians…

I really like the way you are sticking to that one, forgetting about the French outside of Quebec as if they are non-existent.

Scooby doo,

Did it occur to you that maybe you are the one who’s mistaken?  Seems like your little rant does little more than prove that what motivates you is hate, ignorance, and racism.

1. 2.  And yet you all speak of genetic interest.  It’s vailed racism.

3.  Then, keep it to yourselves and stop trying to impose it on others.  But, I warn you, the natural outcome is that you’ll eventually become inbreds and disappear out of genetic diseases.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 22, 2006, 07:12 AM | #

the French outside of Quebec

So what? the nominal admixture does not affect their kinship with the Quebecois.

It’s vailed racism.

Race realism actually and it’s virtuous because it recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others.

Then, keep it to yourselves and stop trying to impose it on others.

No one forced you to come here.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 08:41 AM | #

“Race realism actually and it’s virtuous because it recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others.”

Sounds like racist paranoia and xenophobia to me. 
Besides, I thought it was about how you’ve been slighted by the Zionist/Black world domination conspiracy.  Whatever.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

“No one forced you to come here.”

If you put out lies and propaganda, you have to be ready to be challenged about it.  It might not happen very often because, in the greater scheme of things, your belong to a fringe minority who’s still stuck in the 19th century, who still grasp as the lie that there is scientific basis behind social darwinism because it give you a false sense of superiority.

In any case, it is your officially stated goal.  Reread the previous comments and other threads.  It’s pretty self-evident. But, there is a certain disconnect here at work.  In reality, what you’re after is the indoctrination of highly impressionable teenagers so that they buy into your nonsense, as you have to gain from it one way or another.  I wasn’t too far of when I suggested there is cognitive dissonance in your arguements.

Posted by dainty brute on December 22, 2006, 10:32 AM | #

“Oh, and your reference to the paternity test is a moot point.  What you’re talking about is mitochondrial DNA, which only affects the traits of the mitochondria.  It is not nuclear DNA.”

You ignorant bastard - paternity tests are based on nuclear, autosomal DNA.  Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child, fathers DO NOT pass their mitochondrial DNA to anyone, so how could it be the basis of a paternity test?

One hopes GW will reconsider my private suggestion of yesterday, stubborness is not always a virtue, and certainly not now.

I’m curious as well as “inbreeding” among ethnies that are constituted of, in many cases, tens of millions of people are going to lead to “genetic diseases?” There will be no more incidence of “genetic diseases” than now.

By the way, data from Cavalli-Sforza’s work on genetic distance:
http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/salter_1.gif

“In reality, what you’re after is the indoctrination of highly impressionable teenagers so that they buy into your nonsense, as you have to gain from it one way or another. “

Describing your own strategy of promoting miscegenation, and lying about genetics?

By the way, talking about “jdogs” “socratic” 3 questions, I answered them and the answers were, of course, ignored.

Enough time has been wasted with these moronic imbeciles, who make dogmatic statements about things that they haven’t the slightest clue about (eg, genetic distance, mitochondroal DNA, paternity tests, etc.).

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 10:38 AM | #

“"Race realism actually and it’s virtuous because it recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others.”

One more thing about that comment.  I’ve read 2 pages of statements in this thread alone where people argued against miscegenation for other reasons than this, mainly dysgenics and other such scientifically racist concepts that borrow heavily from Eugenics and Social Darwinism.  Accuse me of Neo-Lysenkoism if you may, it doesn’t change the fact that the above statement is a doublespeak arguement.

Posted by Orion Blue on December 22, 2006, 11:22 AM | #

“In reality, what you’re after is the indoctrination of highly impressionable teenagers so that they buy into your nonsense, as you have to gain from it one way or another.”

In reality, it seems to be the case that the public schooling and education system is obsessed with ‘indoctrinating impressionable teenagers’. Consider for example, the speech codes in university campuses, ‘whiteness studies’ options on the curriculum and for the commercial arena, ‘sensitivity training’ and ‘diversity awareness’ courses.

Now, what were you saying about indoctrination? It seems that so much effort is required to keep ‘on message’ viz-a-viz the diversity orthodoxies, that it is an ongoing propaganda exercise.

Posted by Interracial on December 22, 2006, 12:15 PM | #

Orion,

I’d say that those courses are a logical response to the creeping racism in society.  Propaganda? I doubt it.  Tolerance and respect are constructive forces, racism and fear are destructive.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2006, 12:35 PM | #

I vote for not just banning this character but deleting all his comments whether signed as Jdog, Interracialist, or any of the several other aliases he used when he first showed up.  Delete them.  Can everyone see he has not only zero value as a “foil to educate the readers” but negative value because of his fourfold defects of stupidity, biological pig-ignorance, dishonesty, and psychopathology?  This piece of garbage is a clone of Simon.  He’s here for one reason, to masturbate by running off at the mouth.  To let him continue and to leave his dog-mess posted is to pollute this site.  Bats-man’s IQ is low enough — I don’t think the site should stoop any lower than Bats-man in tolerating rank stupidity and it certainly should not tolerate commenters who have the other defects this piece of excrement has.  Opponents must be tolerated, yes.  But they have to have a certain IQ (and, ideally, a minumum of knowledge of the subject-matter they’re presuming to argue about).

Posted by Guessedworker on December 22, 2006, 01:23 PM | #

Interracal,

Your demand for tolerance is actually a demand for forebearance of your pursuit of your own interests.  That means forebearance of interests running counter to and damaging ours.  Meanwhile, not only do you have no tolerance of our interests, you deny that we could possible possess such a thing.

And respect?  Well, if it does not mean respect for freedom of association, what the hell does it mean?  Respect for the individual?  Nope, not that.  Wait, it means the automatic right of aliens to be allowed to do as they please in our homelands because they are, after all, jolly fine specimens of humanity.  Does that sound like a logical European strategy to you?  It really doesn’t, does it?

Meanwhile, you are happy to lean heavily upon the Trotskyist analysis of European racism.  Well, think again.  The accusation of racism is itself racist, since the presumption that one is worthy to stand over another human being or group of human beings and ascribe to him/them a lower moral worth is a supremacist claim.  Presumption, or prejudice, and supremacism are the key constituents of racism.  Be careful how you use them.

Fear?  Nope, doesn’t compute.  I don’t want aliens in my country because I want my country to be for its own people. That is normal, not the product of some special white-skinned fear of the other.  Again, you are relying on an anti-European analysis you have read someplace.  It was and is a highly selective reading.  India operates a brown India immigration policy to keep India Indian.  Likewise, you can’t become a Chinese in China or a Japanese in Japan because these healthy, normal peoples want their countries to be for themselves.

Is the normal, healthy desire of Indians, Chinese and Japanese based on Marxist intolerance and some godawful irrational fear?  Or is the Marxist analysis simply more of that anti-white prejudice and supremacism?

Try to understand that our normal, Nature-given impulses rebel at your presence among us, just as those of Indians, Chinese or Japanese would rebel at our presence in India, China or Japan.  I should add Korea here, too, shouldn’t I?  There is no liberal la-la-land where Nature’s remit does not obtain, no place where native self-interest is abnormal or irrational or illegitimate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2006, 01:29 PM | #

“1. EGI is about, as Fred so eloquently describes, about preservation of uniqueness not superiority.” (—Desmond)

The point I was making was one which someone else here also recently made in one of the threads (it may have been Brute):  it makes no difference how whites or any sub-group of whites came to be.  What they are right at this moment is what they want to stay.  One of the other side’s standard ploys is to claim, for example (as the Negro commenter who used to sign as “Thought” at certain blogs often claimed, in effect), that since whites were Negroes before they evolved, 1) they shouldn’t object to being changed back into Negroes, and/or 2) they actually already still are Negroes, on grounds that you are what your ancestors were, so changing them back into Negroes wouldn’t even be a change, let alone something any whites should object to.  Everyone should see that what whites or anyone else were is irrelevant to their wish to remain what they are now.  Jdog-mess/Interracialist’s argument (amounting to trying to show Quebeckers are already non-white since some coureurs-de-bois took Red Indian wives, and therefore not only shouldn’t object to being changed into something non-white but “can’t” be changed into something non-white since they’re already non-white to begin with) is an instance of the logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy.  This should be clear to everyone.  If a coalition of extremely aggressive race-replacement-advocacy organizations such as, uhhh, let’s say ... uhhhhhh wait, I’ll think of some ... the names are on the tip of my tongue ... just a sec, it’ll come to me ... oh yeah, GOT it! — such as the ADL, the ACLU, the People for the Amerikwan Way, and the SPLC (gee, I wonder what all those oganizations have in common? ...) ... if a coalition of groups who push race-replacement extremely aggressively, such as the ADL, the ACLU, the People for the Amerikwan Way, and the SPLC, showed up in Rwanda-Burundi and told the Watusis they were going to race-replace them with the Hutus, and if the Watusis said, “But we like the way we are and don’t want to be changed into the Hutus,” it would do no good for these Jewish groups to reply, trotting out the genetic fallacy, “But you were both the same as each other as recently as six or seven thousand years B.C.E.( * )” It would do no good since it’s now six or seven thousand years on from six or seven thousand years B.C.E. and what the Watusis are now, not what they were six or seven thousand years B.C.E., is what they want to stay and are entitled to stay.
______

( * That’s what the Jews call B.C.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2006, 01:38 PM | #

“it’s now six or seven thousand years on from six or seven thousand years B.C.E.”

Excuse me:  eight or nine thousand years on, actually ...