Leftist White Supremacy: not in my name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really??!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To each his own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How on earth am I a left wing white supremacists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems like you have twisted priorities, Svyatoslav Igorevich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I commend you for one thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same old, same old…

Anyway:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lightweight!

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

I love it.

Finally the mediocrities meet their superior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe, hardyandtiny, you are having a bad day?

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

This site is amazing!  You all need hero cookies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, glad I found your site.

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

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

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

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

Good luck,

Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society

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

Richardson,

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

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

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

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

‘Scottish, African and Native American’?

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

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

jdog2050,

Excellent proposal. I have two suggestions;

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

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

Regards,
Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society

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

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

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

@Richardson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@guessedworker

...mmm...noooooo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry if they are not therefore available to you.

“Not only do you have a low IQ...”

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

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

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

“..AND any meaningful achievements whatsoever..”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“jdog2050,

Excellent proposal. I have two suggestions;

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

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

Regards,
Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society”

“jdog” replied:

“@Richardson,

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

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

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

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

To all self-hating racial engineers:

Fact one. Only a minority of whites supports immigration.

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

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

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

Group rights vs. individual rights

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

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

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

All clear now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a brief definition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, caretaker, draw a picture now.

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

I’ll go tie my shoes now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen,

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

Resistance is futile,

Richardson
Chairman, Gerafasiman Racial Pureness Society

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

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

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

Richardson,

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

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

Best regards,
Alien Force Commander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jdog2050: omg lol dude wtf lurker pwned u

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right you are, Svyatoslav Igorevich!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s take selected quotes from my original statement:

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

Note: “overall population”

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

Note: “average set of genetic information”

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

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

“The same applies to individuals...”

Note: “individuals”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second that, Retew.  Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brute,

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

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

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

PS.  You still haven’t answered my question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, Retew, you take over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They would adapt to their environment:

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

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

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

jdog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tillman,

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

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

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

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

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

No.  You have clearly demonstrated otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s someone else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interracialist, do you have an ethnic genetic interest?

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

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

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

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

jdog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your reponse.

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 ...

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 22, 2006, 04:44 PM | #

Why the surprise? Dogerel posts spawn (j)dogerel comments.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 05:18 PM | #

“ The accusation of racism is itself racist...”

No.  Racism is racist.  Accusations of racism are inflamatory if, and only if, they are unfounded.  Besides, racism exists everywhere--which in itself does not validate your own racist/racialist views.

“I don’t want aliens in my country because I want my country to be for its own people. “

So, Europeans are going to return North Americans to the aboriginal people, or maybe at least respect the land treaties that they supposedly signed in good faith?

“ 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.”

Really? In this case, I can’t decide whether you’re ill informed or if you’re simply projecting your own views unto others in an attempt to validate them.  In any case, I’ve got pale skinned friends with passports of those countries who would disagree with you.  Heck, the Uygurs are white people that are native to China (there are 8.4 million of them).

“I should add Korea here, too, shouldn’t I? “

Actually, you shouldn’t.  As nationalistic as Koreans can be, I was essentially offered citizenship by the Korean government, which I refused (I don’t want to get into details, but my refusal was purely based on a rather minor financial concern).  Regardless, I have the right to vote here despite refusing the offer.  Can landed immigrants vote in your country?

Posted by Interacialist on December 22, 2006, 05:25 PM | #

Don’t know if my first post came through, but guessedworker,

Racism exists everywhere, but it doesn’t make it right to be so.

China and Japan allows foreigners to become citizens of their countries.  I know plenty of pale skinned poeple, and darker ones, who’d disagree with you statement concerning this.

Korea?  I was offered Korean citizenship, but I refused (minor financial concern).  Despite my refusal, I have the right to vote here.  Can you say as much about the landed immigrants in your country?

Return your country to it’s people?  Only when Europeans go back home or respect the treaties they have signed with the natives.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 05:27 PM | #

I guess it did…

Sorry about the double post.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 05:35 PM | #

In any case, Merry Christmas! (you know, the day that dark-skinned Arab prophet was born).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 22, 2006, 09:05 PM | #

I wonder how many so-called anti-racists start where the rubber meets the road.  I wonder how many troll pro-Israeli boards and blogs.  After all, that’s where the real Cowboy and Indian action is going on, isn’t it?  I wonder how much griping they do about Zimbabwe?

Oh wait, those aren’t the real point of anti-racism, sorry, never mind.

Posted by Interracialist on December 23, 2006, 12:24 AM | #

Svyatoslav,

Obfuscation, once again.  Okay.  I’ll take a jab at it.

You can wonder all you want, but what’s written on those boards is neither relevant to the question at hand, nor an excuse for your own prejudices and biases.

Presenting the other side of an argument isn’t trolling.  Besides, isn’t this site an open forum for debate or a repository of racist propaganda and a recruiting tool?

Posted by stari_momak on December 23, 2006, 02:10 AM | #

So, Europeans are going to return North Americans to the aboriginal people, or maybe at least respect the land treaties that they supposedly signed in good faith?

My God, how many times does this have to be answered. America didn’t exist until we got here. The state, society, economy, everything is down to us. Even the name of the geographic entity. We conquered it, just as the previous people who were in what is now the United States most likely conquered it from someone else (as anthropological evidence is now revealing). And we did keep the treaties with the injuns—that’s why the institution of the Indian casino exists.

Uighurs certainly don’t consider themselves Chinese, and are not considered by Han to be Chinese, no matter that they carry a passport issued by the Chinese state. As for your personal ‘being offered citizenship’—well, there are always outliers. I ‘googled’ immigration to Korea , and just about the only info available is for foreign women who marry Korean men. The fact is that China, Japan, Korea etc. simply don’t let in masses of foreigners as permanent residents.

Posted by JB on December 23, 2006, 08:34 AM | #

Interracialist:

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.

you’re not even capable of pointing to a specific source to back up your claim, you’re just throwing a Google at me. Let’s see, the first 10 results of the google link your posted :

1. Access Restricted. (Do you have access to this article ? are you registered ?)

2. Wikipedia style article that says some French traders and their employees often married Native women. no numbers

3. an article on colonialism in North Africa. completely irrelevant

4. article about the aboriginals in Lousiana.

5. article about french settlers in Illinois. No source listed for the claim that “Many Frenchmen wed Indian women”, no numbers either

6. pertinent but no numbers. “During the 17th century, both the French and the native people encouraged mixed marriages.”, well it wasn’t very successfull if it were true.

7. wikipedia article on indian massacres. irrelevant

8. the word ‘French’ only appears two times on the whole page

9. article says french traders (i.e. hunters, trappers) and indian women started the Métis nations. no numbers

10.history of the Lacrosse game. completely irrelevant

Interracialist:

0.3%?  Couldn’t find it in the links you posted.

this is the link I posted, it’s a french website dealing with genealogy.

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%.

123 interracial couples on the 44 500 recorded by the church, 0.27 %.

Interracialist:

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.

there wasn’t a lot of people in Canada before 1608. The settlers really started coming at the beginning of the 17th century. You don’t know how many people there were nor how many of them got married or produced children with aboriginals - I can’t find the numbers either but you’re just presuming that there were a lot of settlers before the 1600s to avoid the fact that only 0.27 % of all marriages recorded by religious authorities were interaccial.

Interracialist:

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

no you’re the one who’s sticking to this. Why don’t you post numbers about marriages in Acadia between the aboriginals and the french if you’re so sure many of them were into interracial relationships ?

you’re a boring troll. This sub-debate is going nowhere and it’s too late for you anyway since you’re already the product of an interracial union, you’re de facto a confused person who’s going to have politicals opinions compatible with your condition. You don’t want ‘racism’ because it makes you feel bad/uncomfortable, the rest of your arguments are just rhetorical layers of paper wrap.

Posted by JB on December 23, 2006, 08:40 AM | #

Interracialist:

I’d say that those courses are a logical response to the creeping racism in society.

with all the wiggers walking around and all the mexicans and Clinton’s saying he’s proud that whites are going to be a minority, you conclude there’s a creeping racism in american society ? you’re living in an other dimension

Interracialist:

Besides, racism exists everywhere--which in itself does not validate your own racist/racialist views.

au contraire, if whites are the only group not pursuing its group interests and the only group to consider ethnocentrism immoral then the only result of this mindset will be the self-destruction of whites.

Why should we kill ourselves ? You see morality in suicide ? I don’t. We don’t. That’s where the line is drawn: our enemies want us to kill ourselves, we want to live and prosper.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2006, 04:18 PM | #

A pair of excellent posts by JB there.  Good job, JB!

Posted by JB on December 23, 2006, 07:36 PM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby

Fred please make paragraphs, it’s easier to read when there are paragraphs

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2006, 08:46 PM | #

I’ve already been chastised for that, JB.  It’s one of my big defects.  Thanks for the reminder and I’ll try always to keep it in mind.

May I ask what your native language is?  You’re a Quebecker, right?  Are you of English-speaking family there or French-speaking?