Oh for G-d’s sake: insane miscegenation propaganda

Posted by Andy on August 23, 2006, 02:37 AM | #

Sailer is a clown for promoting this.  What are the odds that a book about the supposed benefits of interracial marriage touches on IQ? I’d say that they’re very slim.

I enjoy the joke in the post’s title, by the way.

On the book’s website Ziv proclaims that “no, he is not interracial” himself.  I wonder what his parents would think of this book. I also wonder if Ziv practices what he preaches and eschews prominent-nosed females in favor of darker shades of woman. Does Ziv practice what he preaches or is this just advice for us crackers?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Andy on August 23, 2006, 02:42 AM | #

This is bothering me: I used the phrase “practice what he preaches” in consectutive sentences, making me sound like an idiot. I vow to proofread my posts from now on before submitting them.

Posted by ben tillman on August 23, 2006, 04:42 AM | #

Alon Ziv, Alon Ziv, why is that name pinging my Jewdar?

This bit by Sarah Silverman seems apposite:

Well, Kevin, I guess the most important event of this past week was, of course, the wedding of my sister, Susan Silverman, to Yosef Abramowitz. It was a really neat wedding, too, you know, ’cause they took each other’s last names and hyphenated it. So now my sister’s name is Susan Silverman-Abramowitz. But they’re thinking of shortening it to just “Jews.”

Posted by Al Ross on August 23, 2006, 05:53 AM | #

The name Susan Silverman rings a bell for those who have read the formulaic and ultra-PC detective novels of Robert B Parker. Needless to say, the hero, Spenser, has a Black ‘best-buddy’ (Hawk), and the above named Jewess for a girlfriend, thus making the Parker novels amusing for their irony value and little else.

Posted by Alexei on August 23, 2006, 08:21 AM | #

S.I., I don’t believe you’re serious about Jews being unlikely to miscegenate. American Jewish leaders complain that the outmarriage rate is close to 50%. Also, the experience of Soviet Jews is not only a story of emancipation but also of outmarriage. On the contrary, intragroup marriage, including cousin marriage, led to a high percentage of the mentally and genetically ill among the Ashkenazim.

Posted by ben tillman on August 23, 2006, 08:46 AM | #

“American Jewish leaders complain that the outmarriage rate is close to 50%.”

They’re lying, Alexei.

Posted by Alexei on August 23, 2006, 09:11 AM | #

If they are lying, Russia is still a valid example. Children of mixed marriages are greatly overrepresented among Russia’s educated and successful.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 09:28 AM | #

Do people here need more evidence that Sailer is a turd?  Steve, if you are reading: you’re a turd. 

Three brief comments on this book (which Sailer, who, by the way, previously cited miscegenation as the solution for racial problems):

1. One can quote J Richards’ dissection of the Gillian Rhodes study, as well as the subjectiveness of “attractiveness.” This latter point is underscored by the cover picture of this book - is that supposed to be an example of an “attractive” mongrel?” The woman is, by my standards, incredibly grotesque - I can see black women who are better looking, and that’s not saying much.  Please.  Then there is that other example of “inter-racial beauty” - Devon Aoki - who to my eyes looks like a distorted space alien. 

2. Richard Udry’s article (discussed by J Richards on MR) plainly shows that mixed race children and adolescents have more, not less, physical and mental problems.  Are Hispanics or African-Americans healthier than white Americans, even when controlling for income, etc?  No, they are not.  There is in fact NO hard evidence that broad race-mixing enhances health.

3. I seem to doubt that any of these analyses actually try to “balance the books” and look at the potential negatives of race mixing: the immense damage to parental kinship and EGI, the disruption of (in some cases practically useful and/or aesthetic) combinations of gene frequencies, the fact of having children phenotypically distinct from parents/grandparents, dilution of culture, and the demographic effects on a race (whites) who are suffering from displacement migration and low birthrates.

Do the illusory benefits compensate for these negatives?  The effects on genetic relatedness have to come first and foremost.  In the case of European-African mating, the offspring would be relatively less related to each parent than to a random co-ethnic!  In the case of a mating between Europeans and East Asians (or Amerindians, as the case is with the origin of many Hispanic groups), the grandparents would be less related to the grandchildren than to a random co-ethnic (as per the genetic data and Harpendings’ formulae).

And that doesn’t even consider the further question - not covered by Salter - about genetic structure, which may well amplify these negative effects to a large degree.  Why is this ignored?

By the way, the lead story in this month’s AR (which is only Part I of two) is a searing indictiment of the stupidity of citizenism, given its implications.  But, then, we always *knew* citizenism was stupid, after all, look its originator.

Alexei - the issue of Jewish intermarriage is one that I commented on *twice* on this blog, giving links, statistics, and a formula for calculating relative assimilation.  Even IF the Jewish intermarriage rate is ~50%, that is still indicative of a resistance to intermarriage, given the relative proportions of Jews/Gentiles in the population, and, adjusted for population, is much less than white gentile ethnic groups in America.

Another point: most Jewish intermarriage is with (higher-class) white gentiles, not with non-Caucasian peoples.  Thus, Jews encourage, for example, white-black mating, while resisting intermarriage themselves, and, when they do intermarry, it is with the more intelligent and attractive representatives of the same broad race to which they belong.

That’s the point.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 01:16 PM | #

For those so-called “race realism pundits” who question the parental kinship problem, let’s plug in Cavalli-Sforza’s data into the parental kinship formulae.

English-Bantu Fst = 0.2288
What’s the parental kinship of either an English or Bantu parent to the mixed offspring?
1/4- Fst/4 = 0.1716

0.2288>0.1716; the parent is, relatively, genetically more similar to a random co-ethnic in an English vs. Bantu comparison, than they are to their own child.

English - S. Chinese (Fst = 0.1152), at the level of grandparents
1/8-Fst/8
= 0.1106, which is a bit less than 0.1152; thus, the grandparents are more similar to a random co-ethnic.

And, this does not even consider the factor of genetic structure, nor does it factor in that many phenotypically relevant genes have a greater inter-population Fst as measured by neutral markers.

Non-existent “advantages” from inter-racial mating do not compensate for the known diminishment of genetic kinship.

As much as some “conservatives” hope that inter-racial hybrids would make good “citizens”, the data cannot be ignored.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 01:21 PM | #

And a point made here before: if Sailer’s ‘anti-racist’ buddies believe that ‘most genetic variation is within, not between, groups’, then it would seem that ‘hybrid vigor’ would be best achieved by intra-racial rather than inter-racial mating.

After all, gee, isn’t that 85% of the variation more than the 15%?

However, if, in order to promote miscegenation, they admit that - random gene sharing aside - the major genetic variation is between racial groups, then the concepts of ethnic genetic interests and parental kinship come to the fore.

They cannot have it both ways: stressing intra-group variation when they want to delegitimize race, and then stressing inter-group variation when they want to invoke some mythical ‘hybrid vigor’ for the admixed.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

Is this an example of inter-racial attractiveness:

http://breedingbetweenthelines.com/

J Richards, can we have a phenotypic analysis please?  How about side-by-side comparisons with unmixed white women?  Or, even unmixed Asian women - I’ll pick someone like Lucy Liu over this grotesque hybrid, if forced to make such a choice.

When is Mr. Ziv going to preach the advantages of inter-racial marriage (i.e., not marriage to white gentiles) to Jews?  After all, given all the recessive genetic disorders of the Ashkenazim, injecting, for example, African bloodlines would do wonders for them and their competitiveness, won’t you think?

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 01:46 PM | #

From Ziv’s website:

“ * After 18 holes, Tiger Woods probably smells better than his competitors.”

JW: “Probably.” Very scientific.  Even if true (is Ziv planning to sniff Tiger?), the importance of this is...?

“* Julia Roberts was more likely to have an orgasm with Benjamin Bratt than with Lyle Lovett.”

JW: “More likely.” Very scientific.  How about this - it is “more likely” for a Jewish ‘scientist’ to twist scientific data, and ignore genetic kinship, to promote miscgenation, than it a gentile scientist.

“* Odds are, Lenny Kravitz lost his virginity earlier than most rock stars.”

JW: “Odds are.” Very scientific.  “Odds are” that Ziv approves of inter-racial marriage (for *us*, not *them*), and wrote his “book” with that a priori agenda.

“These bizarre, sensational statements sound like they were ripped from the headlines of The National Enquirer, but they are grounded in solid scientific research.”

Really?  Tell that to Udry.

“What do Tiger Woods, Benjamin Bratt, and Lenny Kravitz have in common? Their interracial heritage. This mixed ancestry gives them better genes and stronger, healthier, better-looking bodies.”

Evidence?  What is the evidence that those individuals actually have “better genes?” That they are “stronger” than the average person in their own field?  Healthier?  That they are considered “better-looking?” Propaganda aside, would women consider Woods “better-looking” than white golfers of similar age?  Is Bratt considered better-looking than Pitt?  How many women would swoon over Lenny Kravitz, compared to white musicians of the same age and status?

Liar.

However, given Ziv’s ancestry, “liar” may be redundant.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 02:34 PM | #

History gives us some examples of populations that are derived from inter-continental admixture: Latin America, Central Asia, South Asia, and North Africa. Are these regions noted for their great health, attractiveness, physical prowess, or accomplishments?  No.  Even more to the point, the individuals from these regions who seem to make the biggest impact with respect to vigor or attractiveness – in entertainment (e.g., Bollywood, Brazilian supermodels, Mexican news anchors) or in sports (Pele, Zidane) – are at either end or the other of the racial spectrum of their respective nations; highly admixed people, for some reason, are not floating to the top.

Let’s look at baseball.  In his updated Historical Abstract, Negro-League worshipper Bill James lists the 100 top baseball players of all time, and he includes Negro Leaguers, thus making it acceptable to include the pre-integration era for study.  Of course, we do not have genetic data for these players, but based on ancestry and physical appearance (when such is known), we can make reasonable approximations.  The top ten players of all time are either white or dark-skinned (and presumably, predominantly African) blacks.  The same holds for the top twenty.  In the top thirty James includes Negro League star Turkey Stearnes, whose racial background is unknown to me.  So, that is one possible highly admixed person in the top 30, and that’s “possible.” The next ten – white or dark-skinned black.  The next ten has another Negro League star, Mule Suttles, of unknown racial background.  So far, that’s two out of 50 that *may* be highly admixed.  The next ten includes a known mulatto – Roy Campanella – as well as Negro League star Smokey Joe Williams, whose racial appearance I do not know.  One definite, and three “maybes” out of 60.  The next ten contains Negro League star Cristobal Torriente, who I know was admixed, as well as Rod Carew, a black Panamanian whom we can charitably call admixed.  So far, three out of 70, and 3 “maybes.” Of the next ten, we can consider Alomar and Clemente to be admixed – 5 out of 80.  The last 20 contain 3 players who are probably admixed, and one who may be.  So, the most charitable estimate is that 8 out of 100 are significantly admixed, and 4 may be.  Wow, so impressive.  Please note that I am not counting Ted Williams as admixed, since his “Mexican” mother was apparently predominantly, or fully, of Spanish and Basque descent; his father, I believe was Welsh. The greatest players since integration have been predominantly white or dark-skinned blacks, although of course the Dominican mulattoes Rodriguez and Pujols now have to be ranked high.  There is no clear evidence however, that mixed race players are in any way superior to those who are unmixed. 

As well, shouldn’t the racially mixed breed with other racially mixed people, to maintain their wonderfully diverse genepool?  Assimilating the admixed into the white majority population would dilute their ever-so-superior genes with the ever-so-blandly homogenous genes of whites.  Can’t have that.  The admixed can breed among themselves and create the healthy super-race: as in Mexico, Brazil, Central Asia, North Africa, India, etc.

Good luck.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 02:40 PM | #

“Sailer is a clown for promoting this.”

Unfortunately, he is not a clown, but a more dangerously anti-white specimen.

Some here think that Sailer’s anti-whitism is just “squik-ink” to cover his race-realism; I think the opposite, like his buddies at GNXP, Sailer’s race-realism is the “squid-ink” to cover his multiracialist agenda.

Posted by WJG on August 23, 2006, 02:56 PM | #

On Holliday says…

“Another point: most Jewish intermarriage is with (higher-class) white gentiles, not with non-Caucasian peoples.  Thus, Jews encourage, for example, white-black mating, while resisting intermarriage themselves, and, when they do intermarry, it is with the more intelligent and attractive representatives of the same broad race to which they belong.”

Though I have nothing to base my agreement on other than anecdote (which I have seen time and again), I do agree here, which is then one more reason to see what a serpent Jewry is.  They lure our best away from us with their ill-gotten gains.  Then our best not only lift their inbred genetics up (I am not an IQ fetishist like most MRers), but they then have cover to sell themselves as White when it suits their purposes (commerce), else Jewish (pity points).

As you say elsewhere, why doesn’t the Master Race, which feeds us this poison, prove this theory of hybrid vigor by mating with Bantus rather the cream of the Aryan crop?  They won’t because they know this is all hooey for the Goy cattle.

Also, Rabbi Ziv’s cherry picking of successful hybrids like Tiger Woods is lame.  For every Tiger there are scores of obese and indolent African-Americans with varying degrees of White “vigor” in their blood.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 04:31 PM | #

The Ethiopian ‘Jews’ in Israel present an excellent opportunity to improve the Jewish stock there, as do the Arabs living in Israel, as well as the Asian guest workers (conversion can take care of any religious difficulties and, anyway, many Israelis are secular, so, I’m so sure they won’t mind) there.  What is needed is to have every Ethiopian paired off with an Ashkenazi, and to have the Jewish population physically assimilate through intermarriage (which would need to be legalized because, for some reason, it is currently not legal) the Arab and guest worker population.  Hybrid vigor would boost the quality of the Jewish Israeli population.  In order to improve numbers, Israel could give tax breaks – using American taxpayers’ money of course – to inter-racial couples to have more children.

In America, miscegenation holds the key to a) improve the genetic quality of the Jewish population, b) reverse Jewish demographic decline, c) fix the broken Jewish-black consensus, while reaching out to other people of color, and d) stopping the black drift toward Islam.  Thus, what America’s Jews should do is:
1) mass conversion of large numbers of black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, and
2) thorough intermarriage to these new converts, until the typical Jewish man in America resembles Tiger Woods wearing a yarmulke

Only a vicious and hateful anti-Semite would wish to deprive the Jewish people of the same genetic improvement that Mr. Ziv encourages for us.  Indeed, since John Ray and Lawrence Auster both tell us that anti-Semitism is an unalloyed evil, we here at Majority Rights need to help the Jewish people and do everything we can do promote racial admixture – and the resulting hybrid vigor – between Jews and people of color.

It is the right thing to do.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

“Is this an example of inter-racial attractiveness:

http://breedingbetweenthelines.com/

J Richards, can we have a phenotypic analysis please?”

My own analysis:

*extremely” unattractive and sickly looking.  A masculinized face, with manly jaw, receding forehead, what looks to me to be traces of brow ridges.

A shapeless, putty like nose, and grossly over-thick lips.

An overall “bride of Frankenstein” appearance - a cobbling together of racial traits from different groups, with a complete lack of ‘morphometric integration’ - and an appearance which does more than anything else to refute the “thesis” of the book on which the picture appears.

In point of fact, looking at the real-life admixed people one encounters - rather than made-up celebrities (often with plastic surgery) - it is notable how “unattractive” they appear.

That includes Eurasian hybrids of NW Europeans and NE Asians, often with grossly mismatched features: a NW European jawline coupled to wide NE Asian cheekbones, slanted eyes coupled to a straight narrow nose, a complexion often darker than that of either parent, and features (eyes, nose, and mouth) often mis-sized (usually too small) for the distorted melon of a head.

Hybrid vigor, my ass.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 04:48 PM | #

The brow ridges can be seen in the full picture from the book’s cover.

And I can note she is prognathous as well, with a forward-thrusting jaw, to go with the thick lips and shapeless, grotesque nose.

Gee, now, isn’t that every normal white person’s dream of an “attractive” and “healthy” daughter or granddaughter?

Posted by JB on August 23, 2006, 04:50 PM | #

Zidane

mixed with whom ? he looks wholly european

Posted by JB on August 23, 2006, 04:56 PM | #

can we have a phenotypic analysis please?

she looks like a female Vin Diesel

Posted by Count Dooku on August 23, 2006, 04:56 PM | #

If someone could post a recent pic of OJ’s daughter when she was arrested for assault, they would be doing us a great favor. She looks more like OJ than her brother does.

Posted by JB on August 23, 2006, 04:57 PM | #

Alon Ziv will give a speech at Dutton’s Beverly Hills this coming Saturday Aug 26 at 7:00 pm

“The author signs, presents and reads from his new book, Breeding Between the Lines: Why Interracial People are Healthier and More Attractive, at a champagne reception and discussion.”

447 N. Canon Dr., Beverly Hills, (310) 281-0997

http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=447+N+Canon+Dr,+Beverly+Hills,+CA+90210

Posted by JB on August 23, 2006, 05:02 PM | #

surely this jew will be invited to do a lot of TV, radio and newspaper interviews

first whites were supposed not to discriminate and pretend that everyone is the same, i.e. men all have testicles and women all have breasts therefore we’re all the same you see ? and allow millions of our human “brothers” to settle in our lands but now jews are overtly telling us that it would be a good thing if we discriminate against our own race. Gee I thought discrimination was bad. I’m so confused… I’m going to turn to Oprah for advice…

Alon Ziv pretending to be simply an observer:

The book also addresses why we choose the mates we do; why, in the past, brides and grooms looked more similar than different; and why this is all about to change. The shifting racial demographics of the United States signal that we are on the cusp of a mixed race explosion. Breeding Between The Lines explains what this transformation means and what we can expect for the future of race relations in America.

Alon Ziv bio:

After getting his degree in psychobiology, Alon Ziv went on to perform cutting edge research in the field of neuroscience. He has also served as president of a successful software company, and was a highly rated biology teacher at UCLA. He has lectured on the science of interracial mixing for the Biracial Family Network, the Hapa Issues Forum, Cornell University, and other organizations and colleges throughout the United States. Alon has written everything from academic papers to musical comedy. In fact, he won 1st Prize in the 2003 USA Songwriting competition. He lives in Los Angeles. And no, he is not interracial.

Posted by ben tillman on August 23, 2006, 05:28 PM | #

It is pretty amazing that someone would choose that cover girl to advertise the book.  It calls to mind Yggdrasil’s review of the movie A Clockwork Orange:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12032&goto=nextoldest

Posted by Alon Ziv on August 23, 2006, 06:31 PM | #

I’m the author of Breeding Between the Lines Given the multiple anti-semetic comments I’m probably wasting my time posting here, but a received an email tipping me off to this thread so I thought I’d chime in.

You’ll be happy to hear that I address many of your concerns in the book.  I encourage you to read it before you bash it.  Specifically:

1.  I do discuss IQ and take a look at why it is consistently rising (the Flynn effect).
2.  I do discuss Jews and the the fact that historically their intermarriage numbers are very low.  Many here have been quick to call me a hypocrite, but I encourage intermarriage among all groups.
3. Increasing parental-kinship is only one goal of evolution.  There are others that are equally important.  Cloning would allow for 100% transfer of your genes to the next generation, but sexual reproduction evolved because the genetic variation it provides is incredibly powerful.  If parental-kinship were our only concern than your ideal mate would be your sibling or your parent.  Which I don’t think you’re advocating.

Read the book; make up your own mind.

Alon Ziv

Posted by Count Dooku on August 23, 2006, 07:09 PM | #

How about you go preach your anti-White propaganda to the Jews first and when we see them fall for it (yeah right), then we’ll consider looking at it.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 23, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

S.I., I don’t believe you’re serious about Jews being unlikely to miscegenate.

I refer you to On Holliday’s excellent posts in this thread:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/irreconcilable_differences/#comments

American Jewish leaders complain that the outmarriage rate is close to 50%.

American jewish leaders lobbied to keep jews off the census forms, and now they enjoy cooking up whatever figures suit them.

Also, the experience of Soviet Jews is not only a story of emancipation but also of outmarriage. On the contrary, intragroup marriage, including cousin marriage, led to a high percentage of the mentally and genetically ill among the Ashkenazim.

There were trade-offs, but seeing how jews are the world’s most successful group I don’t think they’re crying into their pillows at night about it.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 07:56 PM | #

“I’m the author of Breeding Between the Lines Given the multiple anti-semetic (sic) comments I’m probably wasting my time posting here”

First set the stage by dismissing us as “anti-Semites”, so as to avoid dealing with the fact that you are promoting genocide and that your “facts” are ass-backwards.  By the way, I hope your book was spell-checked by a competent editor, since you obviously are incapable of spelling at a high-school level.

“ but a received an email tipping me off to this thread so I thought I’d chime in.”

Gee, I wonder who it was who tipped you off?  Citizen Lerch or Brown Sahib?

“You’ll be happy to hear that I address many of your concerns in the book.”

I doubt that.  I doubt you actually understand, or care, what the concerns are.

“I encourage you to read it before you bash it.”

Sure, the next time I’m in a bookstore, and am in the mood to read trash, I’ll look through a copy.  Don’t think I’m going to spend money and actually buy your promotion of genocide.  I look forward to seeing “Salter, Frank” listed in your index.

“Specifically:

1.I do discuss IQ and take a look at why it is consistently rising (the Flynn effect).”

First, unlike most here, I am relatively unconcerned about IQ.  A people’s worth to itself is not measured by someone’s ranking of their phenotype on a hierarchical scale.  However, since IQ is of some importance I may note that: a) The Flynn effect, whatever its cause, is leveling off, and b) the Flynn effect is observed in the absence of inter-continental miscegenation.  Further, as has been discussed on this site before, I fail to see how mixing is going to raise the IQ of the white population, since the only groups with higher average IQ are Jews and Asians – Jews being too few in number to appreciably alter white IQ, and the difference between white and Asian IQ is so small one would need complete panmixia to raise the IQ of the resulting Eurasian mongrel population to a degree that is a fraction of one SD.  Not quite worth genocide, I think, particularly since Asians have proved, despite their high average IQ, incapable of the same creativity as Europeans.  With respect to the idea that outbreeding per se, in general, can raise intelligence, inter-continental mating is not necessary.

“2.  I do discuss Jews and the the (sic) fact that historically their intermarriage numbers are very low.  Many here have been quick to call me a hypocrite, but I encourage intermarriage among all groups.”

Let us know when you lecture Jews in America and Israel to intermarry with colored peoples.  I await their response.  Elliot Abrams in particular should appreciate that.  You may “encourage intermarriage among all groups”, but the practical point is, only some groups are vulnerable to the effects of miscegenation.  Since it is only western societies that have become multiracial, the encouragement of intermarriage is genocidal to those peoples.  China, Japan, Africa, etc. will remain the same as always.  The more ethnocentric of Jews will remain as always.  The promotion of intermarriage will be destructive only to those peoples who no longer live in homogenous homelands and who are exposed to alien peoples with whom admixture is possible.  And we know who those are.  But, hey, if you are sincere, get Israel to change their “law of return”, get them to legalize Jewish-gentile marriages, and get them to stop making guest workers sign pledges not to have sex with Israelis.  Get to work, Ziv.  Why proselytize to the already-converted?

Further, I find it interesting that a person who writes a book about the alleged advantages of intermarriage, states that he encourages such intermarriage.  Scientifically disinterested?  Of course, Ziv the liar will tell us that first he discovered the great advantages of intermarriage, and then, and only then, did he become an advocate for such admixture.  Forgive me for suspecting that first came the commitment to promote admixture and then came the distorting and obfuscating attempts to justify it.

“3. Increasing parental-kinship is only one goal of evolution.”

Evolution has a goal?  What kind of “scientist” are you?  Evolution has no “goals”, moron, it is a non-anthropomorphic process. However, people may have goals, and the pursuit of adaptive behavior, in promoting genetic interests and racial preservation, are worthy goals.  Promoting genocide, as is *your* agenda, is an unworthy goal, and has already been designated as a “crime against humanity” by international tribunals.

“There are others that are equally important.”

Sure.  If you are a hate-filled Middle Easterner, burning with the urge to mongrelize the European peoples out of existence, certainly other goals are important, as you so demonstrate.

“Cloning would allow for 100% transfer of your genes to the next generation, but sexual reproduction evolved because the genetic variation it provides is incredibly powerful.”

In case you haven’t noticed, intra-ethnic, intra-racial endogamous matings are also performed by sexual reproduction, and hence derive the same benefits from recombination as do exogamous mating.  The people of Korea do not reproduce by asexual fission.  The fact that sexual reproduction and a certain amount of genetic variation are adaptive does not logically imply that ever greater amounts of genetic variation, and ever greater disruption of co-evolved gene complexes are adaptive as well.  That is an argument that only the mendacious, or stupid, would make.  Which one is it, Ziv?  And, by the way, have you noticed that speciation, including behavioral barriers to mating between related, and cross-fertile, subspecies (and, in some cases, species) is also part of “evolution’s goals”, and this “goal” of evolution (as you so crudely put it) is ill-served by mixing between the subspecies.

In other words, the existence of sexual reproduction does not in any way, shape, or form implies that crossings between subspecies are always adaptive. 

“If parental-kinship were our only concern than your ideal mate would be your sibling or your parent.”

Strawman alert!  Who is advocating incest, idiot?  Obviously, many animals (including humans) have evolved restraints against incest because of the maladaptive consequences. 

However, there is – and I assume even you have the cognitive ability to recognize this – a big difference between incest and someone marrying an unrelated co-ethnic, or, as happens in America, cross-ethnic breeding within the same continental race.  It is not an “either/or” thing – it is not “maximize parental kinship at all costs, even incest and recessive genetic disorders.” It is to maximize parental kinship to the degree practically possible and desirable, and to avoid unnecessary damage to parental kinship and genetic interests, damage most often observed with mating across continental races.  There is sufficient genetic variation within (the larger) European ethnic groups, and, for sure, among the multi-ethnic European-American population, to safely avoid problems with inbreeding.  The choice is not “marry my sister or marry the African swinging from the nearest tree”, but a choice between marrying unrelated co-ethnics or co-racials of a different, but relatively closely related ethnicity, and marrying someone of different race – the latter choice having devastating effects on kinship and genetic interests, and disruptive of the gene complexes and resultant phenotypes that characterize parents, their families, and their ethnies.  And, for what?  To smell as good as Tiger Woods on the golf course?  Want to help people with inbreeding problems?  Encourage Ashkenazi Jews to marry Africans and African-Americans, that’ll decrease the genetic load in no time. Persons of European descent do not require such “assistance.”

Just because *your* Ashkenazi ancestors inbred at the most intimate levels (including uncle-niece marriages) does not imply that other groups manifest the same array of disturbing recessive genetic disorders. 

“Which I don’t think you’re advocating.”

Strawman alert!  On the other hand, I do know what you are advocating.

“Read the book; make up your own mind.”

My mind is made up that you are guilty of promoting genocide, and, by any objective standard, the crime committed by this book is worse than what Julius Streicher was hanged for at Nuremburg.  I hope that at some point in the future, legally convened tribunals – acting on the premise of “universal nationalism”- will hold trials of those who have attempted the destruction of mankind’s genetic diversity.

By the way, who made the choice of the incredibly grotesque, shockingly unattractive, Vin Diesel-in-drag cover model for the book, and what unholy mixture of ethnicities created such a dismal specimen?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 23, 2006, 08:03 PM | #

This latter point is underscored by the cover picture of this book - is that supposed to be an example of an “attractive” mongrel?”

That was my first thought as well.

When is Mr. Ziv going to preach the advantages of inter-racial marriage (i.e., not marriage to white gentiles) to Jews?  After all, given all the recessive genetic disorders of the Ashkenazim, injecting, for example, African bloodlines would do wonders for them and their competitiveness, won’t you think?

That was my second thought.

And a point made here before: if Sailer’s ‘anti-racist’ buddies believe that ‘most genetic variation is within, not between, groups’, then it would seem that ‘hybrid vigor’ would be best achieved by intra-racial rather than inter-racial mating.

That’s an excellent point, and one I’d not considered. 

Some here think that Sailer’s anti-whitism is just “squik-ink” to cover his race-realism; I think the opposite, like his buddies at GNXP, Sailer’s race-realism is the “squid-ink” to cover his multiracialist agenda.

I made statements like that in the past, but stopped believing them a while ago.  I do still think he’s an immensely useful writer.

2.  I do discuss Jews and the the fact that historically their intermarriage numbers are very low.  Many here have been quick to call me a hypocrite, but I encourage intermarriage among all groups.

Ah, but why not go where you’re most needed?  Start where your advice is least heeded, with American jewry and Israel.

How do you square Ethnic Genetic Interests with your views and work, Mr. Ziv?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 23, 2006, 08:07 PM | #

Btw, Mr. Ziv, I commend you on actually showing up here and replying, rather than pretending you’re “above it all” as seems to be the usual behavior (not that everyone’s heard of MR, mind you ).

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 08:14 PM | #

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

See article II, c and d.

In my opinion - and I cannot see how it is not objectively supported - the promotion of intermarriage, particularly among groups that are demographically threatened, falls under the class of creating conditions that would at least partially destroy the group *and*, in particular, would contribute to a climate of propaganda that imposes a situation that would prevent births of the group.

There is one group worldwide that is below replacement level in reproduction - peoples of European descent.  Further diminishment of their numbers by the promotion of miscegenation, particularly when facts are distorted/obfuscated to that end - would fall under IIc-d.

The only problem is that the current globalist regime is hostile to the European peoples, and so overlooks such crimes against humanity.  We can only hope that some future regime makes up for these omissions.

Posted by Count Dooku on August 23, 2006, 08:23 PM | #

On Holliday...I do believe you just kicked ass.

Posted by Mark Richardson on August 23, 2006, 08:26 PM | #

Svy, I agree with you that this is an excellent argument made by On Holliday:

“And a point made here before: if Sailer’s ‘anti-racist’ buddies believe that ‘most genetic variation is within, not between, groups’, then it would seem that ‘hybrid vigor’ would be best achieved by intra-racial rather than inter-racial mating.”

The contradiction in so clear and fundamental. It’s worth hammering the opposition on this, imo.

Posted by Andy on August 23, 2006, 09:14 PM | #

Read the book; make up your own mind.

Alon Ziv

Mr. Ziv-- this is your publisher’s teaser for your book:

* After 18 holes, Tiger Woods probably smells better than his competitors.

* Julia Roberts was more likely to have an orgasm with Benjamin Bratt than with Lyle Lovett.

* Odds are, Lenny Kravitz lost his virginity earlier than most rock stars.

These bizarre, sensational statements sound like they were ripped from the headlines of The National Enquirer, but they are grounded in solid scientific research. What do Tiger Woods, Benjamin Bratt, and Lenny Kravitz have in common? Their interracial heritage. This mixed ancestry gives them better genes and stronger, healthier, better-looking bodies.

Serious, scholarly works are not promoted in this manner.  This sounds like an advertisement designed to appeal to the people who buy celebrity-obsessed tabloids like Us Weekly or People.  Your novel sounds like sensationalistic, tabloid-esque trash.

And what do you say to Sailer:

On the other hand, I’m not fully convinced by the evidence for much additional hybrid vigor from marrying intercontinentally. Clearly, if all your ancestors came from one little valley up in the mountains, you’d be well advised to marry somebody from outside the valley. Still, it’s not clear that marrying somebody from the other side of the ocean adds much hybrid vigor over marrying somebody from a couple of valleys away. Interracial marriage is a sure way to eliminate inbreeding in your offspring, but I’m not sure that significant inbred depression is much of a problem in American life these days.

You seem to confuse intraracial breeding with inbreeding, a devastating error that would greatly undermine your entire thesis.  So, in conclusion: I have determined that your book is a sensationalistic, tabloid-esque work that makes a massive fundamental error in logic.  I won’t be purchasing a copy.

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 09:22 PM | #

Svigor, from the standpoint of genetic interests, inter-continental mating is “good” only to the extent that the benefits outweigh the costs, and the only way this occurs if it results in an increase in the relative proportion of distinctive genetic information in future generations.

This has been discussed here previously, see my previous posts on ethnic genetic interests.

Now, even if we accept Salter’s naïve, atomistic view of gene frequencies, there are serious problems with the outmarriage option.  In this simplistic view, one could calculate the number of children necessary to offset the loss of parental kinship/ethnic genetic interests.  But one runs into the practical issue that there is no evidence that mixed race couples have more children than endogamous ones, or that this is a stable long-term strategy in a world beset with overpopulation and limited ecological resources.  Even more disturbing is that, given migration patterns, the net global gene flow is unidirectional, and thus, given such unidirectional gene flow, the net genetic interests of whites are harmed by intermarriage, regardless of the numbers of children produced (which, as stated, are likely the same as with the endogamous).  And, there is no evidence that there are more grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. with exogamy, or that this is a stable strategy or that it compensates for the lesser kinship (and once again, unidirectional gene flow). So, even with the most charitable, optimistic model for adaptive exogamy, it falls short, from the white perspective (but it does have advantages for expanding ethnies whose own homelands are demographically secure).

However, once we consider genetic structure, an important set of genetic information that constitutes crucial genetic interests, the costs of exogamy increase dramatically.  An English-Bantu couple may have a dozen children (unlikely, no?), and more than compensate for individual gene frequencies, but none of these children will even remotely reproduce anything similar to the ancestral genetic structures (and resulting phenotypes) found in the parents.  One wonders if any number of children could compensate for the dramatic loss of parental structure found in offspring of widely genetically variant parents, and the novel linkage disequilibrium found in the hybrids, totally alien to the parents’ chromosomes and that of their co-ethnics.  But, even we set a number, mixed race people are not having that number of children, nor is it a sustainable strategy – and never mind that once again, the alteration of genetic structure is unidirectional.  Tiger Woods is not a superman making 40 children, and people with his genetic structure are not being produced in Africa or in Thailand, but only in white, western nations.

Thus, there simply is not any compensation sufficient to make up for the loss of this distinctive genetic information.  It is not possible, and even if possible, is not practical, and is not occurring.  Even if inter-continental human “hybrid vigor” is real, it is a phenomenon subtle enough so as to be not immediately obvious and one that requires Mr. Ziv to write a book (with a cover model demonstrating the opposite point) attempting to convince us it exists.  Sorry, any “vigor” sufficient to compensate for the enormous loss of kinship and genetic interests would be so obvious that everyone would take it for granted, and everyone would be clamoring to miscegenate.  It just isn’t so.  These “advantages” are either illusory or created by the left to justify admixture or, if real, are of a nature as to obviously not justify said admixture.

Possibly, hybrid vigor may be of benefit where genetic distance between ethnies is small – such as within Europe – and the consequent loss of genetic information is minor enough (although still real and of interest/concern) so that positive attributes of the offspring can compensate.  What can compensate for offspring that is less like their parents than a random co-ethnic?  What can compensate for children who look nothing like their parents?  Where are the mixed couples churning out enormous families of supermen, rather the troubled adolescents described by Udry?

The whole thing is a crock – inter-continental mating is obviously maladaptive.

Posted by James Bowery on August 23, 2006, 09:23 PM | #

In other threads regarding the evolution of beauty I’ve asked if there is an objective measure of beauty upon which to ground arguments.

I’ve received no adequate answer so let me propose one:

The price commanded by hookers and/or the wealth of husbands of “trophy wives”.  Find what correlates with those monetary metrics and you might have some start.

As things stand, arguments are primarily posturing.

Posted by James Bowery on August 23, 2006, 09:45 PM | #

Being from an agricultural background—Iowa in fact—hybrid vigor is something of recognized practical value.  However, there are three things that I doubt “Ziv” has covered in his book—not that I really care whether he has except insofaras it is genocidal to promote hybrid vigor in the absence of freedom of association:

1) In all but terminal cross breeding programs (meaning the lineages are all doomed) the breeder herds are female hybrids rotating between male purebreds.  Usually at least 3 purebred male lineages are kept for this purpose.

2) Much of the promotion of hybrid vigor was propaganda by the agribusinesses that wanted to sell seeds that could not be used more than one growing season due to hybrid sterility.

3) There is a good amount of evidence that, in humans, interracial hybrids actually exhibit more health and behavioral problems than intraracial purebreds.

4) A cursory glance at the standards of beauty that sell tickets to movies indicates Nordish, if not Nordic, women are in higher demand than any other.  While this may not be ideal as an objective measure it is clearly more objective and reproducible than the metrics used by various “beauty scientists”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 23, 2006, 09:51 PM | #

James, the trouble with hybrid vigor in the context of Ziv’s audience is that it means “hybrids have vigor,” when, as I understand it, the term means ”when hybrids have vigor.”

Posted by On Holliday on August 23, 2006, 10:39 PM | #

To summarize: looking at ultimate (genetic) interests it simply is not practically (or even theoretically, if we consider genetic structure) possible for alleged “hybrid vigor” to compensate for the loss of parental kinship/genetic interests.  The issue is not one of *gross* maximization of kinship, but *net*, adaptive maximization.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that compensation occurs, and, with unidirectional migration and small family sizes in the west, it just is not possible.

But, what about proximate interests?  First, ultimate interests should trump proximate ones.  But even if we consider proximate interests, Ziv’s case falls flat.  One would think that a book that promotes the ideal of inter-racial beauty would have as its cover model someone other than a vomit-inducing “transvestite Vin Diesel” type.  Unfortunately, given the proclivity of inter-racial “beauties” such as Berry and Carey to have plastic surgery, one assumes that using one of these would be too mendacious even for Ziv.  Devon Aoki looks like a space alien, and I guess that Mr. Bratt, Mr. Woods, or Mr. Kravitz don’t quite make the grade.

Further, James Bowery is correct, in that it are unmixed white women, particularly those of Northwest European ancestry, who are considered the ideals of feminine beauty.  Billy Joel did not marry Ms. Diesel, nor did Aaron Spelling or Steven Spielberg, or any other members of Mr. Ziv’s tribe looking for trophy wives.

With respect to health and physical prowess, the overall data do not support mixed race superiority.  Even if Ziv spins out the Udry data (and I’ll need to see if it is addressed), that data stands as a reminder that the case is not cut and dried.  Hybrid incompatibility is a possibility.

Further still, parents:
1) value kinship over appearance, in that they would favor their own children over that of a stranger who looked more attractive (or even more similar)

2) yet, all else being equal, parents prefer that their offspring (their *own* offspring, once again valiung kinship) look like them - Rushton has shown that grieving for dead children is more intense for those family members after whom the child most resembled.

I would think then that, just focusing on proximate interests, a parent may prefer a more plain child that looks like it is their child, to a “inter-racial beauty queen” that looks nothing at all like the parent or anyone in their family.

Besides, which, it is unlikely that a mixed race child would be that attractive in any case.

Once again - a politically motivated crock.

Posted by JJR Apologist on August 23, 2006, 11:07 PM | #

Not long ago I read of a study (perhaps here at MR, perhaps at gnxp) that demonstrated an effective population size of only ~1,200 individuals is necessary to avoid inbreeding depression. Since modern nationalities and ethnicities number far greater, that by itself should kill the miscegenation-is-necessary-to-avoid-recessive-disorders lie.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 24, 2006, 12:28 AM | #

Svy, I simply have to add a few things to this entry, and I don’t think you would mind.

Nope. 

Posted by James Bowery on August 24, 2006, 12:50 AM | #

Holiday wrote: Further, James Bowery is correct, in that it are unmixed white women, particularly those of Northwest European ancestry, who are considered the ideals of feminine beauty.  Billy Joel did not marry Ms. Diesel, nor did Aaron Spelling or Steven Spielberg, or any other members of Mr. Ziv’s tribe looking for trophy wives.

If only Ziv’s fellow tribesmen would read his book and be conned by it to the same extent that others will be.

One thing I failed to mention about the rotational cross breeding programs, which also applies to the terminal cross breeding programs, is that you don’t use your best female purebreds for them.  You keep them in reserve to maintain your purebreeds.  You can afford to stud out your best purebreed males—though that is within the context of a high r strategy—not K strategy.

Ziv’s philsophy is bad even from the standpoint of a proponent of heterosis since he doesn’t care to preserve the purebreeds by reserving the best of their females to the best of their males for perpetuation of those purebreeds and indeed would not bother protecting the parental investment potential of the best of the purebreed males.

In short, Ziv and his ilk are lousy at human husbandry for all their pretentions.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 24, 2006, 01:18 AM | #

If only Ziv’s fellow tribesmen would read his book and be conned by it to the same extent that others will be.

This points to the fact that Ziv’s promotion of miscegenation for anyone but jews is hypocrisy; jews don’t suffer from the bad advice they give the way other people do.  That’s essential to jewish race-destruction policies, whether it involves self-deception or not.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 24, 2006, 01:25 AM | #

And yes, anyone honestly promoting human husbandry via miscegenation would propose ethnostates to preserve the pure stock, particularly EuroChristian ethnostates since they’re so much more needed.  This is just common sense - it is obvious that a race can mix at will, and that once mixed it cannot go back to its previous state.  Common sense demands caution given the speculative nature of Ziv’s assertions.

Chance of Ziv doing so in his book: zero.

Posted by Jeugenics on August 24, 2006, 01:33 AM | #

This points to the fact that Ziv’s promotion of miscegenation for anyone but jews is hypocrisy

Jews including high-grade nordic women in harems certainly improves their gene pool—breeds out the bulbous hook nose, the frizzle-haired greasy look, and nervous disorders. Jewish women with euro-derived blonde hair and gracility are attractive, while pure jewesses are uniformly repulsive (that by the way is another reason why their outmarriage rate masks the social pressure to marry endogamously—it’s difficult to believe jewish males would actually marry jewesses of their free will if they weren’t commanded to by yahweh.

Posted by AD on August 24, 2006, 02:25 AM | #

So what should we be aiming for? The white-black-indian hybrid society a’la Brazil or more like the white-asian hybrids of turkmen/kazak/etc/istan central Asia or perhaps the black-arab Janjaweedville of north Africa? Which is our civilizational goal? Either way it’s guaranteed to be a high IQ utopia of supermen/women! What i don’t understand is why they currently immigrate to where we are rather than the other way around. And what’s with “white flight” once they get here? Doesn’t whitey know what’s best for him/herself? Anyway, whatever. If whitey won’t voluntarily sign up for project-miscegenation, i’m sure this book, coupled with unprecedented(and currently unwanted,tsk) inward flow of brown ubermensch, will eventually leave him/her no options. Here’s to a world of brown everymen!

Posted by Count Dooku on August 24, 2006, 02:47 AM | #

Why would and did communists who want to destroy America push for multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration and miscegnation in America? Hmmmmm.

Posted by A. Windaus on August 24, 2006, 07:32 AM | #

Does he have a Black wife himself?

Posted by Alexei on August 24, 2006, 08:49 AM | #

On Holliday—I think I understand your arguments about intermarriage now, and I agree that Jews, at least in Eastern Europe, tend to marry “high-quality” non-Jews. But I cannot share your apparent animus and would not rush to condemn the author of a book I have not read. If anything, Alon Ziv should be commended for showing up here despite having been called, together with his presumed kin, a liar. If a book advocating interracial marriage for genetic reasons makes it into the mainstream, it will soon be taken for granted that race actually matters on the genetic level, and this will play straight into your hands: the subject will no longer be taboo in polite society.

The publisher’s teaser is in very bad taste, but that may be due to the stigma attached to the subject.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 09:59 AM | #

Alexei,

By my interpretations of genocide - which are based upon an objective “one definition for all people, rather than special treatment for some” reading of established international conventions - Ziv is promoting genocide.

Further, as I have explained *in detail* it is simply *not possible* for inter-continental admixture to be genetically adaptive.  As James Bowery says, it is a principal of accounting that one looks at debits and not only credits.  Balancing the two makes it impossible - and I stress *impossible* for any illusory “hybrid vigor” to compensate for loss of genetic kinship. Let me know when Tiger Woods has his 40th child.

Even further, the arguments Ziv has made here, conflating ethnic endogamy with incest are the height of mendacity.  I have no reason to reconsider my characterization of his character.

Even further, for a “scientist” to say that evolution has “goals” means he is either an idiot, or contemptuously believes that *we* are idiots.

All reason enough for “animus.”

“The publisher’s teaser is in very bad taste, but that may be due to the stigma attached to the subject.”

Wrong.  The establishment approves of, and promotes, miscegenation.  There is no “stigma” in promoting the same thing overtly promoted by the news and entertainment media.  The teaser is in “bad taste” because the only arguments that can be made in support of intermarriage is that Julia Roberts is “more likely” to have an orgasm with an admixed man, or that Tiger Woods stinks less on the golf course.

The reason that is so, I have already explained.  It simply is not possible that inter-racial mixing is adaptive.  One could as well write a book saying one could drive a car to Jupiter.

“will soon be taken for granted that race actually matters on the genetic level..”

Guys like Risch and Wade are more useful, and honest, in this regard.

Of course, there is a point - either “there is no such thing as race and we are all genetically equivalent”, or “there are races that genetically differ, hence, illusory hybrid vigor.”

If the latter, then..EGI.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 10:04 AM | #

JR,
thanks for that addendum, which I have just looked at.  That, combined with the genetic analysis I have given, is a solid refutation of Ziv.

If you can get a hold of the book as well, that may be useful.

It is stunning that Ziv - or his publishers (I assume Ziv had some say in it) - chose such an obviously and grossly unattractive female to “demonstrate” inter-racial attractiveness.

I mean, even if a WN was allowed to choose, with the expressed objective of discrediting the book, he couldn’t have made a “better” choice.

I guess Ziv will be looking for a different picture for a second edition - possibly a celebrity with plastic surgery to make them look more white.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 12:11 PM | #

Julius Streicher:

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

The point - Streicher was not a member of the military or SS, he was never accused of actually killing any person, or planning/organizing such killing.  He was in no way involved in the planning and/or execution of German war aims, or any “duplicity” in foreign policy.

No, Streicher was indicted, convicted, and executed solely on the basis of his writing and speeches, which were viewed as creating a climate in which genocide became possible; “incitement” to genocide.

Genocide is defined by international convention in a particular way, which includes, as stated above, full *or partial* destruction of a group, as well as creating conditions that *prevent births of that group.*

Ziv’s writings can be reassonably construed in resulting in prevention of births of persons of European descent (or actually, of other descent as well, but other peoples are not demographically threatened), which would result, at least, in the partial destruction of the group.

Therefore, there is a solid legal precedent for Ziv’s book to form the basis of an indictment by a putative future, legally convened international tribunal dedicated to pursuing justice with respect to globalist tyranny, promotion of replacement migration, miscegenation, and other demographically destructive trends.

Of course, like the Nuremburg defendants, individuals like Ziv would be allowed defense counsel, etc. and the process would follow the rules and precedents set down by both Nuremburg and the Hague.  Israel’s trial of Adolf Eichmann can also be considered as precedent as well.  Many individuals who are today leading figures in business, politics, media, etc. may find themselves indicted.

This is of course merely theoretical and most likely and unfortunately, will never come to pass.  But it is important to understand, at least in theory, that there is no reason for Streicher to have been indicted, while not considering the modern purveyors of genocide.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 12:15 PM | #

Could Ben Tillman, or anyone else with a solid legal background, comment whether, in theory, the precedents set forth by Nuremburg, combined with the definitions of genocide, would cover an indictment for crimes against humanity for “Breeding Between The Lines?”

Given the anti-white and pro-admixture establishment, this is only an exercise in theoretical international law, but I am just wondering if, in principle, the promotion of miscegenation could be considered an indictable offense.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 12:39 PM | #

http://breedingbetweenthelines.com/book.htm

So, in essence, if a little bit of intra-continental heterozygousity is good (not proven, by the way), then a huge bit of inter-continental admixture is better, and will “unleash the potential of the genes.”

Sure.  Unfortunately, this has already been tried in many areas of the world, and has been an abject failure. 

The Hawaii data does not prove that inter-racial admixture is necessary for higher IQ (and is just one study that may be tainted by assortative mating, or by the non-representative nature of the white and yellow population of that island).  It *may* suggest that a degree of outbreeding may boost IQ - and such outbreeding could be obtained by looking farther afield for mates within the race of even within the same ethnicity (different geographic regions of the same nation).

Whatever Ziv claims, his mixing agenda will take place only in those nations that have racial diversity, and those nations are those which were, previously, white, western nations.  It are the peoples of European descent who have to be sacrificed for Ziv’s schemes, his speculative “unleash the potential” nonsense - creating more Brazilian slums in America and Europe, while the racially homogenous Chinese rise to world-wide superpower prominence.

Really, now.  There are two possibilities.  One, Ziv is sincere in his beliefs, which means that this is another example of destructive Jewish messianism, trying to build the world “into a better place”, and doing so in a manner which “just happens to” fit in with Jewish interests.  For example, Trotsky and the other Jewish Bolsheviks.

On the other, he is insincere, and is trying to trick whites into admixture by false promises of a superman brown race to be produced by endless admixture.

Either way, the man and his idea should be eschewed, ridiculed, and refuted.

So no to genocide and say no to Ziv - another semitic lunatic or fraud attempting to sell a false bag of goods.  Remember communism?  Do we need more “gifts” from these people?  let them keep their “world-improving” messianistic complexes to themselves.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 01:02 PM | #

“Alon Ziv has to be insane if he believes that the broad-nosed and masculine mixed-race woman looks better.”

No, JR, I don’t think he is insane.  One possibility to consider is that he knows full well that his cover model is ugly and he *wants* to mongrelize whites to resemble that woman.

In that case, the motivation would be hatred - a feswtering hatred of 2000 years standing - plus the practical motivation of “removing the competition”, so to speak.

There is also the “sour grapes” phenomenon - a member of an ethny noted for its unattractivess, recessive genetic disorders, and overall poor health, would be incited to a jealous rage when confronted by members of the same broad race, but who are characterized by better looks, a healthy lack of genetic load, sound health, and a culture based around Faustian aesthetics.

I mean, the Dershowitz/Anne Frank/Mad Albright physical types must be maddened by the comparison - what way better to ease the psychic pain that to use their verbal skills to convince the hated aesthetic ones to ruin themselves through miscegenation.

2000 years of “persecution” avenged, and a Vin Diesel-looking mongrel race to lord it over.

Good work, Ziv!

Posted by rustymason on August 24, 2006, 01:06 PM | #

“Sailer is a clown ... “ Enough said.  This multiculti, jew-day-o-phile, wolf-in-sheep’s clothing has tested my patience long enough.

Posted by ben tillman on August 24, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

Could Ben Tillman, or anyone else with a solid legal background, comment whether, in theory, the precedents set forth by Nuremburg, combined with the definitions of genocide, would cover an indictment for crimes against humanity for “Breeding Between The Lines?”

It fits squarely within the language of Canada’s genocide statute:

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 03:54 PM | #

Ben, thus I assume that Ziv’s work would be indictable under:

“(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.”

Let’s look at this.  Persons of European descent - whites - are characterized by a set of genotypes and phenotypes that are *lost* with inter-racial mixture.  That’s physical destruction.

“Conditions of life” would include propaganda designed to promote said physical destruction; for example, promotion of miscegenation.

“Deliberately inflicting”, Ziv admits he is encouraging intermarriage.

Therefore, the only reason why Ziv is not being indicted is that the current interpretation of genocide law is prejudiced against whites, in that harm to whites will not be considered genocide, regardless of intent or outcome.

*Objectively*, however, putting aside the establishment’s biases, Ziv would seem, at least to my understanding and Ben’s, to be, at least indictable, if not convictable, under extant law.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 04:01 PM | #

An example of hybrid outbreeding depression:

Nat Genet. 2006 Jan;38(1):68-74. Epub 2005 Nov 10. Related Articles, Links

A variant of the gene encoding leukotriene A4 hydrolase confers ethnicity-specific risk of myocardial infarction.

Helgadottir A, Manolescu A, Helgason A, Thorleifsson G, Thorsteinsdottir U, Gudbjartsson DF, Gretarsdottir S, Magnusson KP, Gudmundsson G, Hicks A, Jonsson T, Grant SF, Sainz J, O’Brien SJ, Sveinbjornsdottir S, Valdimarsson EM, Matthiasson SE, Levey AI, Abramson JL, Reilly MP, Vaccarino V, Wolfe ML, Gudnason V, Quyyumi AA, Topol EJ, Rader DJ, Thorgeirsson G, Gulcher JR, Hakonarson H, Kong A, Stefansson K.

deCODE Genetics, Inc., Sturlugata 8, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland.

Variants of the gene ALOX5AP (also known as FLAP) encoding arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase activating protein are known to be associated with risk of myocardial infarction. Here we show that a haplotype (HapK) spanning the LTA4H gene encoding leukotriene A4 hydrolase, a protein in the same biochemical pathway as ALOX5AP, confers modest risk of myocardial infarction in an Icelandic cohort. Measurements of leukotriene B4 (LTB4) production suggest that this risk is mediated through upregulation of the leukotriene pathway. Three cohorts from the United States also show that HapK confers a modest relative risk (1.16) in European Americans, but it confers a threefold larger risk in African Americans. About 27% of the European American controls carried at least one copy of HapK, as compared with only 6% of African American controls. Our analyses indicate that HapK is very rare in Africa and that its occurrence in African Americans is due to European admixture. Interactions with other genetic or environmental risk factors that are more common in African Americans are likely to account for the greater relative risk conferred by HapK in this group.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 08:13 PM | #

“Hybrid Vigor” in mixed race Hispanics:

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=5d3fde1ef9036805

Very vigorous, very vigorous.

Posted by Lowe on August 24, 2006, 08:20 PM | #

Ziv was of course correct in assuming he assuming he was wasting his time addressing the commentariat of this site. Yet he tried anyway, demonstrating his typically Jewish naivete and good will (not that I necessarily agree with his thesis, btw).

I find it sad that this site has devolved from being a conservative, race-realist site into being primarily a home for Jew-bashers. Oh well, there´s still Steve Sailer. There’s definitely a lot of room in the market of ideas, however, for race realists who are not hateful bigots.

As far as the substance of the post goes: what evidence does the poster have that Jews are “the group least likely to miscegenate”? If having children with persons outside your group is defined as miscegenation, then Jews have a very high rate of miscegenation indeed. In fact, some of the Ur-mothers of the Askenazim were non-Jewish. The list of contemporary half-Jewish celebrities is very long, as a quick perusal of this site (http://www.halfjew.com) will demonstrate. Jews have been mixing with non-Jews throughout the centuries, and now more than ever, with “mixed” results (pardon the pun) - quality offspring and assimilation, but also a reduction in numbers and dilution of identity.

But then, for many of the posters here, Jews marrying outside of their tribe constitutes theft and is to be condemned. Jews marrying within their tribe is unbearable ethnocentrism, and is also to be condemned. Thus, no matter what the Jews do, they are to be condemned. This is called anti-semitism.

As far as the 50% outmarriage figure dismissed so contemptuously here: Within my circle of acquaintance the Jewish outmarriage rate is considerably higher than that. The only Jews I know who are married to other Jews are religious, and religious Jews are a minority within Jewry. They may become a majority in the future, since they are the ones most intent on holding onto their Jewish identity, while secular Jews let go of their traditions and breed their Jewishness out of existence - something that whites, a much larger group with a much smaller outmarriage rate, need not fear, by the way.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 09:01 PM | #

“Ziv was of course correct in assuming he assuming (sic) he was wasting his time addressing the commentariat of this site.”

The only reason Ziv wasted his time is because he is unable to defend his thesis against the refutations of both J Richards and myself.

“Yet he tried anyway, demonstrating his typically Jewish naivete and good will (not that I necessarily agree with his thesis, btw).”

I do not consider the promotion of white genocide to be “goodwill”, but I do agree that it is “typically Jewish.”

“I find it sad that this site has devolved from being a conservative, race-realist site into being primarily a home for Jew-bashers.”

This is incorrect.  In fact, I try to avoid the JQ, but here we see a textbook case - is anyone surprised that a book promoting the “benefits” of miscegenation was written by someone named “Alon Ziv?” That was just as surprising as Noel Ignatiev being Jewish.  Whew! - never saw that one coming.  The point being that these attacks on white racial interests need to be analyzed, and if there is an ethnic component to them, we are not going to censor ourselves to please you.

“Oh well, there´s still Steve Sailer.”

Who promotes miscegenation as well.  BTW, Sailer has claimed to be part-Jewish.  Another surprise?

“There’s definitely a lot of room in the market of ideas, however, for race realists who are not hateful bigots.”

Like Sailer, bigoted against white preservation?

Now to the “meat” of your comment.

Twice on this blog I have provided a) links from Jewish sources, and b) quantitative analysis of ethnic intermarriage patterns to conclude that:

1) The 50% rate is likely an over-estimate
2) even if it is true, it is indicative of a resistance to assimilation, not eagerness to assimilate.  If Jews outmarried to the same extent as white gentiles, their outmarriage rate should be over 80%, which it is not.
3) when Jews outmarry, it is usually to white gentiles, not across broad racial lines, which Ziv encourages for us.

Now, if you wish to consider your personal, anecdotal evidence to be more convincing, so be it, but I doubt others here will be impressed.  Quantitative analysis coupled with surveys from Jewish sources say that you are wrong.

Then we have:
“something that whites, a much larger group with a much smaller outmarriage rate, need not fear, by the way.”

Are you a member of the tribe, because this, along with your other comments, is wonderfully mendacious.  Note how you conflate ethnic outmarriage within a broad race to racial ourmarriage across continental racial divides.  This seems a bit, shall we say, unfair - unless of course you believe that the racial gulf between Jews and white gentiles is similar to that between whites, blacks, Asians, etc. (if you wish to make that argument, be my guest).

However, if we consider Jews to be a Caucasian “white” (if not European) ethnicity, then your statement is, of course, false and misleading.

ALL white gentile ethnic groups in America have higher ethnic outmarriage rates than Jews, and I doubt you have any evidence whatsoever that Jews marry non-Caucasians to a greater extent than do white gentiles.

Therefore, the point remains: whites gentiles outmarry to a greater extent than Jews, both quantitatively (percentage that outmarry) as well as qualitiatively (genetic distance of spouse when outmarriage occurs).

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 09:07 PM | #

corrections:

racial ourmarriage across continental racial divides. 

“racial outmarriage...”

qualitiatively (genetic distance of spouse when outmarriage occurs).

“qualitatively...”

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 09:11 PM | #

More on “hybrid vigor”:

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB320-2005/news/DG301.html

Note the link to the original paper, and note the bit on “epistasis.”

The introduction of European genetic material into a predominantly African genome is *harmful* to the African-American populations, unless of course Ziv wishes to convince us that heart attacks are an example of vigorous good health.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 09:14 PM | #

Epistasis:

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

The implications for outbreeding depression should be clear.

Posted by On Holliday on August 24, 2006, 11:04 PM | #

I did a rather crude, yet informative bit of data crunching.  I took from the ABD site ABD 2.5 data for percent non-Caucasian ancestry (non-"Indo European") for several areas of Europe, as well as North Africa, Turkey, Puerto Rico, Mexico,and India, and then did a scatter plot of that against national IQ, using available data (using, for, example, Sweden for Northern Europe, Egypt for North Africa, an IQ of 110 for Ashkenazi, merging Portugal and Spain for Iberia, etc.).

The trendline formula: y = -0.3595x + 101.26

In other words, the greater the admixture, the lower the IQ.

The same would hold true for Asia, as the higher-IQ regions (e.g., China and Japan) have significantly higher percentages of East Asian genetic background than to the lower-IQ regions of Southeast Asia.

The verdict of history marches onward.

Posted by rustymason on August 24, 2006, 11:24 PM | #

The lying snake who wrote this book also said, above, that Jews are continuing to get smarter.  What did he mean by that?

Posted by rustymason on August 24, 2006, 11:31 PM | #

BTW, Ziv, thanks for reminding us why people hate Jews so much.  It’s been an entire 8 hours since I was guilted by the holyhoax on the radio this morning.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 25, 2006, 03:56 AM | #

Ziv was of course correct in assuming he assuming he was wasting his time addressing the commentariat of this site. Yet he tried anyway, demonstrating his typically Jewish naivete and good will (not that I necessarily agree with his thesis, btw).

Lol, ah jewish fantasy, every visit is like Wonderland!

In “Jews and American Politics” by Stephen D. Isaacs (Doubleday 1974), the author reports the findings of a survey
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for Dr. Melvin Kohn of the National Institute of Mental Health.  The survey attempted to assess various ethnic groups’ comparable levels of distrust. The scale went from Plus 4—most trusting—to Minus 4—least trusting:

GROUP ORDER AND SCORE

+2.506 Irish Catholic
+1.583 Scandinavian Protestant
+1.481 Slavic Catholic
+0.767 German Protestant
+0.757 German Catholic
+0.502 Italian Catholic
+0.242 White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant
-3.106 Jewish

The link to the document providing context at Yggdrasil’s site is unfortunately dead, temporarily I hope.

I find it sad that this site has devolved from being a conservative, race-realist site into being primarily a home for Jew-bashers.

Jews need some bashing, so jew-bashing is a moral imperative.

Oh well, there´s still Steve Sailer. There’s definitely a lot of room in the market of ideas, however, for race realists who are not hateful bigots.

Lol, yes, because the language of the left dovetails so with race-realism!  Please look up bigot in the dictionary - jew-boosters conform to the definition far more than jew-bashers, generally.

As far as the substance of the post goes: what evidence does the poster have that Jews are “the group least likely to miscegenate”?

Please read the thread.

But then, for many of the posters here, Jews marrying outside of their tribe constitutes theft and is to be condemned. Jews marrying within their tribe is unbearable ethnocentrism, and is also to be condemned. Thus, no matter what the Jews do, they are to be condemned. This is called anti-semitism.

No one here begrudges jewish inmarriage (and few begrudge jewish outmarriage), we begrudge jewish hypocrisy.  You’re not really paying attention.

Actually, I don’t even begrudge jewish hypocrisy!  I expect it.  All I do is draw attention to it, so I’m a hateful bigoted psycho (for wanting my people to emulate jews).

As far as the 50% outmarriage figure dismissed so contemptuously here: Within my circle of acquaintance the Jewish outmarriage rate is considerably higher than that. The only Jews I know who are married to other Jews are religious, and religious Jews are a minority within Jewry. They may become a majority in the future, since they are the ones most intent on holding onto their Jewish identity, while secular Jews let go of their traditions and breed their Jewishness out of existence - something that whites, a much larger group with a much smaller outmarriage rate, need not fear, by the way.

The proof is in the pudding, and I’m from Missouri.

Posted by Stanley Womack on August 25, 2006, 05:38 AM | #

Lowe says above, “This is called anti-semitism.”

You may be interested to learn that, at our annual meeting in July, our members voted unanimously to declare “anti-Semite” to be a slur against European Americans, as a naming based on a claim of supremacy on the part of those doing the naming of someone not in their group, and as a supremely contemptuous naming like “goy,” “gentile,” and “shicksha.”

Feel free to cite this declaration. To see it, go to:

http://www.ResistingDefamation.org/sub/slurs9.htm

A stigma needs to be applied to the supremacists and contemptuous persons hurling “anti-Semite” at philosophical or ideological opponents.

=============================

On Holiday says above, “My mind is made up that you are guilty of promoting genocide, and, by any objective standard, the crime committed by this book is worse than what Julius Streicher was hanged for at Nuremburg.”

We have a Julius Streicher Award on our web site. Only one awardee so far, but On Holiday is completely correct that persons leading us so astray deserve prosecution for their crimes. You can see our reference at:

http://www.ResistingDefamation.org/sub/g49.htm

Posted by Hey Ziv! on August 25, 2006, 09:49 AM | #

Very important:

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

Note how in the first generation of hybrids things look “best”, inbreeding depression is most attenuated, and outbreeding depression is not so bad.

But, with further generations, the negative effects of outbreeding depression accumulate, making outbreeding a long-term disaster. (note that even Stoddard noted that the first generation of mestizos didn’t seem that bad, but with further generations became atrocious.)

This is of course consistent with the *long-term* failures of heavily admixed populations, contrasted with Ziv’s mendacious focus on the F1 generation - the Hawaii IQ data or celebrity attributes. 

It is consistent with the African-American deCode genetics data as well (see above).

Of course, Udry concentrated on the F1 generation as well, and found significant mental and physical problems even there.

So, to summarize:

1) Any “hybrid vigor” via admixture would be a factor primarily, or only, in the first generation (F1) of mongrels. 

2) Even here, the record is mixed, as there is no consistent evidence that this first generation will be in fact better (see Udry).

3) Regardless of what occurs with the first generation, with continued mixing, outbreeding depression increases, rapidly decreasing the fitness of the hybrid population (see: Latin America, African-Americans, North Africa, Central Asia, India).

4) All of this comes with a *devastating cost* to parental kinship and genetic interests.

So, we should destroy our race, reduce our kinship and genetic interests, create hybrids that look nothing like us - all for possible small levels of “hybrid vigor” in the first generation, followed by degeneration in following generations, making us worse off than we started.

“good will” - indeed.

The burning hatred behind this book is on display for all to see.

-On Holliday

Posted by On Holliday on August 25, 2006, 11:19 AM | #

The verdict of history:

http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/stoddard/rtc_1-05.html

In other words, Ziv’s vision for the white world.

Posted by PurpleBuffaloHunter on August 26, 2006, 12:37 AM | #

The trashy teaser is clever, it is aimed specifically at low to mid range IQ white women (those women that love Oprah). It sounds like a womens weekly magazine. It promotes half caste men as more attractive and better lovers.
Think it is alot easier to convince women to outmarry than men. Black men have been successfully promoted as more masculine than white men. And there may be some, like Denzel Washington, who I could see white women finding attractive.
But the media can never make black women more feminine than white women. All the ‘black’ women in hip hop videos are 90% half-castes (Pussycat Dolls, Beyonce...). All of them have wigs or their hair done to more resemble the natural state of white women. And it is natural in same race relationships for men to be attracted to slightly lighter complexioned women and vice versa.

Posted by David B on August 26, 2006, 08:43 PM | #

As I notice that Frank Salter’s ‘Bantu’ example is mentioned above, I would point out that his argument is fallacious.  I explained the fallacy here:

[accidental pr0n link removed - Svy]

Of course, there are other arguments for and against interracial mating, but at least we should try to clear the definitely false ones out of the way.

Posted by David B on August 26, 2006, 08:46 PM | #

Oops, I didn’t notice the warning.  I’ll try again:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003447.html

Posted by On Holliday on August 26, 2006, 09:39 PM | #

No, David B, it is your “Salter’s Fallacy” which is itself fallacious:

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

“Of course, there are other arguments for and against interracial mating, but at least we should try to clear the definitely false ones out of the way.”

I agree.  Which is why your stupidity should be cleared out of the way.

Posted by On Holliday on August 26, 2006, 10:00 PM | #

Ooops, wrong thread, Here it is:
Relevant excerpts from the cited link are below, although there is more of value, including about genetic structure.  One point which probably was not stressed enough was the fact that, from the standpoint of *individual* parental kinship, it even doesn’t matter if the decline in genetic interests are reciprocal or not (which they are not, on the global level).

The fact that the Bantu partner in an English-Bantu mating also loses the same *individual* parental kinship as the English partner does not magically “cancel out” the fact that the English individual has in fact lost parental kinship compared to what they would have had if they had mated endogamously.

In comparing parental kinship, the loss is relative to either:
a) what would have taken place if the person had mated endogamously, or
b) another co-ethnic who did mate endogamously

That is the basis of comparison, parental kinship is looked at, at the level of the individual.

Intermarriage also effects the genetic interests of all co-ethnics - including the intermarried person themselves - and this (which can be considered an issue separate from parental kinship per se) is addressed below.  David B’s alleged “Salter’s Fallacy” deals only with EGI and not parental kinship, and it is wrong in any case.

“In Part III: Intermarriage Fallacy David presents a two-group (English-Bantu) population model to demonstrate that the proportions of distinctive genes remain the same after intermarriage.  He also asserts that the loss of kinship on one side of the intermarriage divide is counterbalanced by an equal loss on the other side; given the relative nature of genetic interests, intermarriage would thus result in no loss of genetic interest.  Discuss.

Putting aside for the moment questions about patterns of gene frequencies (below), David’s analysis does not take into proper consideration the following two essential factors:-

1) The fixed carrying capacity of each nation (an integral part of Salter’s thesis discussed, for example, on pages 61-63 of his book), and

2) The effects of unidirectional migration.

So, for #1 we can talk about the number of “English gene equivalents” in an English population at any given time.  However, England has a fixed carrying capacity.  Let us say for example it is 150 million.  Whether those 150 million are of pure English stock or of mixed English-Bantu stock makes an enormous difference to the genetic interests of the current English population and to each individual Englishman.  Population cannot increase infinitely.  If the 150 million people are “pure” English (and of course diploid), then that’s 300 million sets of “English” genes (300M/2 = 150M).  If the 150 million are English-Bantu hybrids, then there are 150M “English” genes and 150M “Bantu” genes.  If we say that the carrying capacity is 300 million, or 1 billion, or any number short of infinity, the same holds.

As regards #2 there is one-way gene flow from non-white nations to England.  So, it is NOT the case that a miscegenating Englishman is boosting his fitness by “preventing” the births of pure Bantus in a reciprocal fashion.  In Africa, pure Bantus are still being born without the threat of immigration and genetic dilution, and these will fill the carrying capacity of their territory in sub-Saharan Africa.  Meanwhile, there is unidirectional migration of Africans to the UK, where they dilute the genetic interests of the native English ethny.  Intermarriage in the UK may prevent the birth of pure Bantus in the UK, but the presence of Bantus in the UK represents an excess of Bantu genetic interests above and beyond the store of undiluted genetic interests in their homeland.  In other words - and this is crucial - intermarriage in the UK represents a positive net expansion of Bantu genes.  They are not being prevented from producing pure Bantus - they have every opportunity to pursue a national ethnic strategy in Africa.  The people who are really being prevented from producing “pure offspring” are the English, for it is their territory that is being invaded.

Since the flow of people (and genes) is not reciprocal, then the effects of intermarriage are not reciprocal. It is the native ethny of the mixed state who are being prevented from maintaining their representation of the world-wide population.  The alien ethny both maintains their representation in their homelands and expands their genes in someone else’s territory.  Ultimately, the Bantu genes are, on a world-wide basis, expanding, while those of the English are declining.  How on earth is there any reciprocity in that?

As regards the interests of an individual Englishman, the same holds.  By intermarriage, he loses parental kinship compared to endogamy, and he also loses relative genetic interest not only compared to endogamous co-ethnics and non-ethnics but also to exogamous non-ethnics, because of the asymmetrical nature of gene flow as described above.

Let us use another simple model of population and immigration to summarize these points. Take two populations A and B who live in their respective nations AX and BX.  Let us assume that AX and BX both have a carrying capacity of “12 genetic-population units”.  We start with the condition that AX has 4 A units and BX has 8 B units.  Two B units migrate from BX to AX; typical unidirectional migration.  Both nations now have 6 population units; BX is “pure” 6 B, while AX is 4A and 2 B.  Let us assume no further immigration, and that in AX both ethnies have ~ equal growth rates (a very conservative assumption).  Both nations then reach carrying capacity.  BX will have 12 B units.  Given proportional growth, AX will have 8 A and 4 B units.

Obviously, this unidirectional migration has harmed A’s interests, in that they have suffered a decline in their population compared to what it would have been (12A) without the migration of B.  The worldwide genetic representation of A has been diminished, while B has benefited by increasing its genetic representation over and beyond the capacity of BX alone, from 12B to 16B.”

Posted by On Holliday on August 26, 2006, 10:05 PM | #

And:

“According to classical Salterism, the damage to A will be the same, in a strictly genetic basis, regardless of whether the two groups in AX had remained endogamous after the B migration event, or whether there was intermarriage.  The same number of individual “genetic units” from each group would be present.  However:-

1) An interest in patterns/combinations of genes and gene frequencies yields a gross decrease in fitness comparing exogamy over endogamy.  On a worldwide basis, A suffers more than B, because B is still present in undiluted form in BX.

2) Even given classical Salterism, exogamy hurts A’s interests by decreasing the organic solidarity of the A group.  Imagine that endogamy was maintained.  Group A could rally around a historical A identity and pursue group interests vs. B.  They could promote repatriation of B, separation, or some other political-social movement to attempt to restore/maximize A’s interests over that of the B newcomers.  They could attempt to out-breed (eg, going against the assumption above), maximizing A gene frequencies.

But once admixture occurs, a heavily hybridized population cannot extricate A interests away from that of B.  Families would be mixed, genomes would be mixed, and whatever pure A’s remain would have a limited potential to recruit sufficient numbers of other pure A’s to their side in the struggle against B interests.  Some pure A’s would have admixed family members, etc.  Given sufficient intermarriage, the interests of the two groups would become so intertwined that it would be impossible for the original interests of group A to be pursued.

Thus, even with classical Salterian theory, endogamy is to be preferred because it allows the native ethny to strategize on a group-centered basis to salvage genetic interests. Group B, secure in their original homeland, can afford to dilute A’s interests and group solidarity via intermarriage.  The effects - genetic and socio-political - of intermarriage are not reciprocal because the migration is not reciprocal.  This holds regardless of whether the migration was voluntary (immigration) or involuntary (slave trade).

David B is also a bit inconsistent about all of this.  Salter considers intermarriage from both the familial and ethnic dimension.  If we focus on the family, it is clear that endogamy is superior, in that it boosts relative parental kinship.  But ah! … we are told by David that we must also consider the effects of mate choice on others.  Very well.  Why stop at the “spare English woman” or the local Bantu immigrant “prevented” from producing pure Bantu offspring?  If we need to consider the effects on others, in the context of ethnic genetic interests, then we need to consider effects on the entire ethnies, no?  And given realities of unidirectional immigration, the effects on others of intermarriage is always to lower the fitness of the net receiving ethny and to boost that of the net “contributing” immigrant ethny.

You can’t have it both ways, indeed!”

There is more, you can look at the link.

Posted by On Holliday on August 26, 2006, 11:22 PM | #

The distinction between EGI and parental kinship, from the perspective of inter-racial mating, is important enough to illustrate by contrasting a theoretical model with the real world.

Let us assume that the entire Earth was one, borderless unitary nation state, composed only of English and Bantus.  We will further assume that the relative proportion of each ethny within the state is somehow fixed and stable.

An English-Bantu mating takes place, producing offspring.  Under these conditions, does this mongrelization result in a loss of EGI for individuals of either ethnic group?  No, because the “loss” is reciprocal within this demographically stable nation state.  With EGI, we compare the relative proportions of one group (and their genes/genetic structure) to another.

Does each parent exhibit a loss of parental kinship?  Yes, most definitely - as long as endogamous mating is possible and takes place somewhere within the species, parental kinship will *always* be lost, regardless of the type of nation state, ethnic demographics, or any other consideration. 

With parental kinship, the relative comparison of genetic interests is not between groups, and it is *not* between the two parents.  Rather, *for each parent*, it is the difference in parental kinship between endogamy and exogamy.  Unlike EGI, parental kinship is not a “zero sum game” in which the loss of one group’s EGI is balanced by the gain of another. 

If we consider 4 people - an English man and woman and a Bantu man and woman - if these are paired off endogamously, *all* gain parental kinship compared to if they had mixed exogamously and vice versa.  If the couples match with each other inter-racially, *each* one of the four will lose parental kinship, for the comparison is not between the mates or between the couples, but between the potential parental kinship possible under the two scenarios.

Getting back to EGI: consider if we take away the stipulation of demographic stability, and introduce the possibility of ethnic breeding competition within the state.  Assume that now the Bantus are outbreeding the English.  Here an inter-racial marriage would be a net loss to English EGI, as it further diminishes breeding competition between the English and Bantu stocks.

This leads us to the “real world.” Here there is no stable, unitary state, but a multiplicity of nation states, and a wide variety of demographic conditions - some ethnies are expanding, some are declining.  Some are net exporters of their surplus population, others suffer from replacement immigration and low native birth rates.

Here, the parental kinship situation stays the same - always a loss for all parties with inter-racial mating.  However, in the real world of unidirectional migration and the Third World influx into the West, intermarriage also leads to a net global loss of EGI for western populations, as their peoples and genes are being displaced by both purebred aliens and native-alien hybrids, while, at the same time, the aliens enjoy homogenous nation states in which they can fill to carrying capacity with their own peoples.

Posted by Stephanie UK on August 27, 2006, 12:08 AM | #

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it should not be defined by one mans opinion.

Posted by Al Ross on August 27, 2006, 01:02 AM | #

Cliche-ridden ignorance is at the fingertips of Stephanie and should not be interdicted by troublesome scientific evidence.

Posted by karlmagnus on August 27, 2006, 03:19 AM | #

I like Jews and find Ziv’s model attractive in a mud-wrestler kind of way, but his thesis is cuckoo (But Ziv, thank you for responding, and don’t assume even those among us who are anti-Semites are unthinking anti-Semites, as distinct from anti-Semites who have arrived at their position after lengthy research and study.)

Moderate genetic diversity is necessary to knock out recessive diseases and get diverse new genes in, but any animal breeder will tell you that as you go further apart the fertility of the result and its hardihood declines—that’s why mules don’t have baby mules.  Whether races are far enough apart for that effect to kick in is as yet unclear, but I rather suspect they are—Latin America is a dreadful example of what happens when two racially distant populations interbreed.

The principal need is not to promote interbreeding, but to inhibit breeding altogether, particularly among Third World racial types (whose fertility is so much higher than the civilized Italians and Japanese) so we can get back to the planet’s stable population level of 1 billion.

The other argument is sociological; from the last 50 years experience there can surely be no question that High Fences Make Good Neighbors.

Posted by David B on August 27, 2006, 08:34 AM | #

I have read with trepidation On Holliday’s ‘refutation’ of my own ‘refutation’ of Salter’s treatment of interracial mating.  What terrible error has he found?

Well, none that I can see.  He tacitly concedes (by not defending it) that the argument actually used by Salter, and refuted by me, *is* fallacious.  If Salter’s argument were valid, it would be valid even if factors such as migration rates were reciprocal.

On Holliday then raises a variety of other reasons for objecting to interracial mating, which I won’t discuss.  Contrary to the impression given, I am not strongly either for or against interracial mating, for the reasons I gave here:
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/interracial-marriage.php

On one technical point which I don’t think I’ve discussed previously, I should record my agreement with On Holliday.  It is true that, due to previous inbreeding within the population of a geographical area, people will be somewhat more closely related to their offspring (as measured by coefficients of genetic relationship) if they mate with someone from their own ethnic group than from a different ethnic group.  So what?  They will be even more closely related to their offspring if they mate with their siblings, but this is not generally recommended!  The balance of advantage, in fitness terms, between inbreeding and outbreeding, is a complex subject, but I am not aware of much evidence that interracial mating causes any loss of fitness.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 10:19 AM | #

David B,

I didn’t expect you to have the grace to admit that you are wrong, but you are.  We don’t live in a fantasy theoretical model world, such as the model I presented.  We live in the real world, in which unidirectional migration and defined national territories exist.  True enough, Salter could have stated that effects of inter-racial marriage on EGI were conditional; however, he probably took it for granted that the reader was able to put the section on inter-racial marriage in the context of the rest of the book, which deals with issues of migration.

Obviously, anyone from the “Please accept GC and Razib as Americans” blog is unable to grasp siuch “nuances.”

Further, in David B’s attacks on Salter, I saw no realization of the crucial difference between parental kinship (which David B sort of admits now can be a factor, but “so what?”, see below), and EGI.

I note that Salter’s section on inter-racial marriage was *primarily focused on parental kinship, NOT EGI*.  That there is less kinship with outmarrying is undeniable, and some people may view that with an attitude different from “so what?” Further, Salter’s discussion of inter-marriage and EGI does in fact touch on practical aspects, such as reduced organic solidarity of the group and “dual loyalties” of inter-racial persons and their parents with respect to competing ethnic loyalties.

Then we have this stupidity:
“It is true that, due to previous inbreeding within the population of a geographical area, people will be somewhat more closely related to their offspring (as measured by coefficients of genetic relationship) if they mate with someone from their own ethnic group than from a different ethnic group.  So what?  They will be even more closely related to their offspring if they mate with their siblings, but this is not generally recommended!  The balance of advantage, in fitness terms, between inbreeding and outbreeding, is a complex subject, but I am not aware of much evidence that interracial mating causes any loss of fitness.”

I have already answered the question of “mating with siblings” with my answer to Ziv, above.  Apparently, moronic minds “think” alike, and both Ziv and David B apparently “think” it appropriate to equate ethnic or racial endogamy with incest.

No, and as I have stated, incest is generally avoided in the human species (and many others), and with good reason.  However, one does not have to marry a person of a different race to avoid inbreeding depression, a random (non-familial) co-ethnic, particularly one from a different geographic location would do the trick, and would, obviously, a person of the same race but different ethnicity.

David B’s “so what?” indicates his lack of understanding.  Yes, “so what"” if your child is genetically less similar to you than to a random co-ethnic!  So what!  How about abandoning your own child for that of a stranger?  So what?!  Just because your own child (assuming you are not stupid enough to inter-racially outmarry) shares more of your genes than a stranger’s child, why favor him/her?  Indeed, the stranger’s child may be “healthier and more attractive.”

What stupidity.  Then he says he knows of no evidence that inter-racial mating reduces fitness, after admitting that parental kinship is reduced.  In the absence of any evidence for compensation for this reduced kinship - and there is none - then it follows that fitness is reduced, if by fitness we mean a reduction in relative genetic representation in the next generation - not Ziv’s “Tiger stinks less on the golf course and Benny Bratt is better at giving actresses organsms.”

Evolutionists and population geneticists would define fitness in reproductive and genetic terms. 

David B, not having the grace to admit that you are wrong, and that the only utility in your attacks on Salter is to expose your own juvenile attitude toward the man (e.g., equating him to Dr. Strangeglove), you can go away now, back to the blog of Razib mocking Finns and linking to inter-racial pornography.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 10:35 AM | #

“What terrible error has he found?”

That is has no connection whatsoever to the real world.  In the real world, inter-racial marriage reduces the EGI of western peoples.

“Well, none that I can see. “

Look harder.

“He tacitly concedes (by not defending it) that the argument actually used by Salter, and refuted by me, *is* fallacious.”

No.

“If Salter’s argument were valid, it would be valid even if factors such as migration rates were reciprocal.”

Now, that’s *really* stupid.  It is *obvious* that in the particular restricted model I presented - a single state with fixed demographic proportions, that effects of EGI will be reciprocal.  David B thinks he is some sort of genius in pointing out that in a specific, unrealistic circumstance, an assertion (ie, mixing reduces EGI) does not hold - even though it holds in virtually *every* other circumstance, including that of real life.

If David B were honest - and not a tool for the genetic interests of alien bloggers - he would admit that the “fallacy” that he “discovered” is theoretical only, limited to a specific set of circumstances that do not exist in the real world.

If he were honest, he would admit that in the world in which we actually live, and that which Salter was writing about, inter-racial marriage significantly decreases the genetic interests of whites.

If he were honest, he would admit that Salter’s primary objective in discussing inter-racial marriage was to evaluate the fitness portfolios of parents, and this is negatively impacted by the loss of parental kinship.

If he were honest, he would admit that a loss of parental kinship, uncoupled to any compensation that results in a net increase in genetic representation for the parents, results in a loss of fitness.

If he were honest, he would admit that there is no evidence that such compensation exists and, would admit that, given the additional concern over genetic structure, it is unlikely that such compensation *could* realistically exist, given the novel LD generated with inter-racial mixing, and the loss of native co-adapted gene complexes.

If he were honest, he would admit that his “so what"” attitude may not be shared by other people if such people actually were told about the loss of parental kinship.  If he were honest, he would admit that an attitude of “so what?” reduces the fitness of the uncaring individual vs. those individuals and races that do act as if they DO care about conserving parental kinship.

But, alas, he is from “Gene Expression”, and putting “honesty” and “Gene Expression” in the same sentence inevitably leads to an oxymoron.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 04:25 PM | #

David B’s logic:

An assertion has no utility unless it is true in all conceivable circumstances.  If one can imagine any possible scenario where the assertion is not true – regardless of how unrealistic and unlikely the scenario is – then the assertion must be rejected as a fallacy and it has no utility.

Hmm, very interesting.  Let us take as a sample assertion the statement: “The average height of all children of parents over 6’ tall will be greater than the average height of all children of parents under 5’6” tall.”

That seems to be a reasonable assertion, and one that can be confirmed by measurements of real people.  But, alas, one could think of a scenario where it would not be true.  Assume, for example, that society suddenly begins the practice of giving large doses of growth hormone to the children of the shorter parents, and forces the children of the taller parents to subsist on a low-protein, near-starvation diet.  Under those conditions, the short parent’s children may grow taller than the tall parents’ children.  An unlikely, artificial scenario?  Nothing to do with reality?  For sure, but it is theoretically possible, so, according to David B’s “reasoning”, we must consider our initial statement a “fallacy.” After all, just because it fits perfectly well with the real world, and any realistic possible situations, we must “clear it away”, because in someone’s fantasy model, it doesn’t work.

Er, no.  Salter’s concept of EGI is a tool that allows people to evaluate what choices will be more adaptive (increase genetic fitness) under different circumstances.  That intermarriage may have no effect on EGI in certain specific imaginary circumstances does not change the reality that Salter’s EGI concept allows us to discern effects of intermarriage on the genetic fitness of real people in the real world.

It should be clear what the obfuscatory agenda of David B is.  His masters at GNXP can give him an “A” for effort; but we give an “F” for actual content – and honesty.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 04:26 PM | #

My reference to English-Bantu intermarriage earlier in this thread concerned parental kinship only, not EGI.  Curious then that David B attempted to delegitimize my comments on parental kinship by bringing up the alleged “Salter’s Fallacy” concerning intermarriage and EGI, which is a separate topic.  That is even more curious since David B has admitted here that differences in parental kinship are real, albeit, in his opinion, of little importance (“so what?”).

If parental kinship differences are real, then why the attempt to dismiss comments on parental kinship by implying that such comments are related to an alleged fallacy concerning a different topic?

Two possibilities:

1) David B, in mendacious fashion, attempts to confuse the readership by bringing up an alleged fallacy about EGI, hoping the readers are unable to discern the difference between EGI and parental kinship.  Hence, they would just throw their hands up, mutter “that guy Salter is wrong”, and disregard the comments about parental kinship, even though David B’s objections, by his own later tacit admission (“I agree with Holiday, but…”), have nothing to do with parental kinship.

2) David B is too stupid too recognize the differences between parental kinship and EGI, and confuses the two, unless it is constantly pointed out to him.

The readership, I hope, now recognizes the distinction between the two concepts, and better understands that David B is a completely unreliable source for analysis of the work of Frank Salter.

Posted by EC on August 27, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

From Alon Ziv’s website:  And no, he is not interracial.

Mr. Ziv’s hubris in writing this “tome” on what we should do and the whys of it is quite telling, given his lack of interraciality.  He cannot fall back on an excuse of being unaware of scientific data, if he valued accuracy and honesty, due to his scientific background based in neuroscience and biology.  So, with that said, we are left wondering (not really) how he can spew forth such odious bilge. 

The maxim of “good for thee, not for me” amongst the Chosen continues to ring true here.  His proclamation that “everyone” should interbreed, including his own tribe, is more than a bit hollow.  The same level of hollowness as when that vermin, Ignatieff, voices his affirmation to abolish not only white culture and race, but Jewish as well knowing full well that one is under a universal assault while the other is under a universal defense.  Why not opine to abolish Martian culture and race?  It holds as much weight. 

I will become a supporter of Mr. Ziv, in his right to write and say whatever he wants only and not in following his recommendations, if he would simply pull his book off the market in the western world and strictly offer it in Israel.  As someone stated above, the Ethiopian Jews need a little loving and intermixing too, so start there.  Once he has shown that he is committed in his beliefs for ALL, then I can support his right to say it.  At least then I would be convinced in his honesty.  That is not what we have at present where the book is offered up as confirmation to the (again taken from above) Oprah loving, mid to low IQ masses. 

This whole thing smacks of condescension and hypocrisy when all the major Jewish organizations are screaming “Jews are dying out”, “Jews need to marry Jews and have more children in order to propagate the race”.  What we have Mr Ziv basically saying is that we need not follow the hysterical calls by his elite in order to save and propagate OUR race, but to listen to him and his unscientific PC pablum as we spiral toward our demise.  Good for thee, not for me, indeed.

BTW, it’s great to see JW and JR posting more regularly again.  Come on JW, start blogging again!  Your addition is immeasurable.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 04:58 PM | #

Hey now guys, EGI just *must* be wrong, we don’t want you to get all worked up by:
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72654

We certainly need *hundreds of thousands* of these ‘cognitibe elitists.’ What?  They are different from us?
So what?

Posted by EC on August 27, 2006, 04:58 PM | #

David B’s logic:

An assertion has no utility unless it is true in all conceivable circumstances.

This is the same “logic” the race deniers used for eons in order to “disprove” the existence of race.  They would gaggle on asking “what is the one thing that is unique to one race and not another”?  Considering even speciation cannot hold up to such intense and unrealistic scrutiny, we must all be equal to slugs.  Certainly many anti-racists are.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 05:01 PM | #

“We certainly need *hundreds of thousands* of these ‘cognitibe elitists.’”

You see! I mis-spelled “cognitive!” For shame!

Several thousand Indian immigrants are certainly needed to make up for the ‘cognitive’ shortfall.

And England must need several million to compensate for David B.

Posted by Ben Tillman on August 27, 2006, 06:36 PM | #

“...any animal breeder will tell you that as you go further apart the fertility of the result and its hardihood declines—that’s why mules don’t have baby mules.”

Indeed, Karl.  And how do ligers and tigons fare?

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 Ben Tillman on August 27, 2006, 06:41 PM | #

Ernst Mayr:

A giant in the field takes stock of his science.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 07:59 PM | #

From Ziv’s website:

“Alon Ziv went on to perform cutting edge research in the field of neuroscience.”

Very well, but if you do a PubMed search for “Ziv A”, you do *not* get papers indicative of “cutting edge research” in neuroscience, or anything else. You do get a number of mediocre papers - which are likely mostly (or totally) from other people with the same name (mostly from Israel, by the way) doing work which is not “cutting edge.”

I know that members of middleman minority groups are intrinsically well-versed in (baseless and overblown) self-promotion, but it certainly would have helped if Ziv would have provided some sort of independent reference so that one can confirm that he did indeed perform “cutting edge research.”

As far as one can tell, he doesn’t have any expertise whatsoever to discuss topics related to the biological consequences of inter-racial mating.

And no, asking Woods’ caddy how Tiger smells after a round of golf does not constitute the level of expertise required.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 08:08 PM | #

“Book Description This book combines sex, race, health and genetics in a daring new theory.”

No.  Promoting miscegenation in a society whose establishment openly promotes such mating, and which worships Tiger Woods as if he were a god, is not an example of “daring.” More “daring” would be a book describing the negative consequences of inter-racial mating, from parental kinship to physical appearance to outbreeding depression, etc.

“Written with accessible, direct prose...”

Good to know it was prose and not poetry.  Hopefully, it is quite not as “accessible” as Ziv’s semi-literature comments here.

“..anecdotes, analogies, and examples from human and animal studies...”

Of these, the one most relevant are human studies.  Of which, the Udry study described on this blog by J Richards is the most telling, and which refutes Ziv’s thesis.

“...it is sure to spark debate in a massive way. “

Certainly not in the mainstream media or in academia.  Can one cite an example of a criticism of this book - and, as demonstrated here, criticism is warranted - outside of sites such as Majority Rights?

Even the ever-so-controversial and “honest” Steve Sailer had nothing negative to say about it other than that inbreeding depression is probably not a problem in America.

Sort of like saying that the major problem with 9/11 is that your favorite daytime TV shows got pre-empted that morning.

Posted by On Holliday on August 27, 2006, 08:12 PM | #

“semi-literature comments:

semi-literate

I also want to commend Karl Magnus for his sensible comments earlier in this thread, both on the inadvisability of mating across wide genetic divides and - to my surprise - this:

“But Ziv, thank you for responding, and don’t assume even those among us who are anti-Semites are unthinking anti-Semites, as distinct from anti-Semites who have arrived at their position after lengthy research and study.”

Mr. Ziv should consider - and I say this in all seriousness and without rancor - that his own behavior contributes to the “anti-Semitism” that he deplores.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 27, 2006, 09:59 PM | #

Yes, I wondered if Karl’s evil twin might’ve absconded with his laptop.

Posted by karlmagnus on August 27, 2006, 11:42 PM | #

Don’t lump me in with JJR, let alone the various trolls.  I’m moderately philo-Semitic, but am also perfectly happy to accept that there are rational arguments in the other direction, and that most MR posters have thought through them.

I find the unthinking US support for Israel unattractive, especially when Israel does something as stupid and morally wrong as its invasion of Lebanon. If they wanted to invade somewhere, why not Syria?—Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution was potentially part of the solution, and deserves an equal respect for its people to Israel’s.

MR throws light on various subjects from an entirely different angle to either the MSM or the US right-wing blogs, most of which are still wittering on in support of the failed Iraq policy, and in any case are suffienctly religious and conventional as to be completely unreliable about genetics. It’s thus valuable, though I credit information here with about as much credibility as the Washington Post—probably not made up, but you want a second source.  Better than the NY Times, though. Is there any more info on the “civilsation gene” that appeared 8000 years ago? —if that’s confirmed it blasts HUGE and welcome holes through conventional wisdom.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 28, 2006, 12:51 AM | #

Hell, if jewry-as-model makes someone mildly philo-Semitic, then I qualify.

If someone claims to be an insectophile, shouldn’t he want to turn over rocks and show the little buggers - and describe their habits - to the whole world?  Wouldn’t obscurantism about bugs indicate insectophobia?

If they wanted to invade somewhere, why not Syria?

Because the Alawites might topple and the Shiites would then take over?

Posted by Getafix on August 28, 2006, 03:20 AM | #

[Because the Alawites might topple and the Shiites would then take over?]

It would be the Sunnis in Syria’s case. The Alawites are a pseudo-Shiite sect, who have generally shown no hesitation to smack down Sunni activism.