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

Posted by Svigor on January 26, 2008, 05:14 PM | #

Tell me, oh MTV philosophers, does even one of you know what speciation is?  If every organism went by your Redstone-inspired fantasy of global panmixia, speciation would grind to a halt.

And yes, white women are far more attractive than non-white women, any particular photos notwithstanding.

Posted by anyl on January 27, 2008, 03:32 AM | #

I think the indo-european woman that you show, definatly look better with semetic mixed race qaulites, for example the white woman you show, MINUS THE BIG (FAKE?) TITS THAT YOU ADDED, definatly have to much Indian traces to there faces (minus blonde and blue eyes) whilst if you look at southern european woman who have more Semetic qualities, are much more beautiful than the northern european facial structure

not to mention that northern europeans are more prone to cancer than anyother race… i think when humans coined the term shallow, it must have been for a reason…

Posted by Lurker on January 27, 2008, 05:14 AM | #

Anyl - Northern Europeans are more prone to cancer than any other race. Really? What all types, or do we just have higher mortality rates, what exactly? You are obviously knowledgeable on the subject.

Guess that doesnt cancel out the fact that we are also more prone to invent the internet you just used, or the computer you need to access it, or the photography you commented on. Or the phone/cable system you connected up with, or harness the electricity needed to power it all. In fact not just prone to but the only people to do so.

Posted by Fr. John on January 27, 2008, 03:10 PM | #

I think the fact that there exist still in this world, those of us self-aware Caucasian/Christians who detest the ugliness [and utter non-privileged Divine position] of those not being White/Christian, is what rankles the Jews and the Utopians out there.

As another has said, It’s the ‘race queers’ and sex queers’ that are envious, not OUR supposed ‘racism’ or ‘DWEM’ selbsthass.

http://www.spiritwaterblood.com
http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-makes-man-say-never-surrender-and.html

And for that unabashed racial self-awareness, the new Cultural Bolsheviks can only scream and hate, and the witness of 100+ million dead from their ideology, pales in comparison with the ‘fingernails’ of a mere plus or minus 1.5 million dead, in a mythic attempt at ‘self-election,’ rather than bowing to the inevitability that ‘many are called, but few are chosen.”

But then, they crucified Christ, too....and look where it got them.
2000+ years of wandering, accursed…

Posted by admix on January 27, 2008, 03:16 PM | #

info

Posted by landon on February 01, 2008, 04:49 AM | #

“Let’s talk about what the Church taught less than 100 years ago. It was against race mixing. “ -Sudoku

-wow, you actually used the bible as a legit reference to the validity or in-validity of interacial breeding… not much use for science or current history where you come from is there.  I cant tell if you need psychological help or a gas chamber… Do the world a favor and get fixed.  Your children will just end up frusterated and insecure due to there limited intellect… just like you obviously are. 

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2008, 06:03 AM | #

“I cant tell if you need psychological help or a gas chamber” (—Landon)

An immigration moratorium plus a workable repatriation scheme will do nicely, thank you.  (You’ll find people on our side aren’t hard to please ...)

Oh and I almost forgot — ironclad guarantees henceforth of freedom of association and freedom of speech. 

Give us those and there’s nothing more in the whole universe we could want.  The problem, of course, is that precisely those are what constitute the battleground — the other side forbids us to have them, perceiving with one-hundred-percent accuracy that the day we get them is the day the clock of its final demise starts ticking ...

Posted by Lurker (Mk1) on February 01, 2008, 05:40 PM | #

Landon - “Your children will just end up frusterated and insecure due to there limited intellect”

I know we all make mistakes typing but in the context of your post...well, what can I say?

Interesting that you imply intellect might be inherited, you might want to think about where that line of thinking could lead.

Posted by Fr. John on February 01, 2008, 09:45 PM | #

Sudoku- Constantine did not ‘create’ Catholicism.

I believe YOU, possibly, one of the ‘stupid people’ you said you see...been looking in the mirror?

The Catholic Faith was ‘created’ at Calvary, confirmed on Easter Sunday, codified by Pentecost, and given historical credence via the Apostolic documents known as the New Testament.

You state that even the Pope doesn’t know the ‘original’ teachings. Following that train of thought, instead of dismissing their position, doesn’t your statement rather corroborate the Thesis of the Reformation, rather than render the statements from http://www.swb.com irrelevant?

OF COURSE WE KNOW THE TEACHINGS. It’s in the Holy Scriptures.

The West has had them as foundational documents over and over again, from Constantine’s declaring Christianity to be an ‘official’ faith of Rome, to Justinian’s Institutes, to Magna Carta, to the fact (clearly articulated in a University Study over twenty years ago) that “… the 1986 study at the University of Houston, [found] at least sixty-four percent of our American Constitution is derived either from the book of Deuteronomy or from commentaries on the book of Deuteronomy. The ‘natural born’ clause was contiguous with the traditional canon and common laws; moreover, it is a mirror reflection of the biblical Law back of them.”

http://hearth--stone.blogspot.com/2008/01/rex-according-to-lex.html

What is religion doing on a forum such as this? RECLAIMING HER RIGHTFUL PLACE, you temperocentric moron! The modern thing known as a ‘nation-state’ is an organic outgrowth of the Clan and Tribe imagery and praxis of Biblical Israel. It’s only the irreligious multiculturalists who deny that vision any verity. Are you one of them? Then why be surprised we don’t disagree?

So, please don’t pretend to be ‘frusterated’ as you said.
Come into the real world. All actions are religious.
Islam and Zionism are not going to be fought and won in an a-religious bubble.
But are to be won with the Truth that comes from YHWH God almighty in his word, and via his Church.....

Which, coincidentally, is NOT the Roman Church.

On that, perhaps, you and I might agree.... but for totally different reasons.

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 03:18 AM | #

“Interesting that you imply intellect might be inherited, you might want to think about where that line of thinking could lead” -Lurker

yeah, typo’s… I wasnt taking the comment too seriously so I was being a Lazy writer here. So in reiteration…

As to the comment; I did not mean to imply that intellect is inherited… It is learned obviously.  But a persons ability to process information and is developed mostly in their early childhood… While learning to apply information is developed later (mom was a child therapist) THUS, If the person I was addressing were to raise children then statistacally they (the children) will almost always learn to process information very similar to those that raised them (I assumed this to be obvious before)...whice MEANS the children would learn to assume that their (the childs) ideas were more correct than others simply because it was their own idea and the ideas of others were not worth listening to and worse, that the bible is the best source of historic fact and reference for current events… Like the person addressed. 

I believe in culteral diversity but I am also an advocate for people having to earn a multy layered breeding license (one that tested emotional stability and development along with intellect) to breed… having the more educated (and emotionally aware) producing more children would be very beneficial but highly unlikely.

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 03:34 AM | #

“The Catholic Faith was ‘created’ at Calvary, confirmed on Easter Sunday, codified by Pentecost, and given historical credence via the Apostolic documents known as the New Testament” -sudoku

No, it was commissioned by Emporer Constantine first.. All the other bureaucracy was just that… BS.  Constantine was responsible for changing the name from Christian to Catholic.  Which was a very common tactic for religious integration mass conversion..

The ‘Holy Scriptures’ are for the weak minded who have trouble copeing with everyday hardships and want an excuse to keep on working jobs they hate for an authority that taxes them (emotionally as well as financially).

Im simply stateing this without any interest in discussing it further.  You all keep on fighting over symantics.  I’ll continue my life of hedonistic self indulgance with mongrels as well as pure bread blonde haired blue eyed girls that seem to really like the way I look for some reason or other....

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 03:39 AM | #

Oops.. Sorry Fr. John… a bit of confusion on my part in that last message.  I do believe however that Constantine did first commission the Catholic Religion.  Obviously other people fully instigated it… So its sorta symantical… Sudoku is just out of touch (kinda feel bad for him/her) I agree with your stance on everything else though

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2008, 04:03 AM | #

I guess the site’s attracting Down’s patients now.

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 04:13 AM | #

oops again… sorry… Fr. John, I still know for a fact that the Vatican Library has copies from other unmentioned ‘apostles’ That taught Christian beliefs before the commissioning of the Catholic church.  So I guess I could have been more specific in saying “not even the Pope knows ALL of the original teachings.” Basic understanding of Roman tactics on social order and human behavior would suggest a high likelyhood that the current ‘scriptures’ are anything but original… but it is a free world so believe what you will.

In all Seriousness, Science without religion is meaningless and religion without reason is just as meaningless and ultimately directionless.  Its ignorant to think otherwise.  The validaty of Catholic beliefs are dodgey not because of the integrity of its beliefs but because of its actions.  The Catholic church has been like an abusive parent thats been telling its children to ‘watch out for monsters’ so that their children never realize that they would be happier without them.  The ‘children’ would also be a bit wealthier as well… Holy Scriptures my @$$… I do believe in the reality of Machiavelli and the necessity for its application so Catholicism has my full respect in that regard.  People want to be manipulated and the Catholic church is by far the best at it.  good job

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 04:20 AM | #

‘I guess the site’s attracting Down’s patients now.’

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday

How remarkably insightfull… I took a peek through most of your replies and you have absolutely nothin intellectually pertinent to say in your rebuttals… Thats astounding.... Really, how DO you do it Freddy oh pal. The consistantcy is uncanny

Posted by Lurker on February 02, 2008, 04:53 AM | #

Landon, you are priceless old chap!

Fred is clear in what he says, whereas your ramblings leave me quite confused.

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 02, 2008, 05:02 AM | #

He’s also in serious need of a spell checker.

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 06:14 AM | #

Fred is clear to you because you all have grown up with the same racist belief system… I have no intention of trying to be clear to fred, sudoku or lurker… Logic is a reasoning tool and non of you have the ability to reason logically or objectively, Otherwise it would have been quite clear that I was making a proof by contradiction… Fred is an exception in that he is obviously a scholar and very up to date on his religious history and facts.  Much respect to him for that.  I would hope so considering his occupation.  However, the fact remains that the current scriptures are not complete or at all original.  Revisions and occurances of editing and deletion have been well documented if you’de care to look (I’m assuming not).  THUS, its not possible to claim the ‘Holy Scriptures’ as original… A simple fact that negates many of the teachings of the church.  Im not sure where all the other stuff Fred goes on comes from.  More signs of unobjective thinking…

...But in reply to his argument anyway; the whole arugment by Fred about our constitution being based on the church is moot.  America is a very new country without the history needed to judge interacial breeding or religious solidarity adiquately.  Our constitution has NOTHING to do with the validaty of any religion.  In fact, every religion shares a common structure to ALL social orders instigated by any society in history dating back to Alexander the great.  Not to mention that our colonial ancestors were protestant not catholic (I dont see much difference but the church does).  On top of that, many of our fore fathers that created the constitution were masons and did not believe in the popagation of one religion over another.  Its obvious that Fr. Fred is used to lecturing the uneducated and unaware… Get em while they’re young aye?

In all due respect.  Fr. Fred based his argument with elegance and with a novel integrity which i did not.  He is a scholar and should be commended as such.  Religion, philosophy and history is polluted by many intelligent scholars that had a biased, subjective and unwavering one sided view; Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Caligula, Nero, etc…

Sudoku and Lurker?  your comments are as vague and uninsightful as ever ... Have fun being followers regurgitating the words of the more intlligent of hill-billies like Fr. Fred.  It wont carry you very far but it will definately keep you in a state of bliss while the world around you grows beyond you… for the sake of the world may your sperm count lower and any offspring you have run away from home at an early age.  L

Posted by Guessedworker on February 02, 2008, 11:11 AM | #

Landon: “I did not mean to imply that intellect is inherited… It is learned obviously.”

Evidence?  (That, of course, would be a first).

“the whole arugment by Fred about our constitution being based on the church is moot.”

It goes a lot wider than the Constitution.  The modern notions of equality and justice are secular distillations of Jewish and Christian principles.

“In all Seriousness, Science without religion is meaningless and religion without reason is just as meaningless and ultimately directionless.”

No, science is based on falsifiability, not faith.  Being falsifiable in its claims, liberalism IS faith, however.

What race are you, Landon?  If European, why do you not support the genetic survival of Europeans, with all that implies?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 02, 2008, 11:19 AM | #

Landon, the pen name of the correspondent claiming to be a priest is Fr. John. 

(Dunno why I told him that ... probably should’ve left him in his confusion.)

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 02, 2008, 06:50 PM | #

First off, I didn’t grow up with any “racist” beliefs. I was a typical aracial white lemming until my mid 30s which was when I started working with large numbers of “minorities” and began to expericence the “joys of diversity” first hand. Contrary to the beliefs of clueless liberals, it isn’t separation that leads to “racism” but forced integration.

Second I am not and have never claimed to be an expert on religion. Fortunately Fr. John shares my views and is much more knowledgable about the subject.

And Third, the World isn’t going to “grow”, it is going to turn more and more into shit and the reason why will become more and more apparent to more and more white people.

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 10:02 PM | #

Wow, non of you addressed the argument I was trying to make.  Good job.

To Guessedworker - the evidence is in just about every psychological study written on child development… go read one or two.  Human intellect is created through communication.  Its practically a physical law of human development.  If you dont know it then too bad for you.  It branches off from there but it begins with the environment a child is raised in and how that child is communicated with.  this blog is not important enough to find references for the inept and/or lazy and post them.  If you wanna know for yourself go read a book on child devolopment… i.e. Goleman, Liben, whoever… there are countless authors.
Dude....I have three degrees in math, physics and chemistry ... for real… I have NEVER heard of science being referred to as being based on “falsifiability’… if you mean proof by contradiction then yes.. that is one MATH tool used in science but it hardly constitutes science as a whole.  Your statement is a sign of your own ignorance. 
Thank you however for agreeing on my point on the constitution and its inability to justify the validity of the Catholic religion.

To Fred Scrooby - thank you for pointing out an embarrassing mistake.  I was actually creating a reply to one of your comments before I read Fr. John’s and decided to comment on his and got the two names mixed.  That sounds totally rediculous and simple but its the truth anyway.

To Sudoku - you have admitted your own ignorance on the subject and have my respect for that but ultimately you are a frusterated and angry person that has a limited ability to process information objectively… Which was my only point made to you in previous postings so I’ll leave you to yourself.

As to my Heritage, I am hawaiian, chinese and scottish (half scottish) with my scottish side coming from brazil.  I tested about 160 on an IQ test (at 23 y.o.) and have three tech degrees and a history minor.  My mother is VERY white and much of my family is from europe.  Make whatever assumptions you wish with that info.

BTW, I cant STAND lower class ‘minorities’ (ironic since caucasion is the minority race world wide).  The african american culter is fucking shit and should be dealt with harshly… as well as the islamic an much of the muslim cultures… BUT THE DISCUSSION WAS ON ‘GENETIC’ DEVELOPMENT NOT ‘SOCIAL’ DEVELOPMENT.  The increase in crime and lowering of behavioral standards is a SOCIAL disorder not a genetic one.  Most of the mixed race fatherless mongrels that i cant stand that cant function in society because of their UPBRINGING are genetically superior in a physical sense and typically score higher on a devopmental test that rates IQ AND EQ simply because the have to relate to more than one type of racial class....

It was fun debating moot points with the emotionally underdeveloped but Im goin to go back to traveling to different countries and interacting with different cultures when im not making a very solid productive living at a job that I love (while making sweet love some of the prettiest white women you could imagine… seriously, Im from LA and you wouldnt believe the caliber of females that run around here but its nothing compared to Australia or Iceland )… I’ll leave you all to wallow in your own emotionally frustrated little worlds… having opinions on people and things you have no interest in understanding.

Tootles Gents.. LoL

Posted by Landon on February 02, 2008, 11:34 PM | #

Dear *smirk*…

You ROCK!!!  Seriously, Thank you for taking the time to fully communicate your point (which i share) in a way I couldnt bring myself to.  You have my respect for that.

Scrooby - I hope youre a very young person (early teens).  Because your replies are so asenine and juvenile that I would have to start feeling sorry for you if you were any older… And i REALLY dont wanna start feeling sorry for you.

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 03, 2008, 01:42 AM | #

Obviously spelling isn’t included as part of IQ tests otherwise you would be in double digits instead of 160.

Anyway, believe what you want. If you want to live in some diversity rainbow fantasy go for it. Millions of darkies are counting on you to provide them the good life. And if you believe like a good liberal that the environment is to blame for the failings of minorities feel free to spend all your money giving them a better one. Just have the common courtesy to allow us unfortunate troglodytes to separate politically and physcially to wallow in our own misery.

Posted by onlooker on February 03, 2008, 01:50 AM | #

160 IQ minus common sense = an irritating asshole.

Posted by Lurker on February 03, 2008, 02:38 AM | #

Landon - I didnt grow up with the same racist belief system. Im not even sure what a ‘racist’ is anymore. Probably only what a liberal/leftie says it is. I dont bear any ill will to other races, I just what mine to survive and not have to operate under a double standard.

Like the good Count I grew up as a nice little liberal until a few years ago until certain realities began to intrude and I began to notice the manifest contradictions in the liberal world view.

People commenting here grew up all over the world, the only common ideaology we have all been exposed to is liberalism.

Posted by Al Ross on February 03, 2008, 03:23 AM | #

Landon’s being a pitiable product of miscegenation might elicit some sympathy were it not for his puerile belief in racial egalitarianism, itself the inevitable outcome of a jarring clash of heredities.

Posted by Landon on February 03, 2008, 09:41 PM | #

Im a Liberal now?  Thats news to me… Wow, your brain is really malnourished.... :-( so sad… Try eating bananas.  The Potassium helps with brian development and function.

Again… non of you have addressed the issue of the blog or even came close to addressing the points I made in my last post… namely the genetic affects of race mixing and the CONFUSION you all seem to have regarding social stimulus vs genetic stimulus on social behavior… The best you came up with was an attack on my spelling (Sudoku), personal isolated experiances to a select group of ‘minorities’ that contain about .001 percent of the population (Lurker), and a tirade of insults that have absolutely no basis in fact and is simply the opinion of one person (on looker, Al Ross).

As per IQ (Sudoku) your IQ is a measure of a brains performance on every level of the thinking process.  Spelling is included on the formal tests… I did not do to well on the spelling but still managed to score what I did… Lucky for me spelling is barely classified in most IQ tests because its such a poor measurement of a persons thinking process.  Basically, spelling is regurgitation not thinking.  Much like the biblical facts you so seldomly used to inadequately prove past points (Sudoku)

At least you have the internet to make you feel like your opinion matters to anyone else… Hopefully you will vent enough frustration here so that you minimize any road rage on the street or attitude to minorities that are taking your jobs because they work hard and you just complain about how hard you have it and how the world sucks. LoL

Try using a reasoned LOGICAL argument to insult me… Not playground insults you learned in junior high.  PLEASE!!!!!!!!  I’m on here for mental sparring not mental babysitting.

Posted by Landon on February 03, 2008, 09:55 PM | #

I vote republican BTW… you guys have absolutely no control over the subjective rhetoric that you dribble out. You hear an objection and your brain and mouth start firing off “DANGER.. LIBERAL… DANGER… LIBERAL” Get a grip would you… or maybe a formal education.  I dont care if you disagree but really… try and stick to a point.  Better yet, try and think of a point before you debate one. 

Eat Bananas… Seriously.  Potassium is good for your brain and bananas have potassium.

Posted by Landon on February 03, 2008, 10:01 PM | #

Sorry, that was unfair to assume you have no education… I meant to say ‘get a formal DEGREE or if you do have one then start using it’.  A basic logic and advanced reasoning class would really do wonders for you.  Even if you still decided to keep the same view point on racial mixing then at least you’d stop making assumptions and develop a point better…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 03, 2008, 10:06 PM | #

Hey I get it now, Landon’s a spoof!  He’s skillfully imitating some kind of severely mentally-retarded ‘gloid-’groid-’zoid mix with the intention of actually proving extreme racialism’s rightness by furnishing everyone with living proof of exactly that which it warns against.  Pretty brilliant!

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 03, 2008, 11:29 PM | #

If you do some research you’ll find that the offspring of black/white parents have lower average IQ scores than the offspring of white/white parents. Now you can come up with all the environmental excuses you want but the simplest and most likely explanation is genetics. Especially since blacks have much lower average IQs and IIRC black/white offspring have an average IQ approximately halfway between the white and black average (which I’m sure is just a coincidence).

As for being liberal, at this forum we are mainly concerned with racial matters and your views on these issues are those of a flaming liberal like Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

And as for my experiences with .001 of the World population, it’s funny but my experiences are shared by other white people in a whole bunch of different countries. I guess that’s a coincidence as well.

As for your IQ, anyone can claim anything and you’ll be judged on what you write and how well you write it and you write like a fucking retard on both scales. I hope your IQ really is 160 because then I won’t feel so bad in the likely event I would score lower.

Seriously, a lot of intellectual heavy hitters post on this site and they don’t want to waste their time dealing with your nonsense. Go sign up at “The Phora”. There’s lots of nasty racists there who will be more than happy to mentally spar with you.

Posted by Landon on February 04, 2008, 10:45 AM | #

You just disputed my point by calling me names and telling me that IN YOUR OPINION your “experiences are shared by other white people in a whole bunch of different countries.” Wow, you really hit your point home.  I didnt know that claiming “other people think the same” was such a brilliant resource that can be used to support a written argument.

I’ve read the studies of a number of organizations and colleges about the average IQ of mixed race children vs pure bred children.  I did a paper on the subject for a history class.  nearly all of the studies you are talking about that found a lower average IQ for half black/half white children were shown to be non applicable due to improper case selection.  Basically, they were missing one or more focuses on geographical, environmental, social and/or educational similarities.  The over all difference in IQ between races was negligable and the cases where there was a significant difference could always be traced back to a communicatory influence at a young age or a case of survival (raising ones brothers and sisters or struggling to find food and etc.)

Sudoku - I’ve gone over my postings and except for the few typos I miss from time to time and my casual ‘text like’ style I cant find any grammatical or contextual problems with my writing.  I even had a friend of mine check out the blog and she says the same thing (she’s was a literature major) and since It seemed to work for my college professors (I doubt youre more critical than they are) I’m really wondering what it is youre hiding by trying to attack my ‘retarded writing’ instead of creating a counter point to my arguments.... maybe a lack of confidence in your ability to reason?  hmmmm?

Fred Scrooby - More of the same simpleness… ‘yawn’

...Still waiting for a structured and pointed argument that has an inkling of objectivity guys.  Come on, I know you have it in you…

Posted by Landon on February 04, 2008, 10:56 AM | #

Oh yeah… and one studyon child development I read (one of moms) found that a mixed race child having to learn to relate to two different racial peer groups created dendrite connections that later on allow for multitasking skills and faster and more creative information processing… This same thing could be mimicked in pure bred children as well but was less likely due to the less likelihood of a pure bred child not gravitating to his/her own group.

Its still a fact that genetic mixing whether it be between dark and fair skinned or fair and fair skinned of different origin promotes a deeper gene pool and thus a PHYSICALLY healthier and more aesthetically symetrical child (’more’ meaning in relation to the parents)… read *smirk* for more info.

Posted by Landon on February 04, 2008, 11:09 AM | #

Two famous bad spellers.... Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin. 

I’m not too worried about my lazy spelling…

Posted by Landon on February 04, 2008, 11:55 AM | #

Sudoku - for arguments sake lets analyze your extremely undeveloped point…

you said that many other people from many other countries feel the same.  Well, my .001 percent population figure was based on an americans exposure to minorities.  other countries have MUCH less exposure due to less populations.  so if we take 100 of your supposed counties and even allow for a .001 exposure to minorities in smaller countries and multiply this by another 50 to account for multiple locations in each country (basically fifty people with the same view in each country) then we would have 5% of the population that you have information on.... Thats 5% IF you know and talked to 50 people in 100 countries.... DOUBTFULL. Its more like .05% of the population… - Gotta love math aye?

Posted by onlooker on February 04, 2008, 12:53 PM | #

IQ is inherited. Nurturing plays a significant role in the development of a child’s natural ability, but the natural ability is determined by the genes the child inherited. It’s really that simple!

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html

Posted by Guessedworker on February 04, 2008, 01:26 PM | #

Landon,

I am, I suppose it’s fair to say, an intellectual of humble pedigree.  I belong to the circle of thinking people here who, in IQ terms, reach (well beyond me, let it be said) into the domain populated, to use Count Sudoku’s terminology, with “heavy-hitters”.  So, along with many regular MR readers, I am quite familiar with the expert, even inspirational, application of logic.

Let’s try some.

Fact One: You vote Republican.

Fact Two: You make a claim to high intelligence.

Fact Three: You evidently accept without question the standard American interpretation of “liberal” as “radical-leftist”.

In other words, you are content with the ordinary.  You make no attempt to intellectualise the groundings, scope and dynamic of liberalism and therefore, we must presume, find in the Republican Party, which you support, no sign of NEO-liberalism.  In consequence, one may conclude that you have simply not developed an understanding or critique of the Enlightenment project and your Party’s role within it.  Much less have you developed a critique of our critique of the fundamentalist neoliberal conception of markets or of the hubristic neglect of the human need for kind.

In other words, you do not think.  Which, to be sure, is unusual in one of such intellectual gifts.

If you really were a high intellect, you would perforce analyse that which is before you.  Some eruption into your political discourse, even it is refined and reduced for our convenience to sublime simplicities, would be inevitable.  There is none.  So what are we to suppose but that you are a transparent fraud endeavouring to score cheap points against Ole Whitey to feed a gnawing sense of inferiority?

I won’t waste any more of my time on you.  The others here may do so if they wish, but I doubt if they will think it worthwhile.

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 04, 2008, 04:53 PM | #

I would say that “other white people who have been around blacks share my opinions” is much better than “I’m the only white person that has had these experiences so just take my word for it and ignore what everyone else says.”

As for those studies for children, the big IQ differences don’t happen until people are older as blacks mature faster but hit the wall sooner than whites.

As for your writing style, it seems to have improved greatly with your last post so I’m glad the abuse I have directed towards you seems to have paid off with better writing on your part. Your previous posts gave me the impression that you were an immature teenager.

As for mixed raced children being “healthier”

http://tinyurl.com/2b5fse

Study: students of mixed race suffer more health problems - Noteworthy News

A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems, and various aches and pains.

Conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the National Institutes of Health, the investigation found that adolescents of mixed race were more likely to have other health problems as well.

“It did not matter what races the students identified with, the risks were higher for all of them if they did not identify with a single race,” says Dr. J. Richard Udry, principal author of a paper on the work appearing in the November issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

“It did not matter what races the students identified with, the risks were higher for all of them if they did not identify with a single race,” says Dr. J. Richard Udry, principal author of a paper on the work appearing in the November issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

“Most of the risk items we assessed may be related to stress, and so we believe being of mixed race is a source of stress,” Udry says. “From this work, we cannot identify further the sources of that stress. More research is needed to identify those sources and possibly suggest programs that might help biracial adolescents.”

The new findings derive from data compiled as part of the UNC-based National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the largest and most comprehensive survey of teen-agers ever conducted in the United States.

Posted by Landon on February 05, 2008, 02:25 AM | #

Guessedworker,

Logic is a mathematical process and when applied to writing is anything but inspirational. Consequentially, Logical arguments are straight forward and very ‘dry’ with many repetions of specific points… example: x = a, a = s.. is s = x? = Yes (see how x, a and s are repeated?)… your attempt at logic is the same subjective bs that many supposed scholars try and pawn of as logic when really its everything but....  you said “I am quite familiar with the expert, even inspirational, application of logic.” well… Fact three in your post has no logical relation to my postings or the previous to fact.  If you saw a logical relation you didnt point it out so your ‘logical’ statement is false and/or unusable.  Then there’s your coclusion after that “you are content with the ordinary”, you just blurt this out with out any logical modification or reference to the previous facts… again, this makes your statement false or just plain unusable (logically speaking)… the thing about logic is when a specific statement is said to be true then when you find a false modulation within that statement then the entire statement is then false.  But youre a fan of true ‘expert’ logic so you already know this of course.

As per my voting republican… I’m an american and a constitutionalist. I just see the most benefit on the republican side currently.  Extreme Left wing liberals are just as dense as you all.  Your Extreme, one sided and absolutist views are simply an emotional crutch to help with whatever insecurities you carry that frustrate you and make you feel powerless as an individual, while those “Lefties” (Whom frustrate me as well) are a focus for venting that frustration.  Much like the failing german economy during WWII and Hitlers focus on Jews.  Hmm, maybe you should start looking inward to find whats bothering you instead aye?  Just a thought…

Sudoku,

Yes, the first statement is better than the second (sorta) but ultamately not enough to carry your absolutist statements… Now, as per the study… I stated that discrepencies on health and IQ are a social (environmental) issue and not a genetic one (because thats the object of this blogs point… Remember?).  Your study just proved my point completely and better than I would have.  My point still stands about the lack of case specification however.  Case in point… find the studies done on how someone with a shallower gene pool will react to the same social stress that a mixed race person of the same age and sex.  You will find that a mixed race person will deal with the imposed stress longer and with less health defects… however, even if there was not a study done (which there has been) then the fact that your posted study did not take into account that angle negates any direct relation and/or application said study has on your point of view.

As per my writing.  You do realize that your quips and jabs at me are a sign of your frustration and actually help boost confidence rather than not dont you?

Good effort guys… Im proud of you

Posted by Landon on February 05, 2008, 02:39 AM | #

oops… add “does” after “...that a mixed race person of the same age and sex.”

Sudoku - I just had to point this out since it was one of my remarks to you earlier and you did the same thing again.  Your study was carried after you say “As for mixed raced children being “healthier”.” I believe this is intended as your opening statement and point.  You didnt end this with a conclusion and this opening statement is vague and open ended… Again, try and develop a point to make a point.  If you had then you would have probably caught that your study actually helped make my point rather than disprove it…

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 05, 2008, 04:27 AM | #

I wasn’t aware anyone here was an absolutist or didn’t concede that environment does play a role in human development. As for Hitler, I doubt anyone here agrees with him 100% but most of us do agree he was right about the Jews. That it just happened to be a Jew that wrote the book that was the basis of this thread is by no means a coincidence and is part of the typical Jewish behavior that has led to them being expelled from dozens of countries over the years.

Posted by Al Ross on February 05, 2008, 05:34 AM | #

When reading Landon’s dreary drivel, we must bear in mind that his racially diverse progenitors lacked the genetic knowledge to foresee the baneful consequences of their acts.

Posted by rachel on February 06, 2008, 07:36 AM | #

Ziv’s claims are incedibly ridiculous. He did indeed “cherry-pick” a few attractive celebrities who have spent lots of money and countless hours improving their physique and appearance, and who also happen to be of mixed ancestry. There is no need to promote interracial breeding, but exclusive breeding is not really “better” than interracial breeding. Genes, traits, physiques- do they really need to be a big concern for procreators? We are human, not canine. Survival of the fittest does not really apply to a human civilisation. Woody Allen is not the fittest of any kind of breed, and I’m sure he has plenty of provisions for the next few winters. I’m a little surprised this book’s theories deserve so much debate.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2008, 09:48 AM | #

Rachel,

It’s the duplicity in them that deserves debate.

You write: “Genes, traits, physiques- do they really need to be a big concern for procreators?” They are a big concern for the political, business and cultural elites and leftist academics who are rushing the European peoples into panmixia.  Our big concern is that this is unnatural, unwanted, immoral, oppressive and, by any measure, genocidal.

Does that help?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 06, 2008, 02:47 PM | #

“There is no need to promote interracial breeding” (—Rachel)

The Jews see a need to promote it.  A world in which all Euros are become racially mixed (and Jews remain the same) is sort of a dream world for the Jews.  The Jews are passionately in love with that idea and seek to promote it at every opportunity.  Anyone with any doubts as to how ideal that would be is called a “fascist” by Jews.  That’s almost the definition of the word “fascist,” in fact:  having doubts about how ideal that would be.  The Jews aren’t explaining why they’re in love with the idea of forcing all Euro-race peoples to undergo racial mongrelization.  Others have to fill in the blanks as best they can, using deductive and speculative reasoning.  No Jew has stepped forward and said, “Here’s why Jews want all Euros racially mongrelized”:  they prefer to keep everyone guessing.

“I’m a little surprised this book’s theories deserve so much debate.” (—Rachel)

They’re not “theories” so much as a depiction of sort of a Jewish dream world.  It’s the putting on paper of one of the central Jewish fantasies:  all Euros to be racially mongrelized.  Looking back over the past two hundred years you’ve seen this fantasy promoted time and again by Jews, the exact same Jews who want the diametrical opposite for their own tribe, namely, no mixing.  This is one reason it’s suicidal insanity for Euros anywhere to allow Jews to acquire power over their countries:  Jews will sooner or later use that power to force the destruction of the Euros, and that includes their destruction in the most final way possible, their racial destruction.  Jews hate Euros.  Letting them have power over Euros is like letting the Taliban have power over Israel:  the Taliban will seek to destroy Israel and the Jews will seek to destroy Euros. 

What Alon Ziv is doing in bringing out this book is completely understandable in the above terms.

Posted by Svigor on February 06, 2008, 06:54 PM | #

Landon, a 160 on an Internet/back-of-cereal-box IQ test translates into a 90 or so on a real IQ test.  If you don’t know that science is supposed to be falsifiable, and you have any sort of degree, you should give it back and demand a refund.

As to my Heritage, I am hawaiian, chinese and scottish (half scottish) with my scottish side coming from brazil.

My condolences.

Posted by Svigor on February 06, 2008, 07:00 PM | #

As for the rest of that bilge, who in God’s name has time to refute it all?  I don’t go sifting through piles of shit to sort and catalog the types of turds, either.

E.g., my racialist upbringing.  Ha!  My dad was racially aware, and brought me up racially aware, like millions of other southern white males, but if he were alive today my politics would blow his doors off.

E.g., the nurture-IQ crapola.  Twins studies Landon, twins studies.  Read ‘em and weep.  (oh, LOVED the reference to “EQ” btw, good for a laff)

Posted by Svigor on February 06, 2008, 07:16 PM | #

Rachel, there are lots of healthy, rational arguments against race-mixing.  First and foremost is Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI), which you can investigate to your heart’s content here at MR via the search function.  Then there’s the fact that we just don’t know how much of European success is owed to genes; not the best environment in which to throw caution to the wind and start shooting craps, is it?  Then there’s the simple conservation argument, which says even if race-mixing is okay, there should be a substantial living space set aside for “pure” groups, not an enforcement of race-mixing and only race-mixing as we have today (but, your comparison between man and animal in your post doesn’t inculcate much hope that you’ll get this point, since you seem to be implying that man is beneath the beasts in importance).

Posted by Svigor on February 06, 2008, 07:18 PM | #

Landon, are you the same troll from Sailer’s blog, and now Amren?  If so you’re in the right place, and will receive the no-holds-barred ass whipping you need so badly (rhetorically speaking of course).

Posted by Landon on February 20, 2008, 07:21 PM | #

Here you all go… an objective study that is unbiased and takes into account cultural AND genetic factors… Asians have the highest IQ then whites then mixed then black… I’ll post an article on attractiveness after this

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
Medical Research News
Published: Tuesday, 26-Apr-2005
Printer Friendly Email to a Friend

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast “a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural).”

The paper, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors’ reply.

“Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause,” write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

“Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables,” said Rushton. “Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That’s why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence.”

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race “Colored” population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

Race Differences in Other “Life-History” Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or “Head Start” programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.

Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton’s (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/ ->(this is the full article, i dare anyone to read it

Posted by Landon on February 20, 2008, 07:27 PM | #

oh, the article above is at http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

This (below) is an article about a Psychological study done on a racial attractivenes.... the ‘Hapas” took it down.. Hapa is half/quarter asian with white… I’m hapa so i guess this concludes my part in this discussion and blog.
You’ll find it at http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20051221-000001.htm

Actor Keanu Reeves and supermodel Devon Aoki have more in common than fame, fortune and good looks—both are also part Asian. Known in popular culture by the Hawaiian term hapa (meaning “half"), people with mixed Asian and European origins have become synonymous with exotic glamour. In Hong Kong and Singapore, half-Asian models now crowd runways once dominated by leggy blondes. In the elite world of Asian fashion, half-Asian is the new white.

The trend may seem little more than an effect of 21st century globalization. As more individuals of mixed descent achieve fame (think Norah Jones and Tiger Woods), it seems natural that society would embrace the mixed look. Media exposure, however, doesn’t fully explain the perception of hapa beauty.

Eurasians may possess genetic advantages that lead to greater health and, as a result, enhanced attractiveness. That’s according to a study, the first to find that hapa faces are rated as more beautiful than European or Japanese faces. Researchers say the finding may extend to other racial mixes as well.

The experiment by Gillian Rhodes, a psychologist at the University of Western Australia, found that when Caucasian and Japanese volunteers looked at photos of Caucasian, Japanese and Eurasian faces, both groups rated the Eurasian faces as most attractive. These visages were created by first digitally blending a series of faces from each race into “composites” to create average, middle-of-the-road features typical of each race. Past studies show that “average” features are consistently rated as more attractive than exaggerated features—such as an unusually wide forehead or a small chin.

The finding that Japanese and white subjects preferred mixed-race faces was surprising because, earlier in the same study, most volunteers rated their own race as more beautiful than others. That is, white people typically prefer whites when choosing an ideal image of beauty; blacks prefer blacks; etc.

So why might hapas be considered particularly beautiful? Evolutionary psychologists say it’s because Eurasians and other mixed race individuals appear healthier. Humans, like other animals, look for markers of good genetic health in their quest for a reproductive partner. Take facial symmetry, for example: Studies show that, whether they know it or not, people prefer individuals with evenly spaced eyes and other signs of congruence. In evolutionary terms, these markers are associated with healthy conditions in the womb. Infants exposed prenatally to toxins or pathogens may develop facial irregularities and asymmetry. The human brain may be wired to avoid these overt cues of lackluster health, says R. Elisabeth Cornwell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado. “The signs of beauty are the signs of health,” she says. Rhodes’ findings seem to fit this paradigm: Participants in her study said the Eurasian faces appeared healthier, too.

Similarly, evidence suggests that half-Asians’ diverse genetic ancestry would enhance health. According to evolutionary psychologist Randy Thornhill, at the University of New Mexico, “If you hybridize two genetically diverse populations—another way of saying you cross races—then you create more genetic diversity in the offspring.”

Genetic diversity, or heterozygosity, is associated with a lower incidence of some diseases. Genetic diseases, such as hemophilia and Tay-Sachs, occur when a person inherits two copies of a defective gene. This is more likely to happen in isolated populations with little genetic diversity.

In 2004, Craig Roberts, professor of biology at the University of Newcastle in the U.K., found the first direct link between diverse genes and facial attractiveness. He examined genes of the major histocompatability complex (MHC)—a set of genes crucial to a well-functioning immune system. Photos of people with the greatest MHC diversity were rated more attractive than individuals with less MHC diversity. Here, actual health—the ability to resist infection—was linked to perceptions of attractiveness. Roberts believes this preference helps humans pick healthy mates.

Which features radiate both health and beauty? One may be the appearance of the skin. In a second experiment, Roberts found that women rated close-up photos of heterozygous males’ skin as healthier than close-ups of homozygous males’ skin, and these judgments correlated with ratings of overall attractiveness.

Ostensibly, evidence that Caucasians and Asians prefer mixed race faces counters a major tenet of mating theory: that we are drawn to partners who resemble ourselves, such as those with similar hair and eye color.

So does this new research explain the popularity of Brazilians, who frequently have blended racial heritage, as fashion models? That remains to be seen. Says Rhodes: “If a preference for mixed-race faces occurs for many different mixes, we could be more confident that it is tapping into something fundamental about human perceptions of attractiveness.”

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2006
Last Reviewed 28 Sep 2006
Article ID: 3959

Posted by Landon on February 20, 2008, 07:30 PM | #

Svigor - Try and come up with something intelligent to say would you.. “YAAAAAAAAAAAWN”

Posted by Landon on February 20, 2008, 07:36 PM | #

In case youre too slow to understand where im coming from Svigor… the use of attacking anothers argument with subjective and emotional insults such as “crapola” and “millions of other southern white males” is NOT a very good way to get a point accross....

Just thought I’d let you know so you would have a decent shot at not making anymore of an ass of yourself when trying to debate… LoL

Posted by Landon on February 20, 2008, 07:50 PM | #

Sudoku - Read your article.. it states that health problems are related to an inability to relate to any one race… thats ENVIRONMENTAL.  not genetic…

ok… my last two articles prove everything i could possible say to you all.  Any replies that do not reply directly to those articles will be ignored due to an obvious ignorance that permiates this site. 

I would suggest SOMEONE go find an educated fellow purist so that you all can stop looking like southern hillbillies and get a point accross in an objective manner.  PLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAASSSEE!

Posted by Landon on February 20, 2008, 08:07 PM | #

Svigor - EQ is “Emotional Quotient” - a relatively new term in psychological studies but a well founded and used one that was originally derived in the process of finding out why certain people with high IQ’s had serious emotional problems… Wow, you really struggle with your inferioritiy complex dont you.  What happened?  Daddy get fired by a jew and come home to beat you and mom?  Pissed off that the jewish kids have all the money and all the white girls wanna go play with him cause he has a mercedes?  Get over it already.  Go work and get an education and stop complaining about how the worlds going to shit… Whites are the minority and in the next century you hillbilly rejects will be cleaning the pools of the mexicans that work their asses off.  Try going to a top ten or even top twenty university or college and maybe you wont feel so overwhelmed by your inability to keep pace with the more intelligent of society.  Hell, maybe if you take a psych course you’ll come up with a way to separate your ideas from daddys…

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 20, 2008, 11:36 PM | #

There is a rebuttal to the Rhodes study linked at the top of the page. However, even we accept the hypothesis that hapas are more attractive, no where is the fitness benefit addressed, especially in light of the recent Icelandic study, reviewed on the front page by JW Holliday entitled Kinship and Fertility.

Strikingly, however, our results show that couples related at the degree of third to fourth cousins exhibited the greatest reproductive success.

Sailer dubbed it Darwin’s sweet spot.

The study, which analyzes more than 200 years of deCODE’s comprehensive genalogical data on the population of Iceland, shows that couples related at the level of third cousins have the greatest number of offspring. For example, for women born between 1800 and 1824, those with a mate related at the level of a third cousin had an average of 4.04 children and 9.17 grandchildren, while those related to their mates as eighth cousins or more distantly had 3.34 children and 7.31 grandchildren. For women born in the period 1925-1949 with mates related at the degree of third cousins, the average number of children and grandchildren were 3.27 and 6.64, compared to 2.45 and 4.86 for those with mates who were eighth cousins or more distantly related.

Where’s the hybrid vigour?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 21, 2008, 12:02 AM | #

Someone could make a fortune by packaging Landon’s comments and selling them as an emetic — completely corner the emetic market, put ipecac right outta business!

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 21, 2008, 08:09 AM | #

“Go work and get an education and stop complaining about how the worlds going to shit”

Naturally, you agree that the world IS going to shit, but counsel against any action to rectify this. For what reason would you advise such fatalism? I don’t live in the West, but your advice would have been treated with the contempt it deserves by some good friends of mine. Many years ago, their families took great exception to the behaviour of a certain mandarin class, utterly beholden to foreign interests, which indebted and enslaved the populace and wrought untold misery on the people (sound familiar?). These kinds of conditions are by no means confined to one culture at any time in history. But they are explosive.

“Complaining” is the intermediate step between “recognition” and “action”. I don’t think you’ll like the latter very much, but it will manifest eventually. It always does. It took the Vietnamese about 100 years (give or take) to overthrow and destroy their oppressors, but they got there in the end.

“ Whites are the minority and in the next century you hillbilly rejects will be cleaning the pools of the mexicans that work their asses off.”

Seeing as cleaning pools is a job that whites evidently ARE “willing to do” themselves (you said so yourself), I guess you can’t really object if white Americans choose to expedite the process by expelling their future oppressors (I won’t mince words, because you didn’t), the “Mexicans”.

I presume you do believe that white Americans have the same right of self-determination as everyone else, no?

Posted by onlooker on February 21, 2008, 01:08 PM | #

“ Whites are the minority and in the next century you hillbilly rejects will be cleaning the pools of the mexicans that work their asses off.”

LOL! Doesn’t Landon remind you of the character: Kahn Souphanousinphone, from King of the Hill? I can just hear Kahn’s voice scolding Hank in those exact words.

Posted by Doc on February 26, 2008, 05:53 AM | #

Just to offer an observation...your white beauty up there has bleached hair, over-tanned and sun-damaged skin (not to mention evident stretch marks on her breasts), green contacts, and also, she’s almost certainly had a nose job.  I should know--I’m a plastic surgeon.  The bridge looks constructed, and not even that well.  She’s pretty enough, I admit, and I won’t say anything about her in comparison to the girl on the cover of Ziv’s book, but I can comment this way: For you to compare her to a woman who has obviously NOT had much (if any) work done to enhance her natural beauty seems to me a bit strange, as there is no basis for comparison.  Without her makeup, the caucasian girl has deeply flawed and aging skin and dull hair.  Most white women do.  I should know about that, too--I’m a white woman.  This is mostly the result of over-tanning and poor diet, but the dishwater blond/mousy brown hair is just what comes of the “melting pot” culture in the USA.  You might even use this to support your point, I guess, since true blond hair is watered down and washed out in very few generations. 

If you want to put up a picture of a “white” beauty, by all means do so, but please find an example worthy of your point.  Most--if not all--women with natural blond hair are also pale-skinned.  Most women who can tan do not have blond hair.  If they do, it’s usually dyed, to one degree or another.  You can see your girl’s roots, so I know I’m not mistaken in this case.  Here is an example of a nordic blonde: http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Itbit/icelandic.jpg.  Just an example, but you get the drift.  If you want to promote the idea that racial mixing is ugly, at least choose to post an example of a girl who is not racially mixed.  The girl in my photo is Icelandic, a country which has, due to its isolated location, and extremely low incidence of racial mixing.  I would venture to say we don’t see many women who look like this in America, but she is most certainly “white,” whatever your definition.

Posted by Landon on February 26, 2008, 04:14 PM | #

Fred Scrooby -

Again, your complete lack of ability to come up with an intelligent rebuttle is amazing… It really is.  I’ve tried giving you pointers on how to construct an argument in previous comments but your commitment to ignorance is almost inspiring. You should apply with Al Qaeda.  They apprieciate that sort of commitment.

Desmond -

uh..... your study talks about how many children in-bred people have had statistically… not about their health or attractiveness.  While your basis of third cousins mating could definately mean that third cousins are more attractive to one another (something I doubt the person who did the study was claiming) It could very well be that most people tend to stay within their communities and third and fourth cousins are far enough apart to breed affectively but still ‘in the family’ so they are exposed to one another more frequently.  You comment has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said or what the blog is discussing.

Steve Edwards -

Ok, youre confused a little. Lets see if I can help..

First, Im not sure where you were going with the whole me thinking the world is goin to shit angle.  I was telling OTHERS to stop complaining about the world going to shit because I DONT THINK IT IS.  I was being sarcastic… we do that sort of thing on the west side.
Second, I do know that “whites” clean pools but I never said they did in my statement as you say I did.  It was an unsupported semi-sarcastic statement meant as a closure to my previous three or four comments that I made my point in… This is obvious if you read them.
Finally, Your “self determination” angle is not correct.  Asians fighting for equal rights and opportunity (not to mention not having to work as slave labor) WAS NOT self determination.  If anything the asians wanted to be treated like whites.  There was no “self determination” with the asian because they wanted “self INTEGRATION”.  Which is the opposite which makes your Statement false… Nuff said.
Do a more extensive read of my comments next time please. 

Onlooker -

Really?  you watch King of the Hill huh?  I cant stand that show.... But I guess you can relate to it so its understandable… LoL.  Youre embarrassing yourself and you dont even know it… Now THAT takes talent.  LoL.

Posted by Landon on February 26, 2008, 04:29 PM | #

BTW, You should all listen to Doc… A white woman talking about a subject involving white women.  It may just be me but I think she has the upper hand in the ‘experience’ catagory if not the objective one as well. 

P.S. Someone PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAASE come up with an reply/argument that is constructed and supported.  Stop with the emotional banter.  I have a beautiful blue eyed dirty blonde haired white girl friend for that.  I want to ‘DEBATE’ (look it up).

Posted by Landon on February 26, 2008, 04:46 PM | #

Steve Edwards (again)-

“Complaining” is definately between recognition and action… But where does “thinking” and “self realization” come into it?  Hmmmmmmmmm… Ponder, ponder.. How does one ponder when reacting.  THEY DONT.
Your recognition, complaining, action diagram just described a twelve year olds reaction to having his/her cookey taken away. It also described what happened during the french revolution… Lots of complaining and acting during that period of time.  Is that your solution to racial integration?  “Vive la Inbred whitey”? give me a break.  LoL… Youre on your own bud.  America is a country where hard work pays off. Money and land is what talks here regardless of your race or heratige.  We didnt create capitalism but we sure did refine it and capitalism is color blind (except for green of course

Posted by onlooker on February 26, 2008, 06:17 PM | #

“you watch King of the Hill huh?  I cant stand that show....”

Yes I do. I especially like laughing at Kahn.

“Youre embarrassing yourself and you dont even know it… Now THAT takes talent. “

And you’re embarrassing yourself by behaving like a cartoon character and YOU don’t even know it. Kahn Souphanousinphone is cast as the stereotypical obnoxious, condescending Asian geek. You, Landon, portray that stereotype to a tee.

Posted by Landon on February 26, 2008, 11:25 PM | #

Onlooker -

LoL, its a good thing you dont have to see me cause it’d just make you more insecure with yourself.  But yes, i was a geek and still am a nerd.  Thus the three degrees and high level income.  But in compassion for your obvious cognative shortcomings I’ll state the obvious in hopes that you will stop making an @$$ of yourself… You are embarrasing yourself because 1)You made a comparison between me and a CARTOON involving red neck hicks that are the BOTTOM of the food chain.  This is stating that if I’m the Smarty pants asian then you are a low level hick.  2) No matter how I am coming off to you (hicks), it is still a fact that I am using substatiated and constructed arguments while you make references to a “white trash” cartoon that you did not deny relating too.  THUS, it can be ASSUMED that you are white trash. 

Care to continue...?

Posted by Landon on February 26, 2008, 11:29 PM | #

oops.. I meant “substantiated” not “sustatiated”

Posted by onlooker on February 27, 2008, 12:46 AM | #

“LoL, its a good thing you dont have to see me cause it’d just make you more insecure with yourself.”

You’re right, Landon, I’d better concede defeat. After finding this rare photo of you, I’m too insecure to continue.

P.S. Did you dye your hair blond in order to better your chances of picking up white chicks?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_02/Tiny2BAR1202_800x1136.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_02/Tiny3BAR1202_800x1148.jpg

Posted by Landon on February 27, 2008, 09:02 AM | #

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA....

good try, I’m hawaiian/chinese/scottish.... not indian… you would of known that if you had read my comments. 

again, your use of base amusement to compensate for lack of intellectual content is extremely overt.  I’m not even sure what your pictures are supposed to imply since I already stated that im quarter chinese quarter hawaiian and half scottishe… your picture doesnt even make sense.  Youre a total and absolute moron.  Thank you for pointing it out for me. LoL.............

Posted by onlooker on February 27, 2008, 12:34 PM | #

“I’m hawaiian/chinese/scottish”

Well, with such a combination of those genes, that explains why you look like you do in the above picture. But Landon, are you sure you’re telling us the whole truth about your entire genetic makup? I’d swear I see some Pygmy in you.

As far as your obnoxious, condescending behavior goes. My theory is your mother accidentally/on purpose dropped you on your head a few too many times when you were an infant; thus, resulting in permanent damage to your orbital frontal cortex. You know, the part of the brain that regulates the planning behavior associated with sensitivity to reward and punishment. That’s the most rational explanation as to why you continue to post on this site and invite contempt and ridicule onto yourself.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 27, 2008, 02:56 PM | #

Landon,

Ziv’s book is about hybrid vigor, “An organism’s genetic capacity for survival or growth.” You fail to demonstrate hybrid vigor. The issue of beauty is one of tendentious ambiguity at best. However, vigor can be demonstrated scientifically and neither you nor Ziv provide any evidence to support the assertion of human interracial vigor. The Icelandic study demonstrates the adaptiveness of third and fourth cousin marriage. You provide no evidence for a greater adaptiveness for interracial marriage.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 27, 2008, 03:20 PM | #

“First, Im not sure where you were going with the whole me thinking the world is goin to shit angle.  I was telling OTHERS to stop complaining about the world going to shit because I DONT THINK IT IS. “

Well, in that case you should back up your words with actions...by piling everything you have into the stockmarket, and taking out another loan or three - seeing as we are on a perennial bull run, what’s to lose?

“Asians fighting for equal rights and opportunity (not to mention not having to work as slave labor) WAS NOT self determination.  If anything the asians wanted to be treated like whites.  There was no “self determination” with the asian because they wanted “self INTEGRATION”.”

Yes, that’s why Ho Chi Minh emphasised “independence” and “freedom from foreign occupation” perhaps a hundred thousand times in his speeches and interviews, and mentioned “equal rights”, say, about once that I can think of...and even then he was simply quoting word-for-word the American Declaration of Independence for propagandistic reasons! But if you don’t believe either me or Uncle Ho, you should ask any Vietnamese war veteran (no, not one of the losing side) why they fought. They will invariably mention one or two themes: “independence” and “overthrowing foreign puppets”. National sovereignty is something that all normal peoples desire, especially those who have a recent memory of foreign subjugation.

“Your recognition, complaining, action diagram just described a twelve year olds reaction to having his/her cookey taken away. It also described what happened during the french revolution… Lots of complaining and acting during that period of time.  Is that your solution to racial integration?  “Vive la Inbred whitey”? give me a break. .”

I’m not sure what your twelve-year-old-and-their-lost-cookie anecdote is in aid of, but to answer your basic question, no. My moderate solution is to overturn all anti-discrimination laws, and deport all illegal immigrants, as these conditions are clearly damaging to the interests of European Americans (which is doubtless why European Americans are consistently opposed to illegal immigration). That will be a good start. Figuring out how to salvage something from a financial system that is on the brink of outright catastrophe is another.

But, once again, I’m not an American, and I don’t live in the West, and thus don’t have anything personal to gain from worrying too much about this. Whether or not Americans realise that their situation is untenable and attempt to rectify it depends on their character.

“America is a country where hard work pays off. Money and land is what talks here regardless of your race or heratige.”

And what has “hard work” delivered for you of late? You are about the only industrialised country that has actually seen a decline in average incomes over the past couple of decades, along with having one of the lowest (and plummetting down the world rankings) life expectancies in the developed world. Surely that should be ringing alarm bells. Do you ever travel outside of the USA? People just don’t accept US dollars like they once did, and why would they? Countries are dropping the US dollar, divesting of their US dollar holdings, ceasing to accept US dollars in return for commodities, one after another, with depressing regularity. They know which way the wind is blowing, and it certainly doesn’t portend much in the way of hope for you. Basically, Americans are f****** and they don’t even realise it.

Posted by ECO on March 08, 2008, 02:20 AM | #

What the fuck?
You racist bastards. I’m an ecologist and I know more than anything that there is strength in diversity, both in communities of organisms and species populations. However, we are all one race, the human race, that’s just one species for all you tards who clearly have no idea. One species because we can all breed with a human of the opposite sex from anywhere in the world to produce viable offspring. Unless of course you start fucking your sister or cousin which is what you all seem to be leaning towards.

Enough of this puritan white shit. Ever heard of the ‘out of Africa theory’ when homo sapiens made it out of africa to either breed with (or kill off) the Neanderthals? That’s right, we all probably came from Africa so quit you holier than though crap.

Before you start trying to claim that I’m upset because I’m from an ethnic group other than white, think again. I’m white and ancient English, I have a surname that goes back to before most people had one in England.

Posted by Lurker on March 08, 2008, 04:08 AM | #

“I’m an ecologist and I know more than anything that there is strength in diversity”

What like an ant colony where the entire population are descended from the queen, are all sisters in fact. OK not a good example, no diversity there.

Bees, no, termites, no, wasps no, no no, all bad examples!

They are all evolutionary failures anyway, probably about to die out due to a lack of diversity anytime now, probably in the next half an hour or so.

What about China, a billion people and all of them er...Chinese, guess thats not a good example either.

Lets have some solid real-world examples of this working diversity please.

“we all probably came from Africa”

So? Whats that got to do with anything?

“I’m white and ancient English, I have a surname that goes back to before most people had one in England” - so youre either stupid, misinformed or a traitor to your own people, which one then?

Posted by Daniele on March 11, 2008, 05:44 PM | #

in responese to your nonsense about the broad-nosed what-not who exactly do you think you are disrecting my people like that, you wish you had someone as beautiful as her, i dont care if you have preference i dont what to read your racism, as for can she compete HELL YESS, that white woman is ugly and fake
fake breasts
hair colour
eyebrows
and not to mention a man chin

Posted by Lurker on March 11, 2008, 06:34 PM | #

Daniele, or is it Danielle, consistency not your strong point is it love?

Who are you addressing in your incoherent comment above?

As for racism, we let you use our internet dont we? I’m beginning to think thats something that should be addressed one day.

Posted by GT on March 11, 2008, 09:23 PM | #

Come now, Danielle.

Man chin?
Fake breasts?
Hair color?
Eyebrows?

We can’t tell if the girl on the book cover has breasts, much less if they’re fake.  Imagine her with bleached blonde hair framing that horse’ nose and lantern jaw.  Not a good fit, imo.  Besides, the roots would appear too dark.  Still, I see she applied eyebrow liner, lipstick, and make up just like blondie.

Clearly the girl on the book cover is prettier than I am, but she doesn’t touch blondie with a ten-foot pole.

I think you’re jealous.

Posted by Evans on March 11, 2008, 10:19 PM | #

Man if you can say with a straight face that your sample of Nordic beauty is more beautiful than say.. Halle Berry or Paula Patton (both of whom are mixed), then I might think there’s a chance you might actually believe what you’re saying.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 11, 2008, 11:47 PM | #

Someone could make a fortune by packaging Landon’s comments and selling them as an emetic — completely corner the emetic market, put ipecac right outta business!

You leave Landon alone!  Anyone with shoes like that has problems enough.

Seriously though, he’s great.  We want for ourselves what everyone else has for themselves, and Landon’s here to screech about how we’re not allowed.

A poster child for the racism inherent in opposing self-determination only for whites...what’s not to like about that?  Then the gook goes on to babble about “hicks” and such, too stupid to know that he’s playing our game.

You can’t buy that kind of endorsement.

What the fuck?
You racist bastards.

Do try and make an effort to at least familiarize yourself with who and what you’re opposed to (my guess is I could argue “your” position better than you can) before running off at the mouth; no one here cringes when you screech “racist!”

The “bastard” part had more sting. 

I’m an ecologist and I know more than anything that there is strength in diversity, both in communities of organisms and species populations.

Reeeally.  That’s interesting.  Please do educate us - what is this strength to which you refer?  Might as well go ahead and balance whatever you come up with against all the weaknesses (e.g., Putnam) before you respond, because we certainly will.

Ceteris paribus, diversity usually isn’t strength, at least not in an ipso facto sense.  E.g., a football team composed of a random, diverse sampling of the population probably won’t do too well against a football team composed of jocks.

However, we are all one race, the human race, that’s just one species for all you tards who clearly have no idea.

Maybe you could take a break from your groundbreaking work in ecology to brush up on your English; words can have multiple definitions, and “race” is one that does.  Why play semantic games when it’s obvious to any fool who looks that race-realists mean “population group” when they say race, and not “species”?

This is the kind of mindless drek race-realists are forced to deal with in their opponents.  I’m surprised more of us aren’t dying of boredom.

“There’s only one race, the human race.” Gee, never heard that one before.

One species because we can all breed with a human of the opposite sex from anywhere in the world to produce viable offspring.

Erm, you seem to be operating under a flawed definition of species and/or race.

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

Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.

[emphasis added]

By that definition, what are commonly referred to in humans as races are probably closer to species, since in the wild Europeans would not have been likely to let Africans into their gene pool, and vice-versa.  But, I’m content with race.

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

According to that definition, what race-realists call races manifestly are.

More remedial reading (note carefully the criteria):

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

Unless of course you start fucking your sister or cousin which is what you all seem to be leaning towards.

I expect better from a man of your education.  Is this the best you can do?

(btw, my tone is sarcastic, but I’ve actually had knuckle-dragging “anti-racists” tell me incest is the upshot of race-consciousness; wtf?)

Enough of this puritan white shit.

“Puritan white shit”?  Where’d you get your education - back of a cereal box?  Bazooka bubble gum wrapper?

Ever heard of the ‘out of Africa theory’ when homo sapiens made it out of africa to either breed with (or kill off) the Neanderthals?

Doesn’t that imply that Europeans interbred with Neanderthals, and Africans did not?

But I don’t see your point; all life on Earth evolved from a common, single-celled ancestor.

and That’s right, we all probably came from Africa so quit you holier than though crap.

Don’t ecologists learn just a bit about evolution and genetics in school?  We all evolved from where the lightning struck the soup, too; so what?

As for holier than thou, you’re the one here jockeying for moral status...better take a screen cap and go show it to your pencil-necked friends.

Before you start trying to claim that I’m upset because I’m from an ethnic group other than white, think again. I’m white and ancient English, I have a surname that goes back to before most people had one in England.

Does it really matter?  You’d be wrong if you were a two-headed Martian.

Man if you can say with a straight face that your sample of Nordic beauty is more beautiful than say.. Halle Berry or Paula Patton (both of whom are mixed), then I might think there’s a chance you might actually believe what you’re saying.

I wish I had a share of Berkshire Hathoway for every time I’ve had some twit of a racist throw Halle Berry at me (go to Stormfront.org and run a search for her name).  First of all, please find a new example.  Halle’s all worn out by the work you lot put her through.  Second, she’s had rhinoplasty, breast implants, and has to mow her brow and lip hair regularly (not picking on the girl, just pointing out the obvious - she’s certainly not hard on the eyes, especially after all that work).  Third, one example just isn’t persuasive to the numerate.  I’ve seen plenty of pig-ugly mixed people.  Your one example is as persuasive that mixed people are as attractive as whites, or moreso, as my naming a white more attractive than Berry (a trivial task) would be that whites are as attractive as mixed people, or moreso.

What’s really funny about this exceptions-are-rules thing is that “anti-racists” don’t see the irony; their strawman for us is that we apply a few examples to the whole, and that makes us evil/stupid/lowlife bigots/haters/murderers, then they turn around and apply one example to the whole when it suits their purposes.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 11, 2008, 11:52 PM | #

P.S., to the genius ecologist (who saw fit to inform of his job for God knows what reason - to imply that his job description makes him correct?), what do you know about speciation?  Please tell us what speciation in humans might look like (i.e., what the results of ongoing speciation in humans might produce).  Try not to squirm as you do.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 11, 2008, 11:59 PM | #

Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.

Hell, by that definition human races aren’t the same species right now, since they don’t “generally interbreed.”

Posted by Guessedworker on March 12, 2008, 12:05 AM | #

Jeez, Svi, haven’t you an ounce of pity in your whole body?

Posted by GT on March 12, 2008, 12:39 AM | #

Looks like Scrooby might have some competition when it comes to flaying numbskulls.  Very enjoyable!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 12:59 AM | #

Think of it as tough love. 

Posted by me on March 12, 2008, 06:22 AM | #

look at this link

http://www.bartcop.com/jessica-alba-cameron-diaz.jpg

haha shes hotter than ur white girl...and all i did was google “mixed”

Posted by Englander on March 12, 2008, 02:21 PM | #

As thorough as the kicking of anti-racists and mixed race supremacists has been in this thread, I think we were let down since the start with the choice of White models.
Likewise, I am of the opinion that the most beautiful White women are not well represented in the world of showbiz and celebrity, and sometimes I wonder if this has been intentional. Halle Berry and Jessica Alba probably represent the best that race mixing has to offer, but can it be said that the current pool of White females in Hollywood represents the best of us?  I don’t think so.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 03:40 PM | #

Yes, the trouble is women from the age of an honest, feminine standard of beauty lived when photography and full-spectrum cosmetics were far less advanced (Madeleine Carroll, Nancy Coleman, Olivia de Havilland, Rhonda Fleming, June Haver, Rita Hayworth, Rochelle Hudson, Carole Landis, Joi Lansing, Vivien Leigh, Joan Leslie, Gene Tierney, etc.).

Of course, there were some in the age of color photography, like Brigit Bardot (obviously more attractive than Berry or Alba), Natalie Wood, etc. 

Now we a lot of “exotic” masculine types, like Jennifer Garner, with a few standouts like Emmanuelle Beart here and there.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2008, 03:43 PM | #

Make that Brigette Bardot.  If anyone on that list deserves to have her name right it’s Dame Bardot.

Posted by Englander on March 12, 2008, 04:36 PM | #

I find that these days, the most beautiful White actresses are in smaller television roles.

Posted by me on March 21, 2008, 07:46 PM | #

oh shut up and admit she is hotter already...don’t pull “White women are not well represented “ out of your butt.
You should realize that attractiveness is subjective, so this whole discussion is useless. Most people find mixed people better because they look different. Sex evolved to mix genes with different people, right? So then it evolved for “miscegenation.” It is only harmful when speaking of sexually antagonistic genes (look it up) and between different species (say tigers/lions, horses/camels). As we are all the same species that doesn’t apply.
Since you are probably all jew haters, you probably know that jews used to have a high occurence of cystic fibrosis, as a result of limiting there gene pool. They stopped doing it and it went away.
Hey I thought Nordics were BLUE eyed. Green is melanin. That “nordic” is definately mixed.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 21, 2008, 08:15 PM | #

“Sex evolved to mix genes with different people.”

Oh dear.  I take it you are the result of miscegenation, then.

The genesis of reproduction is a rather deep subject.  I don’t think you have the plumbed the depth of it, somehow.

Go back to the beginning.  Read the post.  Better yet, read Darwin.  Learn about adaptiveness and its local relevancy.

But, please, don’t come here with your pathetic “wisdom” and try to score some sort of easy knock out.  Now, goodbye.

Posted by me on March 21, 2008, 10:20 PM | #

you are an idiot.  You haven’t actually answered a single thing, only dismissed me randomly. I have read Darwin, not that he is an expert seeing that he lived before people knew anything about genetics. No I am not mixed, by your definition, which only takes in to account social racial bounderies and not genetic ones.
But ok, goodbye. There isn’t much point arguing with people who think inbreeding and incest make better offspring.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 22, 2008, 12:50 AM | #

“You haven’t actually answered a single thing, only dismissed me randomly.” (—“me")

All right, may I try to answer you instead of just dismissing you as you feel GW did?  Here goes:

“oh shut up and admit she is hotter already”

No, the most charitable thing that can be said about the mulatto girl’s looks compared to the Euro girl’s is she’s very plain.  Sorry, that’s the politest language one can come up with to help her out; it only goes downhill from there.  Species hybridization between Euros, who on average look more like what humans are considered to look like, and True Negroes, who on average look less like what humans are considered to look like and more like what chimpanzees are considered to look like, can neither enhance the Euro norm nor leave it unaffected.  It can only detract from it.

“attractiveness is subjective”

But that’s so only within universally-acknowledged limits.  Outside universally-acknowledged limits objective plainness and objective prettiness come into play.  Quasimodo for example was objectively unpleasant to view, and Esmeralda the opposite:  no subjective taste is valid which is perverse enough to find Quasimodo handsome and Esmeralda ugly.  So the subjectiveness of what is attractive and what isn’t applies only within certain boundaries:  it doesn’t apply without limit.

this whole discussion is useless.”

Not if it keeps a single prospective Heidi Klum from going ahead with the worst mistake of her life.

“Most people find mixed people better because they look different.”

But the premise is false:  most people don’t prefer mulattoes’ looks.  (If they did, moreover, obviously it wouldn’t be because mulattoes “looked different.” A person whose head has been run over by a truck looks different but no one prefers his looks solely on that account.  Both the Elephant Man and Elizabeth Taylor in her prime looked different, so the fact that one was repulsive and the other attractive must have an explanation other than merely “looking different.")

“Sex evolved to mix genes with different people, right?  So then it evolved for ‘miscegenation.’ ”

A human-chimp hybrid may well be possible but what’s possible may not be what’s desirable.

“social racial bounderies and not genetic ones.” (—“me")

This is the Jewish “race-is-a-social-construct” blueprint-for-Jewish-victory.

Posted by me on March 23, 2008, 05:23 AM | #

thank you fred...for a real answer.

well I think you have just proved my point that it is subjective because I think the white girl above is kind of plain compared to the mixed one...despite the fact that she has more clothes on. The white girls nose looks all weird...it is pinched and upturned and you can see her nostrils and all, and her lips look thin and unkissable. Not that she isn’t pretty in general.

In fact, if it weren’t subjective, you wouldn’t have to worry about race mixing at all would you? It just wouldn’t happen because your so called “more human” Euros (erm...how are they more human?? There aren’t that many of them, so it seems kind of random for them the ones that get to be the most human) wouldn’t condescend to breeding with normal people anyway.

However, if they mixed, only the best genes would stick around and the bad ones would die out.

I’m east indian not jewish. Mixed by caste and region.

Posted by Devin on March 23, 2008, 05:47 AM | #

im not white, but im all for not race mixing. I guess it depends on what you call superior. Hasn’t history shown that european people are more aggressive than other people? I guess they evolved that in the harsh climate. When you take any kind of animal, and breed it to be tamer, it gets darker, and if you breed it for fighting, it gets lighter. Breeders observed it. Something about two genes being physically close together on the chromosome, making whites have faster metabolisms for the cold but also whiteness and agressiveness as a side affect. Also they are stockyer and thicker, similar to what neanderthals evolved. If they get mixed with us we will get more of those agressive genes and the world will get even more violent than it is. But maybe the agressiveness will be diluted, i dont know. We should just try to run our economies without them and shut them out and keep them seperate. Without china’s products and african materials they probably will run out of resources and kill each other.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2008, 01:38 PM | #

To the Subcon commenter signing as “me”:

If inappropriate numbers of the unlike are kept from coming into a country the country’s race won’t change identities.  Populations universally tend naturally and strongly not to want inappropriate numbers of the unlike entering and to filter immigration accordingly.  Populations, therefore, naturally arrange things so as to keep their race from losing its identity and this completely apart from the state of knowledge of modern genetic sciences:  it’s a strong natural tendency stretching back in time and as strong today, which will normally guide a population in setting immigration policy unless thwarted. 

It’s being thwarted in today’s Eurosphere by an alliance of interests including capitalists in search of cheap labor, Jews (who can be a very powerful and influential group, often getting their way when they really put their mind to it) wishing to destroy their age-old Euro rivals by race-mixing them out of existence, and one or two other factors.  This alliance is imposing an unnatural state of affairs on the Eurosphere peoples/races/ethnocultures, a state of affairs which undoes natural barriers every population automatically erects against, in effect, loss of communal race by race-mixing due to excessive entry of the unlike.

Now, you may say if the people didn’t want to mix there’d be no mixing regardless of immigration.  But part of the reason people instinctively look askance at high immigration of the unlike may be because they see the threat of loss of race, the barrier to loss of race through race-mixing being precisely the one racial communities naturally erect at the level of entry, preventing large numbers of the unlike from coming in: instinctively a population’s members reject such large-scale entry.  They’re not denying that once ingress has taken place loss of communal race is the threat.  But this instinctive partly race-protective preference against large-scale ingress is what is being deliberately overridden in the knowledge that once successfully overridden the race will be jeopardized.  You say if the population didn’t want to mix it wouldn’t, but it also didn’t want this protective barrier overridden yet it was overridden.  Why?  That’s what we’re asking at this site.

What many fans of this site oppose is the imposition from the top down of this unnatural state of affairs on Eurosphere populations:  they wish this to end and the people once again to be able to set immigration policy.

Since October of the year 2000 when I first began following this, every public opinion poll has shown 70% to 80% of the American people want less immigration yet the powerful interests refuse to give them what they want and have set up a régime wherein expression of popular opinion on this subject gets punished.

Is what we’re asking so terrible?  As we see it, our race is threatened with going out of existence.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2008, 03:38 PM | #

("Subcon" is short for “Indian Subcontinental” the way Euro is for European, and encompasses Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Indians, and Bangladeshis.  It gets around the awkwardness of either needing to know if the person talked about is Indian or Pakistani (or one of the other two) or saying “Indian or Pakistani,” or “Hindu or Pakistani,” or “Hindu or Moslem,” some such.  It’s a term of convenience.  I add this explanation because someone here once took it for some kind of slur, which it isn’t at all.)

Posted by me on March 23, 2008, 05:42 PM | #

I was wondering what subcon meant ...

Well I personally think the only way for a race to totally cease existing is by genocide, like with the native americans. Can you name any influential race in history that has lost its culture just by mixing? Do you think there are that many genetically pure black people left in america?

Unfortunately for your cause, however, total cultural preservation is quite impossible. You can’t just freeze time, and preserve European culture in a little snowglobe or something. There was a time when Europe was relatively barbaric and China was advanced and civillized. China took the attitude that it had nothing to learn from hairy white cavemen. There are works preserved that show China commenting on white men’s “barbaric” physiognamy. The result was that Europe learned things from China, China did not learn things from Europe, and china was conquered. Japan, on the other hand, learned from conquering Europeans and became a world power, despite being a puny little island.

Even without any outside influence, culture changes so much from generation to generation that you won’t ever preserve white culture as you see it today, no matter how much you isolate it. Unless you want to live like the Amish, of course.

So while I can’t argue against your wish to cling to whiteness, I can tell you it isn’t practical. If your ancestors went by your thinking, they wouldn’t have invaded anyone and would still be stuck in their tiny so called “continent”, most likely under Oriental/Islamic/African rule. Europe has always been an adapting and changing culture, so even the wish to stop changing is betraying your culture.

Anyway, I know from your previous post that you think non whites are physically inferior, so you can’t say that this is just a site for innocent self preservation. The logical consequence is that you should treat your own race better than other people. If you go on with this thinking, surely other races will pick up on it and use it against you one day.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2008, 07:02 PM | #

Thank you for your very thoughtful comment, “Me.” I’m a big admirer of the Subcon races, by the way, and I find your women among the world’s most beautiful.

Posted by me on March 23, 2008, 11:12 PM | #

Scrooby, I still don’t see how any of this makes whites more human or white culture more worth clinging to, although I am encouraged by the agreeing tone of your posts.

Also ( sorry, im going to use your compliment against you :D ), you probably know that according to traditional European historians, the entire “subcon” race is a result of the mixing between a conquering Aryan people and and culturaly advanced dark skinned Dravidians.

I don’t really think it was as simple as that, although I am sure Indians have genes common with Europeans, since many indians have green eyes and dark red hair.

In india there is no clear skin color cut-off, we all mix and flow into each other freely. So we subcons are all a mixed race.

So unless you believe we are actually all whites who evolved dark skin in the heat or something, you admire a genetically mixed race as advanced and beautiful…