Posted by Nio Zilda on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:57 | #

“For the loving couple, of course, there are attractions either way that I do not need to describe here.”

I’ve got no idea why some white men prefer oriental women. As someone once pointed out (possibly in the comments threads at MR), most of them have the physique of a 13 year old male gymnast. IMO all interracial sexual attraction should be classed as a kind of paraphilia or perversion, but a preference for oriential over white women is simply flabbergasting.

Posted by Irish on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:29 | #

I think Steve Sailer and others have been very clear about the causes of interracial sexual attraction.  One big one is testosterone levels: blacks have the most, Asians the least, whites in between.  Black men, with their deep voices, high sex drives and confidence, and aura of danger, thus have their attractions for white women.  By contrast, black women are the least feminine of all women, many with aggressive personalities; no wonder black men abandon them and “trade up” as soon as possible.

Asian women have the least testosterone, and have (like all groups) earned their stereotype, in this case of being the “softest”, most feminine, and most submissive of women.  White men fed up with career-minded feminists disdainful of traditional female roles may well see Asians as an attractive alternative.  For their part, Asian women see the deeper-voiced, taller, stronger, hairier, more masculine white men as being more attractive than their own men.

For whites of both sexes, then, the crumbling of the interracial taboo means more opportunity; the cost of the opposite sex possibly abandoning them for another race is made up for the by the availability of another race for themselves.  The crumbling is a huge boon as well for black men and Asian women, both previously confined to the least attractive extremes of humanity.

However, for black women and Asian men, it has been a true disaster, and they are the most resentful and unhappy about “race traitors” in their midst.  Black romance novels and other literature abound with the angst of black women seeking the ever more elusive quarry of quality black men; and Asian men profoundly resent their emasculation in popular media and discuss with fury on bulletin boards their abandonment by Asian women.

And while I am fully aware of the dangers of racial mixing to white survival, I view white male-Asian female mating with far more equanimity than white female-black (or any other nonwhite) male, for the same reason that EVERY community in history has had a male/female double standard on sexual behavior: from a relative/biological perspective, sperm are plentiful and cheap and eggs are rare and expensive. 

One man can fertilize countless women and sire innumerable progeny, but one woman can carry the children of only a handful of men and she can only have a much smaller number of children in her life than a man can.  Thus, on a macro scale, if a people loses 99% of its males, it can easily recover in population in a single generation, presuming polygamy of some form is practiced and albeit at the cost of some genetic diversity.  By contrast, a community that has lost 99% of its females has suffered a catastrophe that makes its future survival doubtful.

This is why men are genetically inclined, and socialized, to violence; losing a man, for a community, is a small matter.  And that violence is in large part directed at defending the community’s women, since they are far more valuable strategic assets for the community.

Note the the near-universal greater anger at aliens killing, raping, seducing, or kidnapping women than at the loss of males in combat.

Note the harsh condemnation of women who are promiscuous, and especially who mate with the out-group; they represent a threat that their mates’, and the community’s, resources will be spent on raising and caring for a child with alien genes rather than his or the community’s. 

In contrast, men who are “players”, and seducers, are celebrated.  The community’s genes are being seeded outside itself, and aliens are now obliged to expend their resources on caring for the community’s offspring.

A stereotype of while males who seek Asian females is that they are usually less attractive to white females than most other white males: they are nerdier, for example.  Well, Derbyshire and Murray probably qualify as nerds who never had a chance with the pretty white girls, and thus might not have had a chance to pass on their genes at all.  Maybe we should see them, not as making the white race more Asian, but as making the Asian race more white.  And that therefore their actions are far less a defeat for us, than it is for the Asians.

I will concede that a white woman, such as Heidi Klum, bearing a black man’s child is a very different matter.  Our viscerally negative reactions to such a prospect are explained, I think, by the reasons given above (which is not to discount them).

Posted by john ray on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:35 | #

The Asian ladies probably raise our average IQ.  The more of that the better, then.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:35 | #

Clearly when people are prohibited from forming their own ethnostates with territory and sovereignty adequate to support their population, and therein restricting immigration, it is difficult to tolerate those who “choose” the mating preferences of the de facto prison guards.

However it is taking things too far to say that when someone makes such a choice it is “forever” since that presumes that the present prison planet with its prohibition against freedom of association is “forever”.

Our fundamental problem isn’t miscegenation but rather the demographic equivalent of rape arising from unpopular immigration laws, technologically amplified capacity to immigrate and the de facto theocracy promoting and enforcing it on unwilling populations around the world.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:09 | #

Welcome back, John.

The average IQ of Thailand, from where a great many of the brides come, is listed by Lynn & Vanhanen as 91.  China is 100, but given the smart fraction issue China is unlikely to be of much value in lifting Western IQ, even allowing for the filter of immigration.  Population-wise, Hong Kong and Taiwan are more elite, evidently through the imigrational filter from the mainland (perhaps the stupid ones tried to swim).  The averages are 107 and 104.

The greater issue is the destruction of European genetic distinctiveness, and this is something you consistently refused to acknowledge at MR except in cultural terms.  That’s what I would like to see you address.

Posted by Grunting Brute on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:16 | #

“...most of them have the physique of a 13 year old male gymnast.”

Agreed, but worse: more like the physique of a 10 year old male computer nerd.

“Maybe we should see them, not as making the white race more Asian, but as making the Asian race more white.  And that therefore their actions are far less a defeat for us, than it is for the Asians.”

You haven’t been paying attention.  When this mongrelization takes place in white territories, it is a net expansion of Asian genes and a net loss for European-derived genes, given fixed (eventual) carrying capacity.  It would be a “defeat” for Asians if this was taking place in Asia.  Good luck with that.

“The Asian ladies probably raise our average IQ.”

As usual, given the source, completely illogical.  This miscegenation does not raise “our” IQ, because Eurasian mongrels are not “us.”  Further, since the white-Asian IQ divide is, at most, only ~ 1/3 of a SD, in order to get any observable increase in the IQ of the hybrids compared to the white parents, you’d need complete panmixia.  Even worse: the usual partners of Asian females tend to be higher IQ white males, meaning that there is probably no IQ gain among the mongrels whatsover.

The fact that genetic interests are being ignored here is another point.

Not surprising given both the commentator AND the blog in which the comment was posted.

Posted by john fitzgerald on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:37 | #

“The Asian ladies probably raise our average IQ”
This might be true if the white guy had an I.Q. of under 100. But most who marry asians are probably college educated. So if high I.Q. kids are the goal the oppossite is probably true. That is they’d be better off having kids with a bright white girl who is likely to be smarter than the average east asian.

Posted by Angela on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:20 | #

Perhaps Mr Ray, please tell me what deep insights, cultural or scientific, East Asians have given the world. The Asian IQ is good for book learning up to adolescence, and all my attempts to see it otherwise, intellectually, East Asians just stop progressing at adulthood. IQ is a useful measure, but let’s not ignore real acomplishment. That has to be explained.

Posted by Angela on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:29 | #

In other words Mr Ray, there will never be an East Asian, Newton, Einstein, Michelangelo, Beethoven et al. Sorry to say it, but the same goes for anybody who is part Asian. It’s just not possible. Why is another story not for here.

Posted by Gilbert De Bruycker on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:06 | #

John Derbyshire asked Charles Murray for his views on immigration. Murray wrote him back a point-by-point e-mail, which Derbyshire posted at The Corner-  http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRkYzlhYjdlNDc0MDNkMjI4NTIyYmVhNjFmZjkyM2E

Among Murray’s points is: “Immigration is one of the main reasons—I’m guessing the main reason apart from our constitution—that we have remained a vital, dynamic culture, but immigration of a particular sort”

I would like to add following comment:

In the second half of the 20th century, swift long-distance travel and communication were brought within the reach even of people whose economic means and educational resources were below the global medians. Semi-settlement became possible as a consequence of technological innovations and lower costs for long-distance travel and communication. Travel, keeping in touch with the people in the places of origin, and the portability of cultural media became democratized in ways and degrees that would have astonished an observer two or three generations earlier. For many or most who moved from one country to another, these developments transformed the nature and meaning of migration and make it less likely that migrants will to settle. In other words, they are less likely to become immigrants and it is no longer taken for granted that all or virtually all of the population will assimilate, or even, perhaps, substantially adapt to the state, or, alternatively, remain completely excluded. Transnational migration has created “semi-settled” minorities in virtually all countries. Immigration has generally connoted settlement - exchanging one home society for another; and, in the conventional view, carries assumptions of assimilation.

IN THE PAST, newcomers were expected to adjust gradually. Immigrants, the first generation, were also often expected to accept less than full social rights and inferior status. Over time, they, but more likely only their children and grandchildren, the second and third generations, were expected to assimilate. That is, they were expected to integrate into, and internalize the norms and values of, the dominant cultural core of the society in which they settled. In post-modern settings, the rise of subsocietal multiculturalism has made that problematic; and, in a number of western democracies, such policies as bilingual education and the subsidization of migrant cultural activity makes it even more difficult. Indeed, the principles of western liberal democracy accord rights and obligations to individuals rather than to subsocietal collectivities. And, for at least 200 years, the compact between the state and individuals has focused on the former’s responsibilities for protecting the latter - even from the social institutions or subsocietal groups to which they belong. It is not clear if, or how, western democracies can circumvent that bargain in their accommodation of resident foreigners without vitiating it with their citizens. Arguments for preserving the cultural integrity of immigrant, or, for that matter, indigenous, collectivities confront those individual-focused tenets of liberal democracy. To date, this paradox has eluded a workable solution.

We also need to distinguish contemporary western democracies from most of the relatively NEW STATES such as former colonies, successor states to the Soviet Union, or states in eastern and east-central Europe that had long been under the sway of the Soviet Union. Most of these newly autonomous states are intent on guarding their sovereignty and on nationalizing their populations. They zealously guard their claims to exclusive control over territory and population. The principles of Westphalia, including the drive to delegitimize subsocietal identities and loyalties, seem more relevant for such states than ever before.
- cf. Martin Heisler http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/faculty/Nowandthen.html

If the struggle for indigenous peoples’ rights to preserve their distinctive cultures and identities is about land, community and self-determination, it is plausible to regard land as the basis of national religion and culture; indeed of life itself as explained by Sir Arthur Keith in his A NEW THEORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, particular in essay iv (OWNERSHIP OF TERRITORY AS A FACTOR IN HUMAN EVOLUTION ) and essay vi (PATRIOTISM AS A FACTOR IN HUMAN EVOLUTION.) [http://reactor-core.org/new-theory-of-human-evolution.html ] In the same vein: according to Burke, a nation is an organic community.

Posted by Kulturkampf on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:23 | #

I’ve been in a relationship for two years with an oriental woman, so thought I’d chip in here. 

As far as my own experience goes, my relationship hasn’t been incompatible with being racially conscious.  There are several reasons why I don’t perceive any real problem with this. 

Firstly, although my support for white interests is one of my strongest convictions, I don’t feel that this belief should assume authority over all other aspects of my life.  Yes, I’m white and care about the welfare of my people, but at the same time I believe that there’s some room for the race blind ethic in people’s private lives.  Many people fall in love across the race line and manage to sustain a happy relationship.  That’s the situation with me.  To say you can’t be in love with someone of a different race because you’re racially conscious smacks too much of ideological purity.  It also reminds me of the annoying leftist mantra that the personal is political (a dogma that strives to exert control over the individual’s life). 

Secondly, my relationship doesn’t stop me from openly identifying with white interests.  My girlfriend knows I’m opposed to mass immigration, and I explicitly tell her I don’t want the country to lose its white majority.  Nor does my openness damage our relationship – as a good universal nationalist, I’m happy to point out that I wouldn’t want to see the equivalent thing happen to China, or any other country.

Thirdly, I don’t think that our relationship harms white interests, as my actions as an individual won’t have an appreciable effect on the ethnic composition of my country.

I do concede though that the identity of mixed race children is a stickier issue.  As I have invoked Salter above, it’s only honest for me to acknowledge his work on the loss of kinship that occurs through miscegenation.  I also see sense in the complaint that, while people’s actions can be harmless on the individual level, they can wreak havoc on a collective basis.  My only answer to this is that I still don’t believe mixed relationships are wrong – but it’s a good thing if not too many whites get involved in one!

Perhaps I’m biased, but some of the harshness of the comments on this thread strikes me as very mistaken.  I’m not complaining because it hurts me on a personal level (it doesn’t), but because using words like ‘mongrel’, or condemning whites in mixed race relationships as ‘traitors’ harms the cause of race realism.  The major aim for race realists is to increase white racial consciousness, as the precondition to political change.  To do so effectively, it’s necessary to persuade people who are still racially unaware that your views are moderate, healthy and normal – the exact opposite of how the liberal establishment portrays them.  Using harsh words simply reinforces the propaganda of that establishment, and acts as a turn-off to the people who may otherwise be swayed by our arguments.

There is a place to criticise miscegenation, I concede, but basic respect costs nothing.  Also, I would submit that it would be a mistake for any nascent white consciousness movement to make this a big issue, as there could be a fair number of people in mixed relationships but with pro-white views, such as myself, who are open-minded to reasoned criticism, such as Salter’s, but not to anathemas from on high.  The same applies to potential converts of a more libertarian bent.  Don’t bury the issue, but put it to a free vote, and let individuals decide where they stand upon this one without excommunicating them if they say ‘yea’.

GW, racially conscious whites aren’t in a position to apply stigma to anyone – their first concern is to lift the stigma applied to THEM.  You’re talking as if we’re in a position of power, rather than a marginalized, defensive one.

A political movement of any kind depends on pragmatism and coalition building.  Take support where you can find it as long as it helps the wider goal.

PS. The g/f has a nice rack!

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:39 | #

Although it is long out of print, the classic tome ‘Race’ *by Dr. John R. Baker, an Oxford University professor of biology has some very choice and forthright views on what he terms as ‘hybridisation of human taxa’.
Basically his view is that the ‘domestification’ of the human species in an unnatural enviroment is at the root of it, qouting as he does examples from 18th century naturalists obseving ‘unnatural liasions’ between domesticated species in the farm-yard!
He quotes from Paul Broca ‘Of all the animals, man is least selective in his amours’.
* Oxford University Press 1974.
  Probably the last scholarly work in the subject ever published or ever will be published again, very recommend, - Why not internet search for it?

Posted by Andy Wooster on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:47 | #

Asian women have the least testosterone, and have (like all groups) earned their stereotype, in this case of being the “softest”, most feminine, and most submissive of women.  White men fed up with career-minded feminists disdainful of traditional female roles may well see Asians as an attractive alternative.  For their part, Asian women see the deeper-voiced, taller, stronger, hairier, more masculine white men as being more attractive than their own men.

  This is the crux of it.  Asian women (and there are Asian women with breasts) are just more feminine.  There are still a few good white women out there, but they’re becoming harder and harder to find.  And good luck finding any non-religious woman that fits this bill.  All of secular society pushes women to be more masculine.  Television and movies constantly regale us with tales of tough, no-nonsense women who don’t need men in their lives except perhaps for one-night stands.  These sorts of women are appealing only on a purely physical level.  Only a submissive gamma-male type would find the idea of today’s de-feminized career woman attractive. 

  Disclaimer: I have never been involved with a non-white woman.  I don’t plan on this changing at any time in the future, either.  But no one who looks at gender relations with any sort of objectivity could come to a conclusion like this one from Zilda:

I’ve got no idea why some white men prefer oriental women. As someone once pointed out (possibly in the comments threads at MR), most of them have the physique of a 13 year old male gymnast. IMO all interracial sexual attraction should be classed as a kind of paraphilia or perversion, but a preference for oriential over white women is simply flabbergasting.

  This is just stupid.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:06 | #

Kuturkampf,

Thanks for the input.  There are three quite separate issues with respect to race-treachery.

First, no one is blamed for falling in love with another human being not of their own people.  The affairs of the heart follow their own serendipitous path and it isn’t part of race consciousness, IMO, to intrude upon that.  Certainly not at the individual level (btw, I exclude from this category those small-brained, cock-happy sex hunters who target Far Eastern women because they can knock them over - that is unmitigated race treachery).

Second, the appendage of a harsh name to a mixed-race relationship reflects something greater than the relationship itself.  This harshness flows from the great and pressing nature of giving protection to “us”.  This has aways been so.  It is not fair, of course, and nor is it meant to be.  When you reflect on the matter in its relation to your own situation, my friend, please look to our collective responsibilities to understand why the weapon is a guillotine and not a stage knife.

The third issue is more difficult.  Let’s get the easy part out of the way.  Murray and Derbyshire are leaders of opinion.  Leading opinion towards a non-white West IS treachery in a way, as I have said, that a personal and private choice is not.  I am profoundly of this opinion, and consider the treachery to be fundamental - at the level of a changed interest in the future (most explicable when there are kids not of a wholly European genetic lineage).

However, as you intimated, in the aggregate all those personal and private choices have a different meaning, and there is no way around this.  When we choose for our own little selves we choose also for the race, in so much as we are empowered to.  Loyalty to a fine and beautiful human being whom you love may be treachery to the people from whom you sprang and who you also love, and there is - as I say - simply no way around that.

Posted by receding forehead browridge grunting brute on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:35 | #

“Thirdly, I don’t think that our relationship harms white interests, as my actions as an individual won’t have an appreciable effect on the ethnic composition of my country…. I also see sense in the complaint that, while people’s actions can be harmless on the individual level, they can wreak havoc on a collective basis.”

KK, this is a serious problem, the “tragedy of the commons.”  EGI can be viewed as a collective good.  Any individual white, such as yourself, can enjoy the inherent benefits of the genetic interests you share with other whites while, at the same time, free-riding by contributing nothing to the continuity of white demographics while enjoying whatever proximate benefits derive from a pleasant Asian girlfriend with a “nice rack.”

As you imply, one person doing it is not a problem, but when many do it, it is a problem.  If you acknowledge that your behavior is a problem if done by too many, in what way will you curb the demand for Asian females?  Or do you wish to cut off the supply via immigration restriction, or both?  Even if the supply is restricted, what about those already here?  So, why shouldn’t, in theory, every white male attempt to achieve the benefits you believe you accrue from your relationship?  If one person does it, why not one million?

And, while your relationship, as you claim, does not impair your promotion of white interests, what about the ideal of separatism?  What if freedom of association means that there are those who would wish to flee from the Derbyshires of the world?

Please note, I am not asking this out of hostility, nor encouraging you one way or the other in your private life.  However, the assertion that one can be involved in an inter-racial relationship and still be pro-white needs to be questioned.  Can a white woman be pro-white if she is dating a black?  Why or why not?

With respect to “mongrels” and other harsh language, point taken; although some of this hostility derives from being forced to endure exposure to miscegenation without freedom of association, and the antics of Alon Ziv.  Would “hybrids” be reasonable (mixed-race offspring being perhaps best, but more tedious to write).

Andy, perhaps my “10 year old male” comment was also a bit extreme.  Certainly there are Asian women with breasts, but I believe it is generally acknowledged that Asians (both male and female) have, on average, lesser secondary sexual characteristics than other races (perhaps due to greater k selection).  That being so, I agree it is true that Asian women are the most feminine - but that is due to behavior rather than physique.  To what extent this is innate, and to what extent genetic is debatable.  Certainly “feminism” has made white females less feminine and one may question whether Asian females born in the west are that much more feminine than whites.

The problem I have here, and in the other thread (Koreans) is the parallel between mating and labor.  In other words, for example, Europe (or America with the Mexican illegals) needs labor and thus must accept AfroAsiatic immigration; similarly, there is a shortage of (feminine) white women so we must import Asians.  Of course, the Asians themselves, particularly in China, have a woman shortage, so this is all an explosive mix.

Do all here agree that the feminist mindset in the west must be eliminated, normal sex roles encouraged to the extent possible, and the vulgarity of popular culture - which influences females perhaps to a proportionately greater degree - also suppressed?  And, of course, the immigration issue must be dealt with.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:51 | #

So, Alex, the nationalist rule is:-

The writ for a race-conscious white to contract with an out-group member of the opposite sex runs diametrically opposite to the numbers of co-ethics doing the same.

Posted by Andy on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:53 | #

That being so, I agree it is true that Asian women are the most feminine - but that is due to behavior rather than physique.  To what extent this is innate, and to what extent genetic is debatable.  Certainly “feminism” has made white females less feminine and one may question whether Asian females born in the west are that much more feminine than whites.

  I believe that this phenomenon is entirely cultural.  Asian women born in the west will be just as bad as the majority of white women within a few generations, possibly sooner.  My response was to the first commenter, who claimed that attraction to oriental women should be considered akin to paraphilia.  I think your post is spot-on. 

  Do all here agree that the feminist mindset in the west must be eliminated, normal sex roles encouraged to the extent possible, and the vulgarity of popular culture - which influences females perhaps to a proportionately greater degree - also suppressed?  And, of course, the immigration issue must be dealt with.

  Yes. It’s us (the normal people) or them (the feminists). We can’t co-exist. 

And, while your relationship, as you claim, does not impair your promotion of white interests, what about the ideal of separatism?  What if freedom of association means that there are those who would wish to flee from the Derbyshires of the world?

  However, the assertion that one can be involved in an inter-racial relationship and still be pro-white needs to be questioned.  Can a white woman be pro-white if she is dating a black?  Why or why not?

  There’s certainly at least some logical contradiction here. My initial inclination is to say who am I to complain if a white who otherwise is outstanding in promoting white interests dates a non-white. Some questions need to be addressed, however. Does this interracial relationship affect your views on immigration from Korea, or Japan, or China (or whatever ethnicity your girlfriend is)?  As the Grunting Brute asked, would it affect your views on white separatism, even if white separatism meant separating from pro-white mixed race couples?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:09 | #

Andy,

The issue of accomodating mixed-race couples falls within Salter’s concept of carrying capacity.  If the life-actions of the non-white benefts the EGI of a homogenous society beyond his or her immediate cost, then that person is a net gain.

A good example is the very skilled the Egyptian doctor who ran the Lister fertility clinic in Chelsea, without which my wife and I might never have become parents.  There have been thousands of white children born through the work of this one man.  Lord Winston, a Jew, is another whose work has enriched thousands of couple’s lives.  Who, then, could criticise the presence of such men among us?

Posted by snorting grunting brute on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:27 | #

“Who, then, could criticise the presence of such men among us?”

On a case-by-case basis, individuals can be evaluated.  But the instances in which the person is really a true net gain is probably extremely limited.

There are, for example, fertility clinics in the USA and many are staffed by whites.  These have a suitable success rate.  One may argue that this Egyptian doctor is so extremely competent that the success rate in his clinic is higher than average, and outweights the cost of his presence (assuming he is not a politically active pro-immigration activist).

But, how often does this occur?  Could the good doctor train native Englishmen in his techniques - with suitable compensation - and then return to Egypt?  In a society with instantaneous electronic global communication, how many of these instances require the physical presence of the foreigner?

True enough, a fertility clinic would seem to be one such case, but immigration policy goes beyind single individuals.  If there are, say, several thousand “highly skilled immigrants”, how many of these are of such an improvement over the native so as to justify a physical presence?  How many do work that cannot be achieved by telecommuting?

And how many would use their high intelligence and professional connections to promote policies against the interests of the natives.

If a person is a permanent immigrant, then their genes become part of the landscape, unless their lineage dies off for some reason.  As the numbers of immigrants increase, the chance that many of these lineages will survive also increases. 

All these trade-offs need be considered.

Posted by Kulturkampf on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:56 | #

Thanks for your replies.

“Does this interracial relationship affect your views on immigration from Korea, or Japan, or China (or whatever ethnicity your girlfriend is)?” –Andy

No, it doesn’t affect my views on immigration from those countries at all – with the obvious exception of my girlfriend!  Even though there are degrees of irritation caused by non-white immigration, ranging from black and Muslim at the top end to Asian and Christian nearer the bottom, I’m opposed to mass migration from any country.

“And, while your relationship, as you claim, does not impair your promotion of white interests, what about the ideal of separatism?  What if freedom of association means that there are those who would wish to flee from the Derbyshires of the world?” – Grunting Brute

I don’t think white separatism will ever be a realistic prospect, even in America, except under extreme circumstances – specifically, civil war.  Under such circumstances, all bets are off as normal moral standards become subordinated to the fight for survival.  If I had a mixed race family and if we were kicked out of a white ethnostate created by a civil war, I’d just get out without complaining.  Exile would be bitter but I’d support the existence and actions of that state. 

The most likely future for white interests lies in less apocalyptic terrain, mainly in European countries pursuing the following policy aims: 

1.  Stop granting asylum and bring immigration to a standstill (except as absolutely necessary for trade and diplomacy.  That doesn’t mean slaking the thirst of big business vampires). 
2.  Dismantle the whole anti-white state apparatus (affirmative action, public funding for minority political groups, laws clamping down on free speech, all human rights legislation). 
3.  Set up public funds for voluntary repatriation.  Make compulsory the return of recent non-citizens and first generation immigrants who have committed a serious crime.
4.  Ensure that the white majority reasserts itself, by repeated official pronouncements that it forms the core of the nation, and that this cohesive core – not ‘diversity’ – is responsible for the nation’s identity and success.

These policies would not only freeze the increase in the minority population but also lead to an appreciable reduction in its numbers.  The presence of remaining minorities would be far, far more tolerable, as the majority would have secured its future and dominance.  I think this is basically the Amren / Sam Francis view of what a return to racial consciousness by whites can realistically achieve – i.e. the next best thing after ethnostates.  Even this much is decades away, though.

‘If you acknowledge that your behavior is a problem if done by too many, in what way will you curb the demand for Asian females?  Or do you wish to cut off the supply via immigration restriction, or both?  Even if the supply is restricted, what about those already here?’ –Grunting Brute

Another effect of these policies would be to increase opposition to mixed race relationships.  I fully accept that.  As a conservative, I understand the role that social pressure has in supporting necessary societal norms.  But with the stipulation that pressure is one thing, and branding people with a scarlet letter is something quite different.  There’s always a civilized way to support norms, which doesn’t involve denouncing people as traitors, but rather consists of reminding them about the consequences of their behaviour.

I’d agree that the official efforts to promote miscegenation are revolting.  And that goes for feminism too.

Posted by Hoochie Coochie on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:13 | #

Fancy taking a pop at Charles Murray and the Derb by quoting the 99.44pc “white” Lawrence Auster!

Sucker, thy name is Guessedworker.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:27 | #

I don’t think white separatism will ever be a realistic prospect, even in America, except under extreme circumstances – specifically, civil war.

If I believed that, civilization would already be disintegrating.

Preservation of life is valuable enough to put up with a lot while we are attempting to win our freedom, but preservation of life isn’t everything.

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:31 | #

The greater issue is the destruction of European genetic distinctiveness, and this is something you consistently refused to acknowledge at MR except in cultural terms.  That’s what I would like to see you address.

Guessedworker, we don’t want to see that Aussie bastard “address” anything. We want him BANNED FOR LIFE as you promised a few short weeks ago.

Not content with letting the side down by swearing, and running the clunkiest comments system in the blogosphere, you have let that weevil back on board! Why?

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:37 | #

Murray isn’t a libertarian.  Libertarians believe in adherence to contracts including contracts regarding land use.  When Murray says:

I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity.

Murray is breaking a contract, the first paragraph of which contains the phrase “our posterity”.

I’m sure he knows the contract.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:01 | #

Soren,

Second Lurker by all means, but not Lurker MkII, who I fully expect is WJ Phillips.  So is Hoochie Coochie, who I see appears in the Recent Comments list immediately below Amalek who, in in turn, is immediately below our lurking friend.  I am not a believer in coincidences.

Posted by Aaron on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:36 | #

Let’s get back to the crux and the source of the issue.  Like voxday likes to harp on, feminism is killing our (white) national fertility.  If women didn’t have an ideology so at odds with their natural inclinations, fewer of them (expecially the best and brightest, oh what a loss) would persue carriers and we’d have enough white kids to export to other countries, like in the good old days of colonialism. 
At this rate, the majority of white people in the US will eventually be (a) mormon (b) trash (c)stone cold fundementalists
I long for the day those “studies” academics are defrenstrated.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:46 | #

Aaron, feminism means different things to different peoples.  I’ve stated before the importance of paleolithic gender ratio to our sexual evolution and now reemphasize it here:  For our people, predisposed to monogamy in the presence of a shortage of males, any over-supply of males created by immigration is toxic to the extreme due to what economists call “inflexible markets” applied to the mating market.  Inflexible markets go nonlinear with changes in supply/demand.  An oversupply of males created by immigration means, for our people, our women become monsters toward us and turn to the immigrant males for mating (not necessarily monogamous mating).  It is this nonlinear effect that is crucial to examine during our oppression.  People don’t do very well at critical analysis when traumatizes but someone needs to do it.  Perhaps it must be done during more private discussions.

Posted by Kulturkampf on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:50 | #

James Bowery - brilliant point about contracts. The DoI is the ultimate contract enshrining the property rights of the American people. The US Government has also violated its duties as spelled out by the other great contract it has with its people, the solemn, unwritten pledge called the social sontract.

Posted by Kulturkampf on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:52 | #

Make that ‘the social contract’!

The above point applies to almost all western Government of course.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:54 | #

Kulturkampf,

I appreciate the intelligent tone of your post and your support of white interests. If I were inclined to excuse your actions, our accumulation of modern liberal Magazine-wisdom would offer a plethora of different slogans with which to justify my decision- “to each his own”, “matters of the heart…”, etc.

But I take issue with you on the basis of your decision, because in it I see white peoplehood twice spurned: Firstly, I see white women disdained in favor of foreign women.

More importantly, I see another family that for us will never exist, and a person who will not contribute to prosperity. Arguing for white interests and not starting a family is something like being a patriot, but refusing to fight for one’s country. (Don’t stretch the metaphor too far, please.) One can verbally attest to the presence of a commitment, but ‘the proof is in the pudding’.

I also distrust your understanding of ‘white interests’, particularly as it becomes clear from your comments that you view a white ethnostate anywhere outside Europe as impossible. This much should be clear from history: we will either have an ethnostate, or we will be mongrelized. It is not likely that we retain genetic continuity in the absence of physical, politically-enforced geographic isolation.

In a more neutral aside, I find it interesting that you allow yourself a ‘moral luxury’, if I can call it that, insofar as your relationship with your girlfriend is based on two actions (Asian immigration, White-Asian miscegenation) which you do not approve of in general, but grant yourself allowance as a ‘special case’. I won’t pretend to have fully sorted out in my head what I think of such things, it’s kind of an interesting slap in the face to moral universalism, allowing yourself to break the rules you set for others.

But it’s at the very least practically inconsistant - i.e. you will no doubt encounter amongst your girlfriend’s relatives or friends, other Asian immigrants, and you lose all moral right to contest their actions when you yourself partake in them. Also, on what grounds could you ever contest Asian-White miscegenation if you saw it elsewhere - knowing that you yourself are participating?

So…

Posted by fissure on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:13 | #

I think a small amount of white-asian admixture in a white population might actually be a good thing. Asians possess certain positive traits we don’t, and over time they can be de-linked from other Asian traits.

Having said that, the time for de-linkage and a significant increase in frequency is large and other events would likely have made the whole process irrelevant anyway.

Of course, you could make the same argument for mixing with blacks - but it seems to take an ungodly amount of time to dilute the African element and they don’t have a whole lot we want. A first generation Eurasian might be almost undistinguishable from a dark-haired European, and would not have a radically different personality profile.

A mulatto, though…bleh.

My gut reaction to seeing a white male/asian female pair is pretty neutral. An Asian male/white female elicits negative feelings, but an order of magnitude less than a black male/white female.

Posted by martin_uk on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:29 | #

I am a former BNP member who has a Chinese wife and we have a baby.

When I separated from my mentally ill white English wife after fifteen somewhat wasted years I felt that I would like to have more children. It seemed unfair that an intelligent, thoughtful, decent, modest man like myself should have only one child when unintelligent, drunk, irresponsible, wasters should have several. I have especially in mind of course the black men that have several children by various women, are never around to bring them up, and let white suckers like myself pay for their welfare through my taxes. White women fall over themselves to have kids by these useless, dimwitted, non-entities, and practically ask to be abandoned, but have no time for an intelligent, hardworking, and loyal man.  Their kids, of course, frequently turn out to be petty criminals, a drain on white society.

Anyway, I was determined to have more children. Hence I joined various Internet dating sites at one time or another. It didn’t take me long to realise that to meet someone who I could be serious about I would have to look towards the Oriental market. My mother asked me why I only had Asian girlfriends. In response to her question I printed off a series of pictures of the Chinese ladies I had dated, alongside the pictures of English women who had been kind enough to introduce themselves by email to me as a result of my Internet profile. The Chinese ladies were all aged between 31 and 36, were all slim, whilst not all beautiful (one or two were) they had looked after themselves and behaved in a very feminine and becoming fashion. The English women were aged between 40 and 50 and looked it, usually had children already, were overweight or very overweight. They generally looked like dumpy middle aged women, fat arms, big bum etc, etfuckingc. No normal man could have possibly preferred the fat thighs and sagging breasts to the slim legs and petite breasts.

I did meet a few English women, but they were too old, too mindless, too “cocky”. And of course, my being a “nerd”, higher degree in maths, interested in literature, philosophy and maths, did not help. The Chinese ladies were intelligent, thoughtful, and generally so, so much better than any English woman. Here’s a thought. The WORST Chinese lady I dated was better than the BEST English woman. The only reason that Orientals have not completely dominated the market is that many good white men just aren’t aware.  (Some are, and swear that they would never look at a white women.)

What am I supposed to do? Forsake the happiness and companionship of a lady who shares my values (of course, every Chinese woman I have ever been out with has been racially conscious, whereas some of the white women who I communicated with by email started puking liberal/lefty racial equality crap) because of concerns over the survival of the white race, and meanwhile two white fifteen year old girls in a school near where I live are both having babies by the same black boy?
B******* to that.

For the record, our baby is a superb physical specimen. Everyone comments on her beautiful features. It is quite funny to see the little boys “showing off” in front of her when she goes to her playgroup.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:21 | #

Does anyone know the origin of South Africa’s Immorality Act?

Mixed marriages and the immorality act became the first major pieces of apartheid legislation. In 1949 mixed marriages were banned in South Africa. In 1950 the act was followed up with a ban on sexual relations between blacks and whites.

Apparently, contrary to Wiki’s definition, it encompassed not just blacks but all non-whites as well. It appears 6000 people were charged, under the act, between 1950 and 1966.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:54 | #

Kulturkampf, the phrase “our posterity” is in the preamble to the Constitution.

While I have problems with the means used to construct that contract—it is clearly superior to the nonsense put forth by so-called “libertarians” who would deny us our right of self-determination and kin identification.

Posted by Furius on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:42 | #

martin_uk,

I can understand your point of view because I have had the same problem before. I am a white American of mainly French, Dutch, Italian and Scottish ancestry. Faced with the problem of stupid or obnoxious white women I was tempted to and did in fact date many Asian (mainly Chinese) women. But then I thought about it quite seriously and I couldn’t bring myself to marrying an Asian girl and having mixed race children.

It was at this point that I went on a trip to Eastern Europe with some friends. I met many gorgeous women there, many of whom were feminine and were not obnoxious to deal with. I eventually met the sort of girl I always wanted to in Romania and arranged for a visa for her. It was hard work but I managed it. She got a job in the US and moved. We live together now and may even get married. There are lots of white women in Eastern Europe like that who are hard working and who are not female tarantulas. To white guys who seem fed up with Brit/American white women, my suggestion to them is to go to Eastern Europe or date Eastern European women here.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:54 | #

Some comments concerning East Asian women

Are East Asian women more feminine than white women?

Don’t let ignoramuses such as Steve Sailer fool you.  Yes, East Asian women have lower testosterone levels than white women, but testosterone isn’t the only factor affecting femininity.  East Asian women also have lower estradiol levels than white women, and by a greater proportion.  The result is that their physiques are less feminine than those of white women, on average.

Some people talk about feminism and how it has corrupted the mores of white women, but think again.  Rabid feminists have a much stronger influence in Nordic nations as opposed to southern Europe, but Nordic fertility is much higher than southern European fertility and higher than the European average.  There are numerous factors behind the sub-replacement fertility of many European nations.

East Asian nations are male dominated. When Europe was male dominated, we didn’t have rabid man-hating feminists running around.  In addition, the much lower verbal IQ of East Asians means that there is no way the feminists among them, even if they have as much freedom as in the West, are going to match white women when it comes to producing feminist literature.  Therefore, don’t assume that East Asian women are somehow more feminine. 

What makes some white men attracted to East Asian women?

I used to wonder what attracts some white men to flat-faced women, few of whom have feminine physiques, but have come to the conclusion that some such white men are leaning toward pedophilia, and these men are legally satisfying their desires by seeking adult East Asian women with the physique of underage white girls.

Some such white men are under endowed and prefer the tighter private parts of East Asian women.

Some white men who end up with East Asian women are also those who are not successful with white women in general.  I hope that the likes of kulturkampf and martin_uk do not take this personally, but it has to be said.  When it comes to beautiful women, the best looking East Asian women are not even a remote match for the best looking white women.  Martin_uk’s statement sounds like a lame justification for his behavior.  The fact that just about the only white women he could get interested in him were middle-aged unattractive women suggests that his mate value is pretty low among white men, but given that East Asian women tend to highly value white men, it is possible for a white man with low mate value to obtain an overall better looking/younger East Asian woman than a white woman.  This should not lead the likes of Martin_uk to disparage white women in general.  Again, Martin_uk, I hope that you do not take this personally, but the point should be clear: non-white genes that creep into the white gene pool mainly do so through white individuals of low mate value, and this also applies to the white women supposedly eager to have children with black males, though you make it sound like white women regardless of mate value are into black males.

Non-white masses of any stripe need to be largely keep out of the West since their presence would invariably lead to whites of low mate value ending up with them.  I would never deny whites of low mate value the right to emigrate to foreign lands and live with their non-white spouse, but this behavior should be at a minimum in the West if the West is to remain Western/white.

I will add that the aforementioned three reasons are by no means the only reasons why some white men end up with East Asian women; after all, chance alone could make a white male of high mate value cross the path of an attractive East Asian woman and fall in love with her before he comes across an attractive white woman, but once again, the odds of this happening in the West are minimal if East Asian presence in the West is minimal.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:14 | #

An interesting theory about why Virginia adopted a color line:

In short, this theory says that the endogamous color line was designed to avert servile insurrection at a unique time and place. It was the only time and place with more forced laborers of European descent than of African descent. Virginia was the only New World colony where such a method of permanently splitting potential insurrectionist allies could have worked. No other colony would have benefited from splitting Europeans from Africans by an endogamous barrier. This is because no other colony, whether British, French, Dutch, Spanish, or Portuguese, had such a high fraction (more than half) of European forced laborers. None could benefit by preventing mixing between Europeans and Africans, and so none had to criminalize intermarriage.Consequently, none ever needed to invent or enforce an endogamous color line.

It also details a similar plan by Cromwell to crush Irish rebellion:

The English in Ireland had to quell a new rebellion every few generations. Conquering landlords married conquered women, who then raised their sons in the Irish culture. The Irish descendants of English invaders—Catholics and Protestants alike—would ultimately rebel against English rule in their turn. Ireland suffered under ever-repeating cycles of conquest, intermarriage, and revolt. Cromwell’s men found a permanent solution. They made intermarriage between Protestant English landlords and Catholic Irish serfs a crime.

http://backintyme.com/essay051101.htm

Moreover, there is Professor Mark Thomas’ Anglo-Saxon apartheid theory:

“The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years,” Dr Thomas added.

“An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

“We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

“This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language.”

If theoretically, anti-miscegenation laws are an elitist strategy, a divide and conquer approach, to wed their lessers to a common defence of ‘whiteness’ which protects elite property gains, then why the decided shift in elite strategy?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:38 | #

Because, Desmond, under the old dispensations of power the rulers were kingly and aristocratic, and depended for the stability of their rule upon heredity, upon family, upon kinship.  The new, post-WW2 elite depends for the stability of its wealth and power upon dessicating the sources of the old elite’s power, lest those sources rebel in pursuit of their own interests.

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:13 | #

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

This sentence shows us how badly we need real democracy.

Fact one. Only a minority of whites supports immigration.

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

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

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

Our priority is restoring democracy. If we had real democracy, we wouldn’t have racial engineering.

Posted by Englander on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:36 | #

Wow.  J. Richards is a bit of a character. I am firmly on the side of WN, race-realists, whatever we want to call ourselves, but I find some of the opinions often held among us a bit hard to take.  I think we must all accept that attraction can and does easily cross racial lines, and there is no need for some sort of pathology to be present. I am mostly attracted to white women, and will only ever enter into a relationship with white women, but I can also find women of all races attractive to a certain extend. I find many asian women attractive, and I myself am:

Of above average attractiveness.
Successful with white women.
Far from being a paedophile.

I am most drawn to women of my own age (mid twenties) but I also value maturity in women.  I am not even interested in teens of legal age anymore, and I’m certainly not into children.

There are many beautiful women to be found in asia, and many of them have bodies that compare favourably to European women.

The kind of talk coming from J. Richards above, and in some of his previous entries, just comes across as ridiculously unrealistic.
This of course doesn’t mean that isn’t a particular type of man who does head to asia to play above his league.

Posted by martin_uk on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:09 | #

Okay, so I apparently have “low mate value”. Am I expected to AGREE with these white women’s assessment of me and slink away somewhere? Am I expected to settle for an unattractive middle aged woman, or, more likely, remain single, when I have the alternative option of a slim and attractive, loving Chinese wife; just because white women think I have “low mate value” and look down on me; all for the sake of white racial integrity, although hardly anyone else in society is pulling their weight in terms of ethnic genetic interests? 

My wife and I both have post graduate degrees. Are you seriously suggesting that our daughter is likely to have a worse life outcome than the offspring of white women and black men, or indeed many of the offspring of lower class white couplings?

Anyway, it strikes me as manifestly untrue that Oriental women marry white men of “low mate value”. White male, Asian female pairings tend to be amongst educated, middle class types.
Derbyshire and Murray themselves are clearly successful, and what about Chris Brand? One of the world’s leading mathematicians, Ronald Graham, has an Oriental wife. Then there is Rupert Murdoch.
Individual cases don’t amount to much, I know, so I have taken this “from the horse’s mouth” (my wife): Oriental women living in the East wish to meet Western men because they naively believe that all Western men are wealthy. Those that actually come to the West to work or study soon discover that most men are not wealthy, especially since they have often lost the bulk of their fortune in a divorce. It has generally nothing to do with white men being more tall, hairy or manly. Oriental women are not interested in white men who have no money or prospects.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:28 | #

Wow.  J. Richards is a bit of a character.

  Some of his posts are a bit much for me as well.  The attack on martin_uk was unnecessarily personal for my tastes.  The multiple long posts deconstructing the attractiveness of women and the men who find them attractive…. bizarre. Don’t see much value in beating that particular drum so hard and so consistently.

Posted by Nio Zilda on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:37 | #

“This is just stupid.” - Andy Wooster

Why? As J Richards points out, Oriental women are, on average, physically androgynous in comparison with White women. Furthermore, many of those White men who prefer Oriental females openly desribe their preference as a fetish.

I agree with your remarks about the destructive effects of feminism on western women, but surely nothing can excuse facilitating the introgression of alien genes into European populations.

I admit I get a little “het up” about the issue, because some of my relatives have chosen to marry and breed with Orientals, which, as one might imagine, is a kind of torture to a European racial preservationist such as myself. In addition, for some reason Oriental (and Indian) women find me attractive and frequently “come onto” me. I’m afraid nowadays I just get angry even thinking about them.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:02 | #

The claim of martin-uk that Oriental (or more accurately. East Asian) women do not marry partners of ‘low mate value’ is borne out by my observations during 26 years of working in the Far East.

However the Malay females are not as fussy (or as intelligent) as the Overeas Chinese ones and many who do ‘marry-out’ form unions with the ‘oil - patch’ expat Whites who are, by local standards, high earners but not necessarily recipients of tertiary education.

A surprising number of expat members of the local Oxford and Cambridge Society have well-educated (and sometimes wealthy) Chinese wives, including two recent British High Commissioners.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:04 | #

If Darwin is correct, GW, and sexual selection is not necessarily based on race, which appears apparent from the comments here, then anti-miscegenation laws as an elite strategy to defend against insurgency, whether Anglo-Saxon/Briton, English/Irish or white/black, makes sense. The shift must then correspond to the portending threat.  The threat to the invading Anglo-Saxon elite was a united Saxon/Briton group. A melded English/Irish threatened the English elite and a white/black mulatto group threatened the Virginia colonial elite. However, the insurgent threat shifted. It became a white threat.

What do you think about a strong negative correlation between the decline of trade unionism and a massive increase in in-migration to the UK?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3526917.stm#membership graph

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pubs/dps/dp216.pdf

Posted by Englander on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:06 | #

(OK - pot luck if the BB italic code works on this blog)

“many of those White men who prefer Oriental females openly desribe their preference as a fetish.”

I think this is a sign of them seeing Orientals as different and outside of ‘the zone’ of where they ought to be looking for a mate, but at the same time they are physically attracted to the Oriental because it is quite natural to be. In other words it is a good thing for them to realise this.

“In addition, for some reason Oriental (and Indian) women find me attractive and frequently “come onto” me. I’m afraid nowadays I just get angry even thinking about them.”

This isn’t normal or healthy. You are overcompensating.

Posted by Englander on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:11 | #

White Nationalists need to realise that while racial bonds are natural, they aren’t so strong that anyone breaking them is defective. Don’t get angry at or hate those who are just trying to be happy. Be angry at those who engineer the situations where temptation can so easily win over good sense. (OK, so you already are very angry at those people)

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:00 | #

This is a reply to the responses to my previous comment.

Strawmen don’t help.  Englander, nowhere have I said that attraction crossing racial lines is indicative of pathology.  I mentioned three unflattering scenarios, the first two characteristic of at most some of the white men who end up with East Asian women and the third of many but not all, and then said:

I will add that the aforementioned three reasons are by no means the only reasons why some white men end up with East Asian women; after all, chance alone could make a white male of high mate value cross the path of an attractive East Asian woman and fall in love with her before he comes across an attractive white woman…

The proportion of East Asian women with the feminine physique of a sexually mature woman (think of an hourglass shape) is a lot lower than among white women, and they still come with flattened faces and often slanted eyes.  There is simply no comparison from a white perspective; white women are by far better looking.  There are good looking East Asian women, no doubt, and I have already acknowledged this in my original comment, but the fact remains that a white male of low mate value could get an East Asian woman with a higher percentile of attractiveness among East Asians than the percentile of attractiveness [among whites] of the white women that he could get.

Anyway, it strikes me as manifestly untrue that Oriental women marry white men of “low mate value”. White male, Asian female pairings tend to be amongst educated, middle class types.

Low mate value is not solely judged by education/socioeconomic status.  There are well-educated and financially reasonably well-off white men who are unattractive and/or lack social skills, which renders them as having low mate value, especially from the perspective of attractive white women.  Attractive white women, being the most desired of all women, can easily have financially well off and educated men with reasonably good looks/social skills.

Oriental women are not interested in white men who have no money or prospects.

Neither are white women or any other kind of women as a general rule, but once again, money is not the sole determinant of mate value.  If a white man has high mate value almost solely as a result of his money, i.e., nothing apart from it, then it is a safe bet that the man is filthy rich, and this man will attract enough attractive white women to not have to bother with non-white women when it comes to obtaining attractive women.

Individual cases don’t amount to much, I know, so I have taken this “from the horse’s mouth” (my wife): Oriental women living in the East wish to meet Western men because they naively believe that all Western men are wealthy. Those that actually come to the West to work or study soon discover that most men are not wealthy, especially since they have often lost the bulk of their fortune in a divorce. It has generally nothing to do with white men being more tall, hairy or manly.

Then why do a large number of East Asian women raised in the U.S. end up with white men?  The answer is not that white men are much more numerous.  They indeed like the looks of white males better: greater height, greater muscularity, less flattened faces, non-slanted eyes, lighter hair, larger penises, etc.  Do you expect your wife to tell you that oriental women wish to meet Western men because they have larger penises that come with other features that they find overall more appealing?  Women will rarely admit that they like larger penises.

Okay, so I apparently have “low mate value”. Am I expected to AGREE with these white women’s assessment of me and slink away somewhere? Am I expected to settle for an unattractive middle aged woman, or, more likely, remain single, when I have the alternative option of a slim and attractive, loving Chinese wife; just because white women think I have “low mate value” and look down on me; all for the sake of white racial integrity, although hardly anyone else in society is pulling their weight in terms of ethnic genetic interests?

Martin_UK, I didn’t mean to be personal, but it is difficult to address the issue in a more palatable manner.  The fact is that whereas I cannot tell you how you should live your life, in the context of white preservation/interests, your behavior is not socially acceptable.  Don’t get me wrong; I do not favor outlawing miscegenation, but miscegenation on the part of whites is not socially acceptable behavior, period.  A white person could work toward maintaining white interests/promote white preservation in several ways, including having white children, not mixed-race ones, and especially not having mixed-race children while living in the West for good.  If you are indeed concerned about white interests, then the recommended remedial behavior for you would be to find white couples desirous of having children but not being able to afford them, and offer them money to have children.  In poorer white nations, you could find plenty of healthy and good looking white couples that don’t have enough money to raise children.  If you have n + 1 extra white children being born for n mixed-race children you produce, then you will have reasonably compensated for what you have done.  This is a discussion site, and you are more than welcome to comment here regardless of your having miscegenated, but if this were a WN organization and you were seeking membership, I would ask you to compensate for your behavior first in the recommended manner or else whereas I would be willing to cooperate with you in an unofficial capacity related to white preservation/interests, I would ask you to seek membership in an alternative WN organization.

My wife and I both have post graduate degrees. Are you seriously suggesting that our daughter is likely to have a worse life outcome than the offspring of white women and black men, or indeed many of the offspring of lower class white couplings?

I have made no such suggestion.  The issue is that if you are concerned about white interests and have undermined them in some way, then the appropriate behavior is to compensate for them.

Posted by Election Summary on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:14 | #

The biologist J Richards has taken a juvenile approach to penis size, which is disappointing. I’m certain he could’ve written this comment better.

There must exist an optimum penis size X, given a society’s parameters. (We’ll leave aside the statistical nature of the distribution and of female preferences, and so forth.) Larger than X, and the woman may suffer pain* (why J Richards overlooked this, we won’t speculate…), while the male incurs a metabolic opportunity cost. He consumes accordingly to fund his increased biomass, must purchase boxers requiring slightly more fabric to knit, etc.

For if women preferred rotund 9-inchers to 6-inchers, we’d be there. It wouldn’t take but a few dozen generations of sexual selection to arrive, women being what they are. (The null hypothesis is that the current size is the optimum size.)

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, J Richards implicitly argues that in a society with any degree of monogamy: 

optimal pleasure size > size X

... presumably because penis size is positively correlated with r-strategy tendencies. I also believe it, of course. But I demand empirical evidence of causation. For, perhaps an alternate explanation is that stubbiness decreases fertility in male-male sperm competition because delivery some extra millimeters upstream is as spotting miles to a marathon runner. In other words, women may have evolved to experience optimum pleasure for penis size X. That’s the null hypothesis, again, IMO.

Can J Richards cite studies correlating sexual satisfaction with penis size? How about overall fitness?

The obsession with penis size bloomed in the past decade, coinciding with the promotion of low-investment parenting and negro males as ideal mates for white females. Another form of hollywood-promoted societal degeneration? 

Does he realize that women sexually auditioning men in a runaway game of sexual selection—peacock effect— destroys monogamy and high-investment parenting? This is especially harmful if the current size is already the optimal size. Even if one believes bigger penises are more adaptive, it’s better to governmentally certify males so that women can select for size without compromising virtue.

Posted by Kulturkampf on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:03 | #

Several of the commentators here share my view that being involved in a mixed race relationship doesn’t preclude you from supporting white interests. 

I’d point to these comments to reiterate my earlier point about pragmatism and coalition building. 

Any political movement that seeks to promote white interests in the real world needs to take a flexible approach as to who can join up.  Such a movement will not only attract those who identify as straight down the line White Nationalists, but also many people who don’t see their whiteness as being the defining feature of their lives, important though it is to them.  If whites are to achieve any political goals, it will be through the vehicle of a broad based movement.

If certain WN organisations wish to exercise their freedom of association by excluding whites in a mixed relationship, that’s fine.  But common sense suggests it’s the more pragmatic organisations, which are willing to engage with racially conscious whites of all varieties, not just the purists, that will do the most in precipitating real world change.

Posted by grotesque brute on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:02 | #

“A first generation Eurasian might be almost undistinguishable from a dark-haired European, and would not have a radically different personality profile.”

The “might be” is the only thing separating this from utter absurdity.  The comment, on its face, makes no sense from a realistic standpoint.  I am not aware of any quantitative study of Eurasian features (but see Rhodes’ flawed study of merged images), but an anecdotal survey (eg, Devon Aoki, Anne Curry et al) clearly demonstrate the facts.

Of course, this ignores the massive loss of genetic interests.  There’s a lesson here in the above comment, but I don’t expect some of MR’s regular bloggers to get it, as they have long ignored or refuted the point.

“For the record, our baby is a superb physical specimen. Everyone comments on her beautiful features. It is quite funny to see the little boys “showing off” in front of her when she goes to her playgroup.”

This subjective comment may be factual.  More objectively factual is that your wife and child represent a loss of genetic interests for your co-ethnics, and that, even by the most conservative estimates of parental kinship, the child is (relatively) less related to its grandparents than would be a random English or Chinese child, respectively. 

“but the fact remains that a white male of low mate value could get an East Asian woman with a higher percentile of attractiveness among East Asians than the percentile of attractiveness [among whites] of the white women that he could get.”

I believe this to be true.

“Some of his posts are a bit much for me as well.  The attack on martin_uk was unnecessarily personal for my tastes.  The multiple long posts deconstructing the attractiveness of women and the men who find them attractive…. bizarre. Don’t see much value in beating that particular drum so hard and so consistently”

That too.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:34 | #

I realise this must seem strange coming from me, as many might think I’m a died-in-the-wool racist, but I feel that I must comment here to heartily agree with the gist of Martin’s posting, and for his bravery in posting it.
The fact is that at present, there are many East asian women - particularly from China in London, England (most are here studying), who are unattached and looking for partners.
  Generally these women are very well educated, well dressed, well presented and of a charming (but very frank) disposition and they are very approachable, giving off non of the hostile ‘man-hating, belittling’ vibes that seem to emanate from English women like a miasma.
Add to this fact as Martin has said that English women of early middle-age are generally ‘fat frumpy and posessed of a god-awful power-feminist’ attitude that often involves excess drinking.
Perhaps it is a prejudice limited to a few like-minded men, but I find the facial features, the skin coloring and hair colouring etc of Oriental women attractive.

Posted by shockingly horrific brute on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:53 | #

“Some people talk about feminism and how it has corrupted the mores of white women, but think again…”

How exactly are “mores” inversely related to birthrate?  One could argue the opposite, particularly if higher birthrate is linked to higher rates of illegitimacy.

The point is that “feminism” has negatively influenced feminine behavior (not “mores” per se, however defined), and this is particularly true in America (we can let Europeans discuss the impact of feminism in their own nations).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:52 | #

”... presumably because penis size is positively correlated with r-strategy tendencies.”  (—ES)

According to one study, Cameroonian women prefer the intermediate sizes:

Study 3 assessed attractiveness of front-posed male figures which varied only in length of the non-erect penis. Extremes of penile size (smallest and largest of five images) were rated as significantly less attractive than three intermediate sizes.

The same study was conducted in China.

Here‘s something about how women may view men’s faces.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:49 | #

According to one study, Cameroonian women prefer the intermediate sizes

Better not get your hopes up though, all you marriage-minded white guys who may be a little insecure about your ... “personality endowment,” shall we call it? ... “intermediate size” in a place like the Cameroon may be a foot long for aught we know. 

The Goldilocks Effect among women, in other words, may not be quite the same as the Woollilocks Effect ... it may “lose something in the translation,” so to speak ...

No, men, I wouldn’t buy those plane tickets for Yaoundé just yet ...

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:59 | #

“Extremes of penile size (smallest and largest of five images) were rated as significantly less attractive than three intermediate sizes.”

So that explains my lack of luck with the ladies

Posted by Penile on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:07 | #

“So that explains my lack of luck with the ladies”

That could be interpreted in two different ways.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:50 | #

Ooops, excuse me — “Goldilocks Effect” doesn’t apply here ... I misremembered the Goldilocks fable as having the girl always preferring the intermediate sizes among the bear family’s things but what she always preferred were the smallest sizes (I just googled it) ... (I hope I didn’t inadvertantly get all the Chinese GnXp regulars’ hopes up .... No, there’s no such thing as the Goldilocks Effect among any group of women, guys ... I made a mistake ... Doesn’t exist ... Right, I was mistaken ... Honest mistake, that’s all ... Yes ... you can stop e-mailing me now guys, it doesn’t exist, period.  Full stop.  End of story.  Non-existent .... I misremembered the fable, really, that’s all it was ... Stop bombarding me with all those e-mails from guys with Chinese names, please ... thank you very much ....)

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:03 | #

There must be a joke here somewhere.

How do you get a bunch of white nationalists in a pool?

Throw in an Asian girl!

Posted by Prenk Kriekouki on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:11 | #

Both Svigor’s analogy of gold and the patriot metaphor are excellent replies to this issue of miscegenation.  The very thought that we could have such an issue within the community is pathetic.  J Richards is the most penetrating of the repliers.  Those who rail against the truth are either those of low mate value trying to make excuses and/or do not take seriously or understand the situation of Western survival.  The fact that the truth may hurt is a fact of life and one that especially applies to defenders of the West while living in their increasingly multicultural nations.  Martin_uk has found himself in a situation where J Richards’ remedy is the only realistic way to redemption, along with acknowledgement or error. 

The idea of racially conscious white male miscegenation is truly pathetic.  Just think of the *multitudes* of *average* whites that are procreating within the race and contributing to posterity.  Miscegenation is not and option and is not acceptable, period.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:25 | #

Penile - I thought my use of emphasis in the quote had guarded against such misinterpretation.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:50 | #

Alternately, you can always redefine “whiteness”.

This is precisely why George Yancey’s book Who is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide is such a necessary read.  Yancey, a sociologist at the University of North Texas, provides compelling evidence that supports the (unstated) hypothesis that the color line of the twentieth century will remain firmly entrenched in the twenty-first. Using as his point of departure the popular projection that whites will soon be a minority group, Yancey opens his book by arguing that whites will remain the majority despite the growing populations of Latino/as and Asian Americans.  How can the increase of Latino/as and Asian Americans enforce, rather than disrupt, the color line?  Simple.  By 2050, according to Yancey, most Latino/as and Asian Americans will be white.

While some assume that whites will be closed off to anyone not white, Yancey’s research show that white respondents are more accepting of Latino/as and Asian Americans than they are of blacks.  In turn, Latino/a and Asian American respondents are fairly receptive to one another as well as whites.  Overall, Yancey’s findings reveal that whites, Latino/as and Asian Americans do not tend to reject one another as possible neighbors or their kids’ spouses, but all three groups show a general resistance to blacks in these social roles.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/138/138_whiteness.html

Posted by martin_uk on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:48 | #

May I first say that I am appalled, APPALLED by Mr Richards’ personal comments. To make matters worse, my wife appears to agree with him about my mate value.
(This site is too grown up to allow smileys, otherwise I would have put one here.)

Seriously…

“Low mate value is not solely judged by education/socioeconomic status.  There are well-educated and financially reasonably well-off white men who are unattractive and/or lack social skills, which renders them as having low mate value, especially from the perspective of attractive white women. ”

It looks to me that you are in danger of circularity here:

You: White men who date Asians have low mate value.
Me: But many white men who date Asians have attributes that we associate with status in white society.
You: Nevertheless they have low mate value.
Me: How do you know?
You: Because they date Asians.

“Do you expect your wife to tell you that oriental women wish to meet Western men because they have larger penises that come with other features that they find overall more appealing?”

Er, yes. She does allow that physical attributes could be a consideration for some Oriental women, but they are unlikely to be either necessary or sufficient for a prospective partner.

“A white person could work toward maintaining white interests/promote white preservation in several ways, including having white children, not mixed-race ones, and especially not having mixed-race children while living in the West for good.  If you are indeed concerned about white interests, then the recommended remedial behavior for you would be to find white couples desirous of having children but not being able to afford them, and offer them money to have children.  In poorer white nations, you could find plenty of healthy and good looking white couples that don’t have enough money to raise children.  If you have n + 1 extra white children being born for n mixed-race children you produce, then you will have reasonably compensated for what you have done. ”

Let me get this straight. I was unable to find a suitably attractive white partner of childbearing age because of my low mate value. So I ought to finance other white couples who want children.  Presumably, although they think that I have low mate value, these would-be white mothers will be accepting of me enough to take my money. They are so kind, how grateful I should be for their beneficence in allowing me to finance the upbringing of their children! Seriously, why should anyone sacrifice my own welfare, or if you want to think in these terms, own genetic interests, in this manner? If I were, say, blind or crippled, or especially if I were impotent or the carrier of a deadly genetic disease, then just conceivably what you’re saying might make sense. But I am not, and I don’t happen to agree that with the white world’s apparent verdict that I have low mate value, anyway. 

On one thing I happen to agree. Black men do not attract white women across the spectrum of society. It does appear to be mainly found among the dimmer elements of the working classes. My earlier post was misleading in that respect. The Asian woman/white man phenomena is found mainly amongst more educated classes, which makes it all the more destructive to the ideals of white racial nationalism

Anyway, in my experience, when debating white racial nationalism on the Internet, the left/liberal arguments, such as they are, are easy to refute. Whether it be to do with the consequences of ignoring the manifest racial differences in IQ, or the tangible harm that Third World immigration does to the West, or the moral fact that white people have as much right to their own ancestral homelands as the Japanese, Nigerians, Mexicans, and so on. White nationalists are used to having all the facts and moral arguments on their side when it comes to these matters, and used to their opponents being reduced to name calling in response. But on the matter of white/Oriental pairings the white nationalist is in difficulty, and the arguments put forward by Mr Richards seem, at least to me, to be thin and unconvincing. White/Asian pairings are therefore, to my mind,  the most difficult challenge to white racial nationalism. Many of the white men who are minded to agree with the likes of Jared Taylor and Nick Griffin are often the exact type to turn their heads when a pretty Chinese or Japanese lady walks past.

Posted by genetic brute on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:08 | #

“White/Asian pairings are therefore, to my mind, the most difficult challenge to white racial nationalism”

Excuse my crudeness, KK, when I answer this.  Such pairings pose “no problem.”  Asians are not white.  White nationalists desire a white society, not one filled with Asiatics and the hybrid spawn of miscegenation.

The mind boggles.  The WHOLE POINT of white nationalism is racial nationalism, and Asians are of a different race.  Even taking the most conservative estimate of parental kinship - Salter’s extremely naive and narrow gene counting method - your Eurasian offspring are only slightly more related to you than is a random Englishman, and that random Englishman is more related to your parents (or siblings) than your child.

Since Salter’s original paper has mysteriously appeared on this site, you can read it and work out some of the math yourself.

If we take genetic structure into account, it is possible then that these strangers’ children, who you discount, share more overall genetic information (gene frequencies and structure) with you than your own children.

Helping such people reproduce is therefore hardly maladaptive for you.

“Many of the white men who are minded to agree with the likes of Jared Taylor and Nick Griffin are often the exact type to turn their heads when a pretty Chinese or Japanese lady walks past.”

Turn their heads, yes.  Marry them and produce alien hybrid offspring, harming the genetic interests of co-ethnics (a form of assault) - no.

There is a difference, no?

Look, if you think that white/Asian pairings are OK, then fine - but don’t say it is a “problem” for nationalists, because it is not.

“and the arguments put forward by Mr Richards seem, at least to me, to be thin and unconvincing. “

If so, that’s because the arguments are (mostly) in proximate terms.  I’m not even going to bother dealing with people’s personal preferences in women, penis size, or any of that.  I’m not going to bother even trying to get this blog to think beyond proximate terms, but I’m telling you that a serious WN should think beyond the proximate.

Ultimate interests - genetic.  Now, if you want to go the David B/GNXP route and say that genetic interests are of no utility for you, that’s fine. 

But don’t call that attitude as any sort of white nationalism.  All it is, is anti-blackism, or anti-Jewishness, or any sort of specific distate for particular non-whites, not any sort of imperative to support white continuity.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:24 | #

For those MR supporters, like myself, whose knowledge of genetics is poor, can it be established how many generations it would take for martin_uk’s daughter and her future White husband’s descendants to largely “breed out” the Asian element, given White partners in perpetuity ?

Posted by Pobble-Face on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:54 | #

Addressing Martin_uk:

Brute said it well, but let me have a go at you as well.

“But on the matter of white/Oriental pairings the white nationalist is in difficulty, and the arguments put forward by Mr Richards seem, at least to me, to be thin and unconvincing.”

I think your definition of white nationalist is in need of a tune up. People who mate with non-whites, when viewed from a larger perspective, are effectively already non-white. They have done everything that was in their power, to become non-white. 50 years from now, when we’re all dead, the children we raised will tell the story of what kind of people we were. Maybe you theoretically supported one idea, and argued in favor of it discretely at dinner-parties, but what ideas did you live according to? You didnt live according to WN, and your future descendants bear witness to that.

As a non-white, it is impossible for you to be a white nationalist.

“Many of the white men who are minded to agree with the likes of Jared Taylor and Nick Griffin are often the exact type to turn their heads when a pretty Chinese or Japanese lady walks past.”

Your anti-white colors are showing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:06 | #

Pobble’s middle paragraph, just above, makes a good point.

Posted by Prenk Kriekouki on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:22 | #

Martin_uk, seriously, do you expect us to condone your behavior?  Tons of ethnic Europeans totally oblivious to their racial situation come together with members of the opposite sex and procreate.  For you to claim to be pro-Western while bastardizing our race is hypocrisy of the first order.  Like I said, you have found yourself in a situation where J Richards’ remedy is the only realistic way to redemption, along with acknowledgement of error.  You have to own up to the fact that you have made a grave error and have to compensate in a fashion J Richards suggested.  I am not trying to dictate to you what to do, I am simply stating what is logically natural law.  Making excuses about not being able to find a suitable mate is unacceptable considering the entire European world around you.  Europeans have been procreating for thousands of years and continue to do so, for you to claim to be pro-Western at this point in our history and to break from that essential continuation is highly irresponsible and a great betrayal.  If you indeed put in effort to find a suitable white mate but could only find refuge with an Asian confirms that you are indeed of low mate value and also confirms Asian preferences for whites.  Consider also the demand in Japan for white hookers who represent to the Oriental a sort of super woman.  No one is turning their head to Asian women, unless they have a fetish or are in the heart of Tokyo. 

About compensation, yes, you would be giving to help other people’s children instead of hogging your resources for your own mongrelized child.  Even though you have your own child, you would be giving to help bring into the world a white child!  What other choice do you have besides continued contradiction?

Posted by wjg on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:32 | #

Cheers to those opposing miscegenation.  For those who support it out of a desire to be “happy” you have forfeited being a WNist.  Words mean nothing when your actions prove them rubbish.  If you are on the fence on this then don’t surrender to the easy path of foreign women but prove yourself to the women of your own kin.  Win them over as a Man of the West.  Don’t make excuses like feminism or some of the other rot we face.  These are challenges to be overcome.  They MUST be overcome or you are lost to your people.

We must live thru time as spiritual men connecting our ancestors and posterity in a continuous bond.  Short of that please stay childless so that your children are not enemies of those of the people you claim to love.

Posted by Nio Zilda on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:14 | #

“Short of that please stay childless so that your children are not enemies of those of the people you claim to love.” 

Yes, exactly: “First do no harm.”
Thousands of virgins die every year, for crying out loud. Personal happiness in the here and now is of paltry importance compared to whether one’s race will flourish and survive into the distant future.

Posted by Prenk Kriekouki on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:40 | #

“Personal happiness in the here and now is of paltry importance compared to whether one’s race will flourish and survive into the distant future.”

The question is, can someone be personally happy knowing they are contributing to the degeneration of their race?  As applied to someone who considers themself pro-Western. 

Martin_uk and others his sort need to come to grips with uncomfortable truths.  As of now, martin_uk cannot be rightfully considered part of the Western bio-cultural organism.  For he is actively going against its interests.

Posted by Pi on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:40 | #

“For those MR supporters, like myself, whose knowledge of genetics is poor, can it be established how many generations it would take for martin_uk’s daughter and her future White husband’s descendants to largely “breed out” the Asian element, given White partners in perpetuity?”

  That depends on any added fitness (or lack thereof) that the imported genes convey to the progeny in perpetuity.  Assuming the genes are neutral regarding selection fitness, for a rough rule of thumb, and ignoring crosslink juggling, the genes are linked together in their original chromosomes. You inherit 23 chromosomes from each parent.  If you exclusevely backbreed into the host populations, on average you will lose half the chromosomes from the original ancestor for each generation.  2^4 < 23 < 2^5.  After about 4 or 5 generations most of the original ancestor is gone, assuming their genes were unique.  This is consistent with the past empirical “1/16 rule” regarding black miscegenation. If the imported genes convey reproductive fitness then it is a different story as those genes will then be conserved and passed on.  The imported genes diffuse into the host population, no longer working together as a set, and instead either aid or hinder the majority host genes.  I.e., some are “compatible” and some are “incompatible.”

  For a modern real world example look up the American Chestnut Foundation http://www.acf.org .  The American Chestnut is functunally extinct in its native range due to an imported fungal blight around the turn of the 20’th century.  The Chinese Chestnut is resistant to the blight.  The ACF is involved in a selective breeding operation where they are crossing the AC with the CC and then backcrossing with the AC, selecting for resistant trees in each generation, and culling susceptible trees.

  The absolutist “racial purity” tone here is amusing.  This tone assumes that Whites can not be improved upon and that other gene pools have nothing to offer us.  There are no quantitative arguments here.  What I strongly suspect is that given any two breeds, call them outgroup and host, there is an optimum miscegenation rate that increase host fitness over the long term.  You reach a local maximum, then it goes down, and then negative.  What’s happening here is a low inflow of outgroup genes gives the host population the time to absorb and adapt the new genes.  The incompatible ones are weeded out and the good ones are incorporated.  The gene incorporation is all mediated by the genetically determine host culture.  This takes many generations.  The location of the maximum is breed dependent.  You want to import genes whos function you desire. I suspect optimum miscegenation rate is pretty low for blacks, assuming whites as the host.  Recently this very process was in the news regarding the importing into the human population various beneficial Neanderthal genes around 30,000 years ago.  Supposedly it caused a significant enhancement to the European human population.

  Too much miscegenation causes a genetic “shock” to the host population, corrupting its genetic integrity and causing a “Brazil” or “India”.  The adaption process does not have time to incorporate the genes before it is overwhelmed and flooded.

  The above algorithm is implicitely recognized in non-white countries.  Most asian countries will only allow you to immigrate if you are married to (ie, miscegenating with) a native.  They do not allow colonization, unlike white countries that are allowing non-white colonization in bulk.

  All this is probably moot anyway as withing a few decades or so, assuming there is not a crash of civilization, there will be full germ line modification capabilities available.  Who knows what happens after that?

-Pi

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:00 | #

All this is probably moot anyway as withing a few decades or so, assuming there is not a crash of civilization, there will be full germ line modification capabilities available.  Who knows what happens after that?

What happens after that is merely an amplification of what we’re already confronting:

People will differ on what experiments are worthy of investing their own lives and some sub-humans will not only think they have the right to enforce what they think is a worthy investment of their lives, but will act on that right.  Those sub-humans are known as “supremacists” and must be neutralized in anyway necessary.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:04 | #

Erratum: “enforce” -> “enforce on others”

Posted by Kulturkampf on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:11 | #

What the disagreement on this thread shows is that not everyone who supports white interests is a card carrying, 24/7/365 White Nationalist.  I’d put myself in this category, along with, I’d assume, Martin.  Given the choice between having a happy life with his Chinese wife and struggling to find an acceptable white woman, it’s no surprise that Martin’s chosen happiness, rather than the monastic WN life proposed above, in which he lives alone, sustains himself on tinned soup, and devotes all his resources to helping random strangers have children.  Such a proposal makes perfect theoretical sense (sounds like a version of carbon-offsetting), but is completely detached from the real world and common sense. 

I’ve laid out my stall in terms of what political changes I’d like to see.  To me, this shows a very strong commitment to white interests, regardless of whether my personal life corresponds to some WN ideal.  Again, if you want to build up a political movement, you do so through building up a coalition of people with similar interests, not clones and not ideological purists. 

To further elaborate on my own dating choices, I’ve had white girlfriends I was happy with but when I was last single and looking the whole feminism thing was a significant influence in encouraging me to look for an Asian girlfriend.  If I were on the market again, I’d make an effort to find a white woman, but would keep my options open, as statistically I believe it’s harder to find a modest, decent, non-man-bashing white woman than an Asian one (though certainly not impossible).  To throw in a supporting anecdote, I was in the pub the other night, and while supping my pint was forced to listen to a not-unattractive Australian girl braying loudly for 10 minutes about her smear test, the need for which was augured when her cervix started hemmoraging blood.  Evidently, her parents ought to ask the finishing school for a refund.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:13 | #

Thank you, Pi

Posted by skulking shuffling primitive grunting brute on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:11 | #

“Genetic brute, is it time to reevaluate the math of kinship and EGI in light of the recent news that humans are far more genetically diverse than recent conventional wisdom had it?”

Yes.  Work on genetic structure is also being done by Jon Pritchard and Neil Risch.  The problem is none of these gentlemen are likely to contact, and assist, Salter in formulating an update; in addition, first, Salter needs to be convinced that such an update is needed - although it is objectively obvious that is the case, given the data in the literature.

At the very least, the theory can be updated qualitatively, noting that the original estimates of EGI were too low; later, when the necessary information is known, quantitative changes can be made.

It would seem almost intuitive that a Eurasian mating would reduce parental kinship by more than 38% (as per Salter’s book), the difference is, of course, with structure added.

“The absolutist “racial purity” tone here is amusing.  This tone assumes that Whites can not be improved upon and that other gene pools have nothing to offer us.  There are no quantitative arguments here.”

The last sentence demostrates that “Pi” is either a liar or an idiot.  A liar if he knows that these issues have been discussed here before and ignores it, and an idiot if he cannot bother to discern the ENORMOUS quantitative and qualitative discussions on these topics here.  His comments, a la Alon Ziv, completely ignore the costs of miscegenation from the standpoint of genetic interests.  “Pi”  may profit from reading the article at top left, he may profit from reviewing many of the posts about Salter in the past in the archives here, and he may profit from Svigor’s and J Richards’ analysis of the work of Alon Ziv, also discussed here.

Please note that by ignoring genetic structure, Salter is underestimating the loss from genetic interests.  Check out Jim Bowery’s first Majority Rights post for more on that.

“and ignoring crosslink juggling,”

which occurs and of course cannot be ignored

“there is an optimum miscegenation rate that increase host fitness over the long term. “

what’s “fitness?”  Are you using the Ziv definition, or the evolutionary definition?  If the latter, the continuity/expansion of genetic information, miscegenation improves fitness only if the net result is a net expansion of the genetic information present in the original lineages.  By ignoring costs and focusing on benefits, you are making a fundamantal error.

Take a course in accounting and learn how to balance the accounts; it may be helpful.

“imported fungal blight around the turn of the 20’th century:

I see.  First you import the disease and then you must import the cure.  A pretty good argument for immigration restriction right there.

Humans are not trees, by the way; we can make rational choices about what to import and what are the best strategies for improving fitness.

Posted by brute on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:13 | #

“What I strongly suspect…”

A quantitative argument, I presume?

Posted by Anti-feminism on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:18 | #

“To throw in a supporting anecdote, I was in the pub the other night, and while supping my pint was forced to listen to a not-unattractive Australian girl braying loudly for 10 minutes about her smear test, the need for which was augured when her cervix started hemmoraging blood.  Evidently, her parents ought to ask the finishing school for a refund.”

True enough, many white women behave this way, and also curse to an extent that would make a longshoreman blush.

But, were white women behaving this way, to the same extent, 50 years ago?  70?  100?

Why the difference?

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:14 | #

Election summary,

You have raised a number of bizarre scenarios concerning penis size.  Nowhere did I imply that the larger the better; the implication obviously was that it needs to be on the right side of the bell curve. 

The thing about biomass/boxers is absurd.  A penis that is three times the size of a normal one, an extremely rare ocurrence, would add only a little more biomass to an adult than a normal sized penis. 

For if women preferred rotund 9-inchers to 6-inchers, we’d be there. It wouldn’t take but a few dozen generations of sexual selection to arrive, women being what they are. (The null hypothesis is that the current size is the optimum size.)

This is a naïve understanding of how things work in nature.  Women prefer tall men and apparently have for a long time, consistent with females going for larger and better built males in species where the males are bigger than the females, yet there are a large number of short men around, and women’s selection of tall men does not necessarily imply that human height will keep increasing.  Similarly, nature weeds out individuals with low fitness every generation, but they keep being born.   

For, perhaps an alternate explanation is that stubbiness decreases fertility in male-male sperm competition because delivery some extra millimeters upstream is as spotting miles to a marathon runner.

Last I checked, mixing fresh semen from different men in a Petri dish did not lead to a sperm war.

Can J Richards cite studies correlating sexual satisfaction with penis size? How about overall fitness?

Such studies probably don’t exist.  You would need to interview women that have had sex with a large number of men or find women who would be willing to either have sex with a large number of men or pleasure themselves with dildos of varying sizes.  The latter two scenarios would not be approved by an ethics committee/IRB.  Anyway, in any of the three scenarios, the women involved will be highly atypical of women in general, and their ratings could not be extrapolated to women in general. 

On the other hand, a penis with above average thickness would exert greater pressure on the vaginal lumen, a penis with greater length is more likely to reach the cervical region and please the women that have pressure sensitivity in the region, and a larger overall penis is likely to move, during long strokes, the labial folds in a manner such that the clitoris is stimulated.  Therefore, there are many reasons to expect that an above average penis size, not necessarily very large, should correspond to greater pleasure for women.     

The obsession with penis size bloomed in the past decade, coinciding with the promotion of low-investment parenting and negro males as ideal mates for white females. Another form of hollywood-promoted societal degeneration?

Women will almost never select men based on a single trait unless it happens to be lots of money; a larger penis would be a non-factor if it were not accompanied by other desirable features.  Most East Asian women can easily accommodate most Negro penises, but do not go after black men in droves.  Similarly, most white women are repulsed by the notion of sex with Negroes because of miscellaneous Negro characteristics such as a higher likelihood of criminality, violent behavior, poor impulse control, low IQ, venereal diseases, AIDS-virus infection, and, of course, the beauty of Negroid facial features.   

Does he realize that women sexually auditioning men in a runaway game of sexual selection—peacock effect— destroys monogamy and high-investment parenting?

What absurdity!  Do you seriously expect nature to incline women so that they select their men based on how sexually pleasing they are?  Guess what?  If a woman has sex with a man and does not find him sexually pleasing, it could be too late; his sperm cells could have already put themselves in a place where they are ready to move on and fertilize any egg that may come by.  Nature would equip the typical woman with the drive/knowhow to carefully select men before she allows them anywhere near her vagina.  In other words, selection of larger penises would usually be by indirect means.  For instance, penile growth is strongly dependent on androgens, especially dihydrotestosterone, and androgens also affect general body build.  Therefore, selection on the part of women for male bodies with above average masculinization and with penis hidden from view will correspond to reduced odds of getting men with smaller penises.  Of course, when our ancestors went around naked, the women could look at the size of the flaccid penis and feature it in their assessment of a potential male partner.

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:18 | #

Kulturkampf,

Any political movement that seeks to promote white interests in the real world needs to take a flexible approach as to who can join up…

Point appreciated, but it should be clear what behaviors are unacceptable, miscegenation being among the worst ones.  The likes of Martin_UK could surely be involved in informal networking/cooperation, but should not be involved in a capacity where he is accorded similar status as those displaying normally expected behaviors.

Imagine that our efforts lead to a white ethnostate.  If the likes of Martin_UK are among “our own,” what are we supposed to do with their non-white spouses and mixed-race children?  Martin_UKs would be welcome in the ethnostate any time, but their non-white spouses and mixed-offspring could not be accommodated or one will not have an ethnostate.

Anyway, membership considerations are of little relevance to this site as it is a discussion site, not an organization.  Besides, given the guarantee that any WN organization will be infiltrated by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.A.) or equivalent, it is best to network in cyberspace for the time being if we are to discuss issues in a frank manner, and Martin_UK is more than welcome to network with us.

—————————————————

shockingly horrific brute,

How exactly are “mores” inversely related to birthrate?  One could argue the opposite, particularly if higher birthrate is linked to higher rates of illegitimacy.

A push toward career building/delaying marriage could result in women forgoing childbearing in their peak years, only for some to discover that now in their mid/late-thirties, they are infertile or can only have one child.

The point is that “feminism” has negatively influenced feminine behavior (not “mores” per se, however defined), and this is particularly true in America (we can let Europeans discuss the impact of feminism in their own nations).

Behaviors are related to mores.  Besides, this is not an American site; the entire Euroworld needs to be addressed.

—————————————————

Al Ross,

... how many generations it would take for martin_uk’s daughter and her future White husband’s descendants to largely “breed out” the Asian element, given White partners in perpetuity?

This is easy.  (The values should not be taken as precise since the actual values will be roughly in the neighborhood of the percentages.)

Half white + white = three-fourths white

Three-fourths white + white = 87.500% white

87.500% white + white = 93.750% white

93.750% white + white = 96.875% white = white

—————————————————

Svyatoslav Igorevich,

Genetic brute, is it time to reevaluate the math of kinship and EGI in light of the recent news that humans are far more genetically diverse than recent conventional wisdom had it?

Salter’s argument is based on 1) the concept of inclusive fitness proposed by Hamilton and 2) Henry Harpending’s forumulae for relating the probability of two individuals sharing the same gene at a given locus to a statistic describing the apportionment of genetic diversity within and between populations, labeled Fst.  Fst is calculated from data on DNA sequences and varies as a function of the loci assessed.

What you have pointed out is tangential to Salter’s argument since the new find is about greater differences in gene [removed]not genetic diversity).  Fst values depend on differences in genetic information, DNA sequence to be more precise, not gene expression.
 
By the way, if you were to express ethnic and familial genetic interests in terms of child equivalents, as Salter does, based on Fst values specifically involving DNA loci involved in gene expression and related to features of interest such as intelligence, then the child equivalents will increase.  Child equivalents lost increase with increasing Fst.  One of the most striking examples of loss in terms of child equivalents that Salter addresses is related to the English-Bantu pair, and Fst here is 22.5% (data taken from Cavalli-sforza).  If you were to take something under strong selection, such as skin color, then Fst for humans is about 90% for skin color.  Fst values for many genes of interest will not be as striking as for skin color, but will be high nevertheless.

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:23 | #

Martin_UK,

It looks to me that you are in danger of circularity here:

You: White men who date Asians have low mate value.
Me: But many white men who date Asians have attributes that we associate with status in white society.
You: Nevertheless they have low mate value.
Me: How do you know?
You: Because they date Asians.

No circularity in my argument; correctly written:

JR: Many white men who date Asians have low mate value among whites.
M_UK: But some white men who date Asians have attributes that we associate with status in white society, specifically good education and reasonable financial health.
JR: Nevertheless they often have low mate value among whites.
M_UK: How do you know?
JR: Because they often lack good looks/social skills, which renders them not very appealing to the kind of white women they desire.

Let me get this straight. I was unable to find a suitably attractive white partner of childbearing age because of my low mate value. So I ought to finance other white couples who want children.  Presumably, although they think that I have low mate value, these would-be white mothers will be accepting of me enough to take my money. They are so kind, how grateful I should be for their beneficence in allowing me to finance the upbringing of their children! Seriously, why should anyone sacrifice my own welfare, or if you want to think in these terms, own genetic interests, in this manner?

Concerned about your own genetic interests?  You have paid fine respect to them by having a child with an Asian!  Anyway, my recommendation was in the context of your expressed concern for the welfare of the white community, and is appropriate.  If you miscegenate and then compensate in terms of having extra white children being born, you take care of the moral dilemma of your undermining the interests of the community whose interests you want to promote, and do your part to maintain if not increase the number of whites.
     
Whereas some would describe you as a hypocrite, you are probably not one.  I know it is not your fault for falling in love with an Asian, but think about finding a healthy and attractive white couple in some poor European nation (for minimal costs to you) and sponsoring their children.  Perhaps we need to come up with some kind of donation hub that would be well known to most whites concerned about white interests and where people could donate anonymously, and then channel the donations to healthy white couples in Eastern Europe who would have children/more children if only they had the requisite money to support them.

White/Asian pairings are therefore, to my mind, the most difficult challenge to white racial nationalism.

A difficult challenge only for Martin_UKs.  The issue is a no brainer for me: such pairings are unacceptable.

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:35 | #

Kenelm Digby:

I realise this must seem strange coming from me, as many might think I’m a died-in-the-wool racist, but I feel that I must comment here to heartily agree with the gist of Martin’s posting, and for his bravery in posting it…....

....Perhaps it is a prejudice limited to a few like-minded men, but I find the facial features, the skin coloring and hair colouring etc of Oriental women attractive.

Damn!  Wake-up bro!  Oriental beauty is no match for English beauty.  See how many oriental women could match the physiques of the following English ladies (the links are not safe for work).

Keeley Hazell

Keeley Pic 1

Keeley Pic 2

Keeley has a god-blessed natural E-cup.  The average English woman is a C-cup, which would be very well endowed for oriental women.  Imagine how big Keeley’s breasts would grow when she gets pregnant; you couldn’t keep your hands off of them and would be making her repeatedly pregnant to watch them grow again and again, which translates to many white babies being brought into the world.

Michelle Marsh

Michelle Pic 1

Michelle Pic 2

Michelle Pic 3

Gail McKenna

Gail Pic 1

Gail Pic 2

Gail Pic 3

Sophie Howard

Sophie Pic 1

Sophie Pic 2

Sophie Pic 3

Goddamn, East Asian women have no hope of competing with English beauty!

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:41 | #

I believe that many White Americans brag about any ‘Red Indian’ ancestry that they might have (no matter how vanishingly small), and are exceedingly proud of the fact.
  I believe that the ‘Red Indians’ are of the extended Mongolid race, and as such the early Anglo-Saxon pioneers of America must have found the native women attractive enough in many cases to marry and raise children with, as the traffic seems to be entirely on way.
  On another note, I notice that I never, ever hear of a phenotypically White American ever boasting of the smallest quantum of negro blood he might secretly possess.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:43 | #

Kenelm Digby is not what is crudely known as ‘tit-man’.

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:50 | #

Kenelm Digby,

If you are not into breasts, then you have to be into waist-hips-butt/legs or your sexual orientation is suspect, and white women beat East Asian women hands down on these and other counts.  There is no comparison!

Posted by Kulturkampf on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:07 | #

J Ritchards - I’d love to see the bookmarks on your internet browser!

Posted by Andy Wooster on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:13 | #

Can we stop with the porn postings? Please?  I propose a moratorium on any and all posts discussing non-white women so as to avoid setting Richards off. Let’s leave it alone for the sake of Majorityrights.com.  I like seeing breasts as much as anyone, but I don’t come to this site to see them. 

  Of all the arguments for white preservationism, is there any argument that will be less fruitful than arguing that white women are more attractive than non-whites?

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:18 | #

I can assure you that ‘KD’ is most certainly of the heterosexual persuasion, indeed fatally so!!
His view of ‘female beauty’ is strictly of the classical (‘non-rubenesque’) school, where the qualities ofthe undefined, vulnerable, almost ethereal nature are emphasised - perhaps the heroines idealized by the Victorian pre-raphaelites come closest to it, but he wouldn’t turn away Lucy Liu either!
Subtlety, refinement,fragility and delicacy are closest to his heart.

Posted by dashingly handsome brute on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:28 | #

“What you have pointed out is tangential to Salter’s argument since the new find is about greater differences in gene [removed]not genetic diversity).  Fst values depend on differences in genetic information, DNA sequence to be more precise, not gene expression.”

If what Svigor refers to (and I assume this is the case) is Copy Number Variation, that is in fact differences in gene copies and directly relevant to Salter’s theory.  Or should be.  Salter needs to expand is theory beyond the Cavalli-Sforza data and Fst values; James Bowery’s first post here, as well as comments by other Majority Rights participants highlight the rationale there.

There are in fact three additions to Salter that he needs to consider:

1. Correlation between alleles between unlinked loci

2. Haploytpe blocks (LD, etc.)

3. Structural variants such as differences in copy number or inversions/deletions

Differences in gene expression when due to genetic differences would usually fall within classical Salterism or one of the above.

Maybe epigenetic modifications could be #4, depending on how stable they are - but that’s an additional side issue that can be addressed after the more significant gene structure issues are dealt wth (and when the information is known, etc.).

Posted by brute on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:30 | #

KD: “Perhaps it is a prejudice limited to a few like-minded men, but I find the facial features, the skin coloring and hair colouring etc of Oriental women attractive.”

JR: “Goddamn, East Asian women have no hope of competing with English beauty!”

In considering ultimate interests, the only argument that can be made against these is the “who cares” David B type comments.

In contrast, proximate interests can be countered not only by “who cares”, but, even more fundamentally, simply by invoking different preferences.

KD and JR have different preferences in women.  One could effectively argue on behalf of either opinion.  But how does one express a different preference for ultimate interests?  By promoting genetic self/group extinction? 

I don’t see the point in arguing against KD’s preferences, which he is entitled to have and which does not of course imply questionable sexual preferences.

But the genetic facts are what they are.  Someone may prefer a pleasant Asian girlfriend with a “nice rack” or believe that their Eurasian child is the best kid in the playground.  They have their own value system in ranking observable traits.

But, they have to admit that their choices are lowering their parental kinship and harming the genetic interests of co-ethnics.  To which they can answer, as David B does, “who cares?”, but if they do not care, clearly they are not WNs in the sense that others here are. 

Of course, one cannot go straight from a positive statment of fact (existence of genetic interests and the fundamental meaning of genetic continuity for life and the adaptiveness of continuity) to a normative statement of what one should do.  However, ultimate interests are so fundamental and so objectively measurable that they make decisions about normative values much clearer and starker.

In contrast, making positive statements about preferences are murky to begin with, which leads to even murkier decisions about normative values.

If someone like KD, for example, prefers Asian appearance, then what argument in favor of white continuity can one make other than, you are white, therefore, you are more like family to whites than like to Asians, and hence, as a white, you can consider whites to have an inherent value if and of themselves, independent of what you think of their particulare traits, compared to Asiatics or to any other group.

He can still say, “who cares” - there is no imperative to base normative values on positive facts.  But if we deal with preferences, he can assert that his preference for Asian female appearance is a fact, and thus, he wishes to prescribe actions based on that fact.

And how does JR convince him that JR’s preference should take precedence?  Is there any objective reason?

I just don’t see it.

Arguing against ultimate interests leads the debator in the direction of saying asinine things as “life has no interests”, which, in and of itself, can send off warning bells in the minds of the reader.

On the other hand, if someone likes Lucy Liu and prefers her appearance, you can call them “crazy” and such, but the reader will be less impressed about conflicting preferences than he may be about conflicting interpretations about adaptive behavior and whether adaptive behavior is or is not more important than “toffee” or “Mahler.”

Now, obviously proximate interests (which include culture and not only breasts) are important and one can and should promote their views on the importance of particular proximate constructs (eg, the West).

However, following the logical argument chain through the various conflicting preferences, ultimate interests are what are left after all else are cleared away.

They are the most important and the ones which the arguments need to be based on.  Proximate arguments can then follow to emphasize the point and to inspire the defense of ultimate interests in those who share the same preferences.

But, when the preferences are not shared, the truth should still be seen.

Posted by Pi on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:37 | #

” “Pi” is either a liar or an idiot.  A liar if he knows that these issues have been discussed here before and ignores it, and an idiot if he cannot bother to discern the ENORMOUS quantitative and qualitative discussions on these topics here. “

I was refering specifically to quantitative anthropological/socialogical research on the benefits or pathologies of Euroasian phenotypes in American society.  Are they more or less creative?  Are they more or less law abiding?  Do they have higher or lower rates of disease?  Steve Sailer has mentioned there is very little research in this area as it it very non-PC.

The “costs” refered to in the discussions here are usually meerly mathematical genetic ethnic variances from host/norm, and these are then used as a proxy for phenotypical costs. This is something any college level halfwit can do given the numbers.  But what are the real phenotypical costs?  If you replace a stainless steel quarter panel on your car with a fiberglass one, it makes no difference whatsoever with that specific car phenotype, but the genotypes are different.

The primal importance of EGI discussions here remind me of the Emo Philips joke here:

http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2001/12/000019.html

How’s this pathological example of preserving one’s EGI:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7367/771

Of course you can really concentrate you EGI like they do in the Levant by breeding with your niece (while also doing you nephew).  The results are often like that shown here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4782492.stm

““for a rough rule of thumb ..and ignoring crosslink juggling,”

“which occurs and of course cannot be ignored”

Does “rough rule of thumb” have any meaning to you?  See that Emo Philips joke again.

“By ignoring costs and focusing on benefits, you are making a fundamantal error.”

There you go again (as Ronald Reagan said). Now who’s lying?  I specifically said too much miscegenation has costs.  What I conjectur is there is a rate, which may be in the “part per million” order of magnitude, that is beneficial to society in the long run, provided “colonization” is not allowed.  The outgroup genes will diffuse, no longer work together as a set, enhance the phenotype or be culled/selected out by the host culture.  Too much miscegenation is obviously costly.  Colonization should be resisted because, among other things, it provides a permanent reservoir of outgroup genes.

Nature is always running experiments.  You may not be interested in miscegenation, but miscegenation is interested in you.  Other’s will do it elsewhere, and eventually a combination may appear that is much better than “you”, in which case your phenotype will be toast, as Khan Noonien Singh alluded to in the old Star Trek Episode “Space Seed”.

-Pi

Posted by head shaking brute on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:40 | #

“I was refering specifically to quantitative anthropological/socialogical research on the benefits or pathologies of Euroasian phenotypes in American society.  Are they more or less creative?  Are they more or less law abiding?  Do they have higher or lower rates of disease?  Steve Sailer has mentioned there is very little research in this area as it it very non-PC.”

Sailer did mention that Cochran and Harpending did not find any evidence for increased rates of reproduction for mixed-race marriages.  There is in fact no evidence of increased reproductive potential for hybrids.  “Fitness” in the objective meaning is genetic continuity/expansion.  If miscegenation does not result in an increase in gene expansion to compensate the loss due to the introduction of foreign alleles AND the disruption of genetic structure, then it reduces real fitness. Always.

If by “fitness” you mean the Zivian idea that Tiger Woods’ body odor is an important factor, see the paper by Udry that shows physiological and psychological problems in mixed-race students compared to the “purebreds.”

“The “costs” refered to in the discussions here are usually meerly mathematical genetic ethnic variances from host/norm, and these are then used as a proxy for phenotypical costs.”

Dear moron- they are NOT a proxy for “phenotypical costs” - you obviously understand NOTHING about the EGI concept (perhaps in good company here).  No, the genetic changes are the interests themselves.  If anything, the reverse - in the absence of all other information, you could try and use phenotype as a proxy for genotype, but that has problems, see below.  Your “idea” of using an ultimate interest as a proxy for a proximate interest is the most illogical thing I’ve ever read on this blog (and that’s saying something indeed!).

“meerly”

We are discussing people here, not meerkats.

“This is something any college level halfwit can do given the numbers.”

A self-description?

“But what are the real phenotypical costs?”

Not relevant.

“If you replace a stainless steel quarter panel on your car with a fiberglass one, it makes no difference whatsoever with that specific car phenotype, but the genotypes are different. “

A moronic analogy, but actually one that touches on the real world, since convergent evolution means that similar phenotypes can have different genetic points of origin, and so the two are definitely not always directly related.

“The primal importance of EGI discussions here remind me of the Emo Philips joke here:”

I do not know who “Emo Philips” is, nor do I give a damn.  Moronic jokes may pass as an argumentative tool for you, but they do not impress the triple-digit IQ set.

“Of course you can really concentrate you EGI like they do in the Levant by breeding with your niece (while also doing you nephew).  The results are often like that shown here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4782492.stm “

Idiot.  Preservation of EGI does not require incest - we went through that retarded argument with Ziv.  EGI means ETHNIC genetic interests, with “ethny” being defined by Salter as a specific population group.  Preserving EGI can be achieved through mating with co-ethnics or with relatively genetically related groups.  There is sufficient genetic diversity within the European peoples to avoid inbreeding depression.  The choice is not between incest and Eurasian mongrelization.

” breeding with your niece (while also doing you nephew).”

Your family practice (particularly the latter)?

“Does “rough rule of thumb” have any meaning to you?”

The entire basis of sexual reproduction is the mixing of gene combinations through recombination, so, I don’t know how ignoring a fundamental biological process is consistent with a “rule of thumb.” 

“What I conjectur…”

Does miscegenation improve spelling?  Why should public policy be based on your “conjectur?”  Do you have empirical data to show us what level of miscegenation outweighs the loss of parental kinship and EGI?  Note that this was discussed in detail on the posts dealing with Alon Ziv.  There is in fact no clear evidence that crossings across wide racial lines yields any long-term increases in proximate biological outcomes at all - and for some sort of “conjectur” about hypothetical and possibly non-existent “benefits” we need to disregard known costs?  Sorry, don’t buy it.

“Other’s will do it elsewhere, and eventually a combination may appear that is much better than “you”

Really?  Where?  China?  Japan?  Korea?  Let them “experiment” first and show us the way.  Interesting that these “experiments” always have to be in western territories.

“in which case your phenotype will be toast, as Khan Noonien Singh alluded to in the old Star Trek Episode “Space Seed”.

I don’t know, I’d rather base my analyses on science and logic, rather than on old Star Trek episodes. By the way, if you remember your Trekkie history, Singh lost.

Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:30 | #

wjg, “Short of that please stay childless so that your children are not enemies of those of the people you claim to love.”

That’s the point, the only point.

We’re not racial engineers trying to evaluate the cost/benefit of adding Asian genes. We’re just ordinary white people trying to protect our children from the racial extortion coalition. This coalition includes mixed race individuals as well as their white parent. The white parent? Yes because the white parent, like all parents, looks at his family (kids) first and his extended family (race) second. Thus, anyone advocating or practicing miscegenation is demonstrably making life harder for my children and is therefore demonstrably hostile to them.

That’s all there is to it. It’s a question of children and loyalties. It is NOT about substituting the regime’s racial engineering plans with our own.

Kenelm Digby, “I believe that many White Americans brag about any ‘Red Indian’ ancestry that they might have (no matter how vanishingly small), and are exceedingly proud of the fact.”

It’s 99% cowardice or delusion. Standing up for white group interests gets you in trouble around here and for many it’s easy to chicken out with the “I’m not white, I’m part indian” cliche’. Others are genuinely self-deluded because parents passed their cowardice down to them.

Relations between red indians and whites are quite complex. There is a great deal of respect between the groups that’s non-existent toward other groups, such as blacks.

I’d also like to point out that NORTH America’s pre-Columbian population was 2 million. It is 6 million today. They weren’t exterminated, they were forced out of their 2 sqkm per capita hunter/gatherer culture into a 100 times more land efficient agricultural/pastoral culture. It wasn’t pretty but the population density at the time was less than today’s sahara desert - if we hadn’t taught them efficient land use it would have been someone else. Think anyone else would have given them reservations and increased their population 200%?

By the way, the genocide argument that floats around revolves around a single incident where Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-‘63) wrote Colonel Henry Bouquet about giving red indians smallpox infected blankets. The evidence Bouquet did so is circumstantial as neighboring tribes did in fact suffer a smallpox outbreak a year later. That’s basically it.

It’s like saying Asians are responsible for wiping out half Europe’s population because some Mongolian (Genghis Khan or one of his descendants - I forgot) was flinging bubonic plague infected cattle over the walls of Constantinople. Refugees fled to Venice and you know the rest.

Pi, “Other’s will do it elsewhere, and eventually a combination may appear that is much better than “you”, in which case your phenotype will be toast, as Khan Noonien Singh alluded to in the old Star Trek Episode “Space Seed”.”

Yeah right, visit South America to see what mixed race societies look like long term. Even if the odd genius appears, there is no meritocratic social/economic context for them to emerge.

J Richards,

Why did you take some of the pictures off? They are very helpful toward understanding your points regarding white female aesthetics. If you’re still short on bandwith just open a free blogspot account, put the pictures on photobucket.com and hotlink them to here.

Posted by suave refined elegant brute on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:48 | #

I’m sure GW wouldn’t mind at this point if it is mentioned, without detail, of a private debate we had some time ago.  I asserted that it was a mistake to have the EGI concept bandied about here as some sort of talisman, without people knowing what it was or reading Salter’s work at all.  I thought, and still think, that more harm than good, in the long run, can come of it.

GW’s reply, if I remember correctly (if I am wrong, please correct) was that even if it was true that sometimes the concept is invoked without the proper understanding, the net benefit was to provide impetus for people to promote and protect their genetic interests.

True enough, and Salter states that anything that promotes promotion of EGI, even indirectly, can be of benefit.  But I see three problems:

1. Some of the misconceptions, distortions, misunderstandings may, in the long run, have a net detrimental effect: EGI is so fundamental to everything that the sort of gross misunderstanding evidenced, for example, by “Pi” could lead to maladaptive choices down the road.  If the concept is indeed so important that it is invoked so frequently here, why not actually try and see what the whole thing is actually about?

2. Endlessly invoking EGI and wielding it as a meaning and content free club to reinforce opinions in all sorts of matters will eventually weaken and cheapen the concept and dilute its prescriptive power.

3. Of relevance to this thread: how can we insist that opponents actually understand EGI before commenting on it, if pro-EGI Majority Rights participants can’t be bothered to do so themselves?

Please note what I am not saying - I (and Salter himself) am not saying that Salter’s work is a perfectly fixed, completed, flawless concept that must stand alone without analysis, addition, or interpretation.  Not at all, and, for example, on this blog, the concept of genetic structure with respect to EGI was introduced, which is an added strength. 

However, this does not mean that Salter’s idea is an empty bucket into which anyone can pour anything they please to support their rhetorical point of the moment.  Although it can be considered a “work in progress”, Salter’s conception, like all concepts, does have particular underlying, fundamental precepts that form the foundation for further additions, alterations, interpretations, etc.  The problem then is not with constructive criticism, or even with rational ‘hostile’ criticism based on the actual content of the work (which has of yet not matetrialized, perhaps for an obvious reason), nor with additions and interpretations that build upon the concept, but with people who decide to, essentially, completely replace Salter’s concept with their own idea/misinterpretation, while, at the same time, still calling it “EGI” and insisting that their complete rewrite of the basic fundamentals is the same thing that Salter has proposed.

If one wishes to comment on, add to, or critically examine Salter’s thesis, the starting point is that thesis itself, not some imaginary and fanciful replacement of it.

If someone thinks that Salter was so wrong that the fundamental principles need to be redone, then that is a completely separate idea, and not EGI.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and can formulate their own worldview, but, then, Frank Salter is also entitled to have his worldview presented correctly without distortion.

Posted by crude vulgar rude brute on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:26 | #

Another point: to state that “too much miscegenation” can be bad, while “a bit can be good” is certainly not “balancing the books” between costs and benefits, since you are asserting a priori that some miscegenation will be good, without comparing to the no miscegenation option.  Further, only proximate interests are looked at, and, even further, “fitness” seems to be defined to mean that a childless bodybuilder is “more fit” than a “couch potato” with 10 children.  Can we move away from Zivian flimflam?

Notice also the hypocrisy here.  “Pi” asserts that miscegenation is something that can be good in small doses, but bad in extreme, and then attempts to delegitimize genetic interests by taking the most extreme case of incest!  Why not delegitimize miscgenation by focusing only on the most extreme cases, which Pi acknowledges are bad?

Likewise, there is a level of vitamin intake that is optimal.  Too little leads to sickness or even death; some vitamins can lead to fatality with an extreme overdose.  These levels can be calculated based on age and bodyweight, just as levels of optimal genetic interests can be calculated by the data. 

The point is that there exists a minimum estimate of the costs of miscegenation (and if a “halfwit” can calculate this, so much the better, then anyone can, no?).  Where is the evidence of an equally clear adaptive benefit that even compensates for this minimal loss over time?

Then, we can ask, once we add the effects of genetic structure, where is the benefit?  Is Tiger Woods going to have 50 children?  Or, is the “benefit” Alon Ziv’s idea that “maybe” Woods doesn’t “stink as much on the golf course.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:50 | #

Never crude nor vulgar, ocassionally a little rude brute,

As a result of that correspondence I have become a bit more discerning in the use of Salterism in my own scribblings.  I tend now to refer to ethnic interests, and only employ the genetic when the subject specifically demands it.  Occasionally, I garnish the dish as natural ethnic interests, which probably drives you crazy.  What’s the difference, besides imprecision, between a natural ethnic interest and an ethnic genetic interest?  Well, “NEI” flies straight under the liberal radar in a way that “genetic”, with its roots in disputed, Darwinian territory, does not.  It is more immediately comprehensible and therefore, in the short time available for persuasion while the reader scans my meaning, of greater utility.

Yes OK, with these formulations I have stepped somewhat lazily away from the intellectual rigours of science, and your plaint is largely one about laziness.  But we can’t demand of the casual reader to go away and buy On Genetic Interest.  We can serve the same end by refining his understanding of that coarse, easily maligned and, among us Europeans, unfashionable phenomenon of tribalism.  We can remind him why European peoples are still tribes even if we have recently forgotten how to act tribalistically, and that we must remember again if we are to survive.

Ultimately, yes, Salterism explains the proper fundaments and directs us to a naturally-ordained, beneficent outcome.  We should not invocate EGI promiscuously.  But you and I are working with the clay of common perception, and some linguistic strategy other than perfect fidelity to Salter’s truths has to be employed.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:53 | #

Addressing’s Pi:

The question of how much miscegenation may be ‘beneficial’ is totally academic, as opposed to political, and also beyond our knowledge. The fact that you intend to use this speculation as a weapon against white ethnic interests, rather than just contemplate it quietly by yourself, becomes clear when one reads further on in your posts: ‘You may not be interested in miscegenation, but miscegenation is interested in you,’ and your suggestion of incest.

Miscegenation is a random event, which lies outside of governmental control. It is also not plausible that a government should ‘control’ miscegenation, short of banning it altogether or having a full-stop eugenics program: it can either be banned or allowed, in our case it is tacitly encouraged by those in power, although not necessarily by the government directly.

If you imagine that a government would so ‘control’ miscegenation, that it would approach the ‘optimal’ rate, then you are imagining a eugenics program which is already very far along the road to compulsory pairing. If such a program did arise, it would almost certainly occupy itself primarily with controlling the allele population within the native gene pool, i.e. with making sure that smart whites breed more. Only as a secondary consideration would it be possible to consider ‘importing genes’, and it is indeed strange to think, what sort of deracinated eugenicists would be performing this work.

I think even to have conceived of such an idea, is perhaps the clearest indicator of a deracinated person that I can think of. Really, you are arguing the same thing as the people on TV, except that you acknowledge genetic differences, but want to mix anyway. How will the new super-hybrid relate vis-a-vis the native population. It would have to be enslaved, wouldn’t it? Do you really think people would allow some kind of hybrid ‘wonder’-person to come to power in a state which had so much respect for EGI that it practiced eugenics? Everyone would have to be as deracinated as you are, in which case, they could not even share EGI. Basically, your idea runs aground on the following fact: a state which cherished its people’s EGI enough to run a eugenics program, would not be very interested in ‘experimenting’ with that same, cherished, EGI.

You no doubt have some loved ones, parents or a significant other- are you interested in ‘experimenting’ in your relationship with them, let’s say by playing some fascinating mind games, or pretending to opinions and feelings you don’t have, or altering the natural roles which you adopt to interact? That sure would be an interesting way to ‘shake things up’, wouldn’t it? You don’t experiment with things you cherish.

Here’s a quote from Machiavelli: ‘It is better to lose a battle with your own troops, than to win one with mercenaries.’
And although nothing could justify losing the Darwinian struggle, I think the metaphor is still an instructive one.

Posted by infrequently rude brute on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:52 | #

GW, “But we can’t demand of the casual reader to go away and buy On Genetic Interest.”

Perhaps, but with the original article linked to on your blog, they certainly can read that.  Salter’s introduction makes it clear that he is focusing on genetics as an “end” in and of itself, and not as a “proxy” for “phenotypical” differences.

That being said, your semantic shift toward being sparing with “genetic interests” is appreciated. 

Pobble-face, you make good points, and your expose of yet another of “Pi’s” inconsistencies is helpful.  One may expect that, as race-realism begins to win the battle of ideas with race denial, the left’s new strategy will be to promote “race-realism” miscegenation and diversity, a la Alon Ziv.

“Hybrid vigor” will be the new buzz phrase, replacing “there is no such thing as biological race.”

Of course, such “vigor” will be defined in Zivian terms and the costs in lost genetic interests/parental kinship will be completely ignored.

Would you trust an accountant who recorded revenue and not expense?  Who recorded assets and equity but not liabilities?  Any publicly traded corporation employing such an incompetent accountant should expect a visit from the SEC.

Likewise, those who refuse to balance the books with respect to biological/genetic fitness, as do Pi and Ziv, are equally incompetent and irresponsible.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:58 | #

“One may expect that, as race-realism begins to win the battle of ideas with race denial, the left’s new strategy will be to promote ‘race-realism’ miscegenation and diversity, à la Alon Ziv.  ‘Hybrid vigor’ will be the new buzz phrase, replacing ‘there is no such thing as biological race.’ ”  (—Brute)

Exactly right.  And the first ones to buy into it will be the witless bloodless soulless just-barely-out-of-the-double-digits David B types (the only type of white whom GC will tolerate anywhere near his blog needless to add, so David B’s presence there is certainly no coincidence).  The vanguard is already among us, in the form of Alon Ziv’s book of course, and this NuSapiens character (I’m not putting a link here because he doesn’t deserve one; he’s linked at Dienekes’ blog and at Sailer’s for all who want to see what a guy thinks like whose absolute best orgasms bar none come from contemplating widespread Euro-nonwhite miscegenation).  No, David B isn’t quite in the vanguard yet, stuck as he is in the credulous-dupe slack-jawed race-denial stage:  don’t forget, the vanguard we’re talking about is the stage of Marxism that comes after race denial — you can’t be part of it while you’re still denying race.  To be a part of promoting this phase of Marxism an academic has to have given up trying to fob race-denial off on the credulous or given up actually believing it himself if he’s a slack-jawed idiot (very often the case in academia).  It’s hilarious about GnXp, “a site devoted to race-realism,” how one of their main bloggers is a race-denier.  It’s like having David Duke blogging for the ADL.

Posted by Pi on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:50 | #

“Pi, “Other’s will do it elsewhere, and eventually a combination may appear that is much better than “you”, in which case your phenotype will be toast, as Khan Noonien Singh alluded to in the old Star Trek Episode “Space Seed”.”

Yeah right, visit South America to see what mixed race societies look like long term. Even if the odd genius appears, there is no meritocratic social/economic context for them to emerge.”

  You’re looking at this from the wrong viewpoint.  South America is indeed a basket case by white European standards.  But it is not a basket case compared to pre-Columbian days. By the standards of the indigenous population, the so called Native Americans, the mestizos are indeed supermen.  Ever been to Mexico, and not just the tourist areas?  The indigenous native americans are at the absolute bottom of the social ladder.  They are the ones sitting on blackets beside the walls of buildings selling beads and pencils, when they are not outright begging.  The mestizos form the bulk of the “middle class” (such as it is) in these countries.  By any dispassionate objective standard the mestizos are superior (to the indigenous population) in health, beauty, wealth, stature, intelligence, aggressiveness, you name it, and they are the dominate reproductive block.  White miscegenation has indeed “uplifted” that gene pool.  Of course if you’re one of the pure indians “left behind”, well you still have access to better medical care than you did in the old days, and I don’t believe their life spans are any shorter.

  Another example.  White-Black miscegenation has had very little effect on the white population.  This is because most mulattos backcross into the black population.  American Blacks are a lot “whiter” than Whites are blacker.  American blacks are, on average, more attractive (such as it is) and smarter by a full standard deviation (IQ 85 vs 70) than pure African Blacks.  This is certainly not to imply that backcrossing the other way would be as beneficial to Whites.  One has to look at the relative benefits given the raw material!

            ————————-

“The fact that you intend to use this speculation as a weapon against white ethnic interests, rather than just contemplate it quietly by yourself, becomes clear when one reads further on in your posts: ‘You may not be interested in miscegenation, but miscegenation is interested in you,’ and your suggestion of incest.”

  Dude, you’re implying motive where none exists. I’m merely (instead of meerly to satisfy Brute) stating the facts of nature as I seem them. Using a biological analog of the Copernican Principle of a dispassionate disinterested observer. I have no ulterior motive against Whites (of which I am myself one).  Speaking of Copernicus, et. al., look what happened to Giordano Bruno.

  The allusion to Trotsky above about miscegenation being interested in you is again a simple statement of fact. Let me relate two almost identical anecdotes.  20 years ago I had a colleague who was half filipino and half white. Guys were always after her.  That is probably the most objective standard of beauty I can think of.  And she had a sister that made my colleague look like Bella Abzug by comparison.  She came to visit my colleague once and all the male colleagues jaws dropped! Fast forward 15 years later.  She has a young adult son who is 3/4 white.  Women leave notes on his windshield in the supermarket parking lot with their phone numbers on it.

Anecdote #2:  My wife has a filipino acquaintance who is married to a white and they have a young adult son.  My wife’s acquaintance was complaining to my wife about how women are leaving notes on her son’s windshield with their phone numbers on them.  Now I’m 100% white and had never had problems getting dates, and am now married with children.  But I can state with 100% certainty that women have never left their phone numbers on the windshield of my car.  So I will state again, “‘You’ (collectively) may not be interested in miscegenation, but miscegenation is interested in you.”

            ————————-

“I think even to have conceived of such an idea, is perhaps the clearest indicator of a deracinated person that I can think of. Really, you are arguing the same thing as the people on TV, except that you acknowledge genetic differences, but want to mix anyway.”

It’s called being a dispassionate/disinterested observer.  I have not advocated policy here, only the way things are as I see them.  I’ve taken the view of an altruistic alien zoologist who wants to improve the breed for the breed’s own benefit, like the chestnut people, as apposed to the “people on TV” who want to “improve” the breed to make tastier beef.

“How will the new super-hybrid relate vis-a-vis the native population. It would have to be enslaved, wouldn’t it?”

  Probably the same way Mestizos relate to Amerinds as mentioned above.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:19 | #

Pi,

Go read On Genetic Interest.  You can order it here:-

http://www.transactionpub.com/on-genetic-interests-paper-1-6

Faling that, at least click on the “Important Issues” button on the side-bar and/or on “Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interest” in the Category list.

Then come back and interact with us, if you wish.

Equally, you could read JR’s review of Alon Ziv’s little masterpiece of deception:-

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

Posted by Steven Palese on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:00 | #

Pi, “Of course if you’re one of the pure indians “left behind”, well you still have access to better medical care than you did in the old days, and I don’t believe their life spans are any shorter.”

“American blacks are, on average, more attractive (such as it is) and smarter by a full standard deviation (IQ 85 vs 70) than pure African Blacks.”

Pi, what’s missing in your analysis is consideration for group dignity. Does a people always prefer comfortable servitude to freedom?

I’ll add that the Mexican Indios are not the least happy with “better medical care”. Indeed the key characteristic of Mexican politics is that it is dominated by the Indios unrest cycle. The iron law of Mexican politics is that, eventually, the Indios revolt. It’s a cyclical event, like earthquakes. The cycle is as follows: Indios revolt, Indios take power, Indios leaders intermarry into white upper class, Indios grievances are forgotten about, Indios revolt, etc.

My point was that whatever benefits the individual may get, the whole social context goes to hell. You don’t even want to know what’s happened in Haiti since the French were wiped out and the mulattos were left to fight it out with the pure blacks. Look into it if you think mulattos revert to blackness. Two centuries on, Haitian blacks and mulattos are basically two tribes locked in perpetual war.

Pobble face: “How will the new super-hybrid relate vis-a-vis the native population. It would have to be enslaved, wouldn’t it?”
Pi: “Probably the same way Mestizos relate to Amerinds as mentioned above. “

That’s another thing missing in your analysis. If mixed race communities aquire critical mass they form new groups with an abnormal need to assert their identity vis a vis the parent group. From the parent group’s perspective, is having the new group beneficial? Nope. If the new group becomes a competitor or outright adversary, is it costly to the parent group? Very. Given that they typically share territory, is friction between the new and parent groups likely? You bet. (See way Mestizos relate to Amerinds in Mexico as mentioned above).

Posted by brute on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:40 | #

Note how Pi completey ignores costs and focuses on alleged benefits, even after multiple comments pointing out the error.

Obviously, Pi is not commenting in good faith, which is not surprising given the quality of the “arguments” spewing forth from him/her/it.

Particularly amusing were the anecdotes about the Eurasian mongrels and the “notes left behind.”

Assuming for a moment that the stories are true (which we have no evidence for other than the “word” of a person not arguing in good faith) the “meaning” of this is absolutely zero.

A sample size of two means what in the scheme of racial politics? 

And, are these mongrels producing large numbers of offspring do compensate for the losses in genetic interest/parental kinship?

Further, I hope GW is watching carefully, particularly given past appeals that the EGI concept be understood and not transformed into PGI - can one completely blame “Pi” when it happens with MR regulars as well?

Posted by Pi on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:17 | #

FYI, This just out. Not sure where to post this so thought this would be as good a place as any as it is sort of appropo to the thread (I don’t see subject areas like Stormfront has):

Dynamics of Adaptive Introgression from Archaic to Modern Humans. by John Hawks and Gregory Cochran

http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA20060101.pdf

Posted by brute on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:12 | #

::yawn::

This topic has come up before.

1. Even if true, the fact that Neanderthal introgression may have been beneficial to the invading “moderns” does not in any way lead to any conclusion about inter-racial introgression today

2. The Neaderthals - the natives - certainly didn’t benefit from the introgression; where are they today?

3. The moderns would most likely have replaced the Neanderthals even without any introgression, albeit later.

Definitions of fitness and genetic interests, discussed at the “leftist white supremacy” thread are relevant here.

But, hey, let’s be generous.  The Chinese for example have a female shortage, let’s ship some sub-Saharan women over there and increase Chinese phenotypical traits via limited admixture.

After all with more than a billion Chinese, several tens of millions of Africans would just be a drop in the bucket.

And, since the Chinese communist government officially declares that racism does not exist in the PRC there certainly can’t be any problems there.

Posted by martin_uk on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:43 | #

Some responses to ealier posts.

Yes, it appears that I am not “white nationalist” after all, more “anti-black”.

I said there was a danger of circularity. What I have in mind is that once you learn that a man is married to an Asian then you will start a “fishing expedition” until you find in him some flaw, so that you can then claim that he has low mate value.

If the UK became an white ethnic monostate, then I would simply leave with my wife and child. However, how likely is this? 

I am sure that you already know that you are going to have a very difficult job to get people to govern their behaviour according to Ethnic Genetic Interests, (and already people don’t govern their behaviour through their short term rational self interest). Amongst the issues I could raise is that it seems to me from some of the debate on this thread that there is a still a lot that is unknown or conjectural about the biology. 

I get to meet many white working/middle class women, through my employment mainly. In most instances they hold useless opinions on race, utterly naive and media fed. Two of the worst cases. 1. A young white woman, extremely intelligent, attractive, the world at her feet. I asked her what she would do after she left university. She told me that she was thinking that she might go to Africa to do voluntary work amongst the poor. 2. A woman of about 40. Childless, of course. She told (by email) me that there were no differences between the races, and that behaviour all boiled down to education. I replied that race matters, and if she wanted her liberal values to endure then she ought to have children, as the new generation of non-whites have their own customs and folkways, and will not want to adopt ours. She did not respond to me subsequently.

Now, people are attracted to people who share their values. Because racial differences are real, therefore mostly we share the same values with, and especially trust, people who are the same race as ourselves. But race is evidently neither necessary nor sufficient for fellowship or intimacy. I don’t need to tell any one who is likely to be reading this that Orientals are very racially conscious. They take it for granted that some races are better at some things than are others. I find therefore that I share the values and beliefs of the typical Oriental woman rather more than the typical white European woman.  It is a relief to be with someone who holds normal views concerning race. Remember that the notion of racial equality in everything is so patently absurd that only white people could believe it.

Quite apart from the question of values, white women are frequently obese and do not look after themselves. Many men who would, roughly, describe themselves as being “right wing” and have sympathy with much that is expressed on this site, find nothing wrong in having Asian wives. This is a problem for white nationalism. The problem can be expressed as,

“How can a nation, that allows people to marry whoever they want, hope to be mono-racial?”

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:34 | #

Replies:

Alex Zeka: Is the above J Richards posting a spoof?

Is?  It was a joke.

Kulturkampf: J Ritchards - I’d love to see the bookmarks on your internet browser!

Pleased to know that I am not the only perv here.  Besides, it sounds like there is hope for you.

Andy Wooster: Can we stop with the porn postings? Please?

What porn?  It is perverted to consider what I posted porn; I take back my reply to Kulturkampf; it is clear who the actual perv is. 

Andy Wooster: I like seeing breasts as much as anyone, but I don’t come to this site to see them.

Where do you usually go to see them?  Anyway, better avoid reading my comments, especially in my entries, since you never know what they may contain.

Andy Wooster: Of all the arguments for white preservationism, is there any argument that will be less fruitful than arguing that white women are more attractive than non-whites?

I suppose a more fruitful argument would be that for a white male to have a child with a non-white as opposed to a white is to reduce the probability of sharing, with his child, the same gene at a given locus by one-fourth of Fst, where Fst is the genetic distance between the two populations that is calculated by subtracting the average diversity within the two populations from the total diversity in the two groups combined and then dividing the result by the total diversity in the two groups combined.  This is much more fruitful, right?  I know that Brute would agree.

Brute: Salter needs to expand is theory beyond the Cavalli-Sforza data and Fst values.

The Cavalli-Sforza data can easily be replaced by newer datasets, and Fst works just fine.  However, the question is what is to be gained by introducing the complications you mention?  If the losses resulting from alien-ethny immigration are shown to be greater, it would make a stronger case for immigration restriction, but the majority of people will still not appreciate it since we are dealing with a lot of abstractions.  Animal brains are shaped to consider phenotypic issues, and all I can say is good luck trying to mold people to focus on the genotype rather than the phenotype.  Anyway, I agree that better quantification is of interest from a scientific perspective.

Kenelm Digby: I can assure you that ‘KD’ is most certainly of the heterosexual persuasion…His view of ‘female beauty’ is…Subtlety, refinement,fragility and delicacy are closest to his heart.

   

Fragility and delicacy?  Sounds like an inclination toward underdeveloped or girlish physiques, which would explain the attraction toward East Asian women.

Brute: And how does JR convince him [Kenelm Digby] that JR’s preference should take precedence?  Is there any objective reason? I just don’t see it.

There was nothing in my argument that my preference should take precendence.  However, the photographic evidence provides all the objective reasons that the typical heterosexual man needs.  Of course, if the person has atypical preferences then my evidence will not persuade him.  People will follow their heart; it is how they are shaped, i.e., shaped to consider the phenotype.  Martin_UK’s comments suggest some kind of moral dilemma related to his desire for white preservation and his lack of control over falling in loving with an Asian and subsequently marrying her and having a child with her.  Without reading Slater’s paper, it should have been intuitive to Martin UK that he was going to undermine some interests by ending up having a child with a non-white, but he followed his heart.  Quantifying the genetic facts involved is not going to make a difference as far as most people are concerned.  The solution is to 1) address both the phenotype and genetic facts, and more of the former since the human brain is shaped to focus on the phenotype; 2) work toward immigration restriction, which will also go toward reducing interracial unions; and 3) try to come up with a system where the likes of Martin_UK can compensate by having extra white children being born.

Steven Palese: JR, Why did you take some of the pictures off? They are very helpful toward understanding your points regarding white female aesthetics. If you’re still short on bandwith just open a free blogspot account, put the pictures on photobucket.com and hotlink them to here.

See, you, like the typical person, understands the importance of the pictures, but Brute just cannot see the relevance.  Anyway, I did not remove the pictures; they were just replaced with links; the images are still hosted within this site.  The reason is not bandwidth; we have plenty to spare.  The reason is prudes like Andy Wooster bitching about them.  Probably as a result, my elders advised me that risqué images may prompt some people to not take this site seriously, and I thought it best to replace the images with links preceded by a warning.

Martin_UK: Quite apart from the question of values, white women are frequently obese and do not look after themselves.

Well, some white female groups, such as the Celtic stock in Britain, are more prone to obesity than northeast Asians, but Celtic women also have much larger breasts and much more in terms of feminine curves than northeast Asian women.  The key, if one is seeking a Celtic woman, is to find one with a generous deposit of fat in her breasts and buttocks/upper thighs but little in her abdominal region (hourglass shape), a type that is considerably more common among Celtic women compared to Asian women.  Any white man with high mate value should have no problem obtaining such Celtic women.  Of course, there are the less obesity-prone Scando-Nordics to choose from, too. 

Martin_UK: How can a nation, that allows people to marry whoever they want, hope to be mono-racial?

By largely keeping alien ethnies out.  If there are few aliens in one’s midst, then the few instances of miscegenation that will occur will barely affect the racial composition of a nation.

Posted by Peter South on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:58 | #

But here I must spring to Martin’s defence again.
The tendency towards obesity amongst many White English women has already been noted, perhaps less cognisance has been given to a certain crudity and vulgarity of deportment, a general air of ‘harshness’ and ‘bitchiness’ , combined with acomplete alck of sympathy, bordering on hostility towards the male sex.Of course, the fact that many White English women consciously identify with blacks as ‘fellow oppressed’ and take their symapthy so far as to copulate with them goes without saying. (Furthermore, it is alleged that there is a massive traffic between Britain and Jamaica in which obese, frumpy English ‘mares’* - a fine word in this context! go to Jamaica to be ‘serviced’ by paid-for negro studs).

Now consider the young, female Chinese student diaspora in London.Are they not winsomely beautiful and beautifully attired, wearing jewels ofthe finest delicacy about their persons?, Are they not well-mannered, charming and joyful in conservation? Do they notinstinctively repect solid depenable, hard-working men, whosefaces are creased with the struggle oftheir toils?, Isn’t their mission in life to be the most wonderful, warm-hearted wives and mothers?

* Meaning of course a female horse, but in colliquial English a fine old opprious term fora coarse, obese , offensive female.
  Famously used by Henry VIII when he called Anne of Cleves - ‘That Flemish Mare’.

Posted by brute on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:04 | #

” Animal brains are shaped to consider phenotypic issues”

I thought it was kinship.

In an ethnically homogenous state, John is walking with his child to the local lake.  They encounter an unrelated child.  John notices that this second child looks more like him than his own, is better looking, and seems smarter.

Suddenly, tragedy happens, both children are drowning.  John can only save one.  Which one is he likely to choose?  Which choice is most adaptive?

If you wish to invoke emotional attachment as a reason for “which is he likely to choose”, then imagine that John just found out he had a child 5 minutes before the drowning incident.  Is it less likely for him to make the same choice?

Of course, regardless, the adaptive value of the right choice remains the same.

“However, the question is what is to be gained by introducing the complications you mention?”

Accuracy.  These are important issues, the most important issue.  Why not have the best, most accurate information available to use for analysis? 

“This is much more fruitful, right?  I know that Brute would agree.”

For the common person, kinship (expressed in terms of “like family”) is an adequate metaphor and explanation of EGI.  Ethnicity could be used as a proxy here.  No one denies the importance of phenotype in certain cases; indeed, in his new Introduction, Salter questions taking the side of Grafen vs. Rushton in his original work.  However, Salter’s rationale for this reconsideration - intraethnic genetic heterogeneity - is somewhat confused, and actually, as far as I know, there is no clear evidence for favoring Rushton or Grafen at this point.

I don’t see the point though of posting pictures of naked or semi-naked women with respect to these issues. If some white guy prefers Asian women to white women, then that’s his preference, but it doesn’t change the kinship equation, and the man in the street certainly can understand at the level of family.

Anyway, it is more important to influence the higher-IQ nationalist leadership about these issues, and one hopes they have enough brainpower to understand abstractions.  They can then explain things to the masses in a simpler fashion, perhaps invoking phenotype where appropriate.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, isn’t Majority Rights aimed at a higher level?  If this is mistaken, then I admit to being wrong, but my impression from Guessedworker is that he wants a higher level of discourse here.

Posted by brute on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:59 | #

I believe there is some misunderstanding here.  I certainly do not think, for example, that you should walk into a bar and attempt to engage blue collar whites in a discussion of Fst, gene frequencies, etc.  I agree, and it obvious, that for a considerable fraction of the population, they would be influenced more by feminine beauty and such, than by genetics.  No doubt.  I do think though that they can also be equally influenced by invocation of kinship, in family terms, which is another strategy.  It is certainly true that Salter goes along with the “whatever works, use it” approach for promoting genetic interests.

The question though is what is the target audience.  For example, Kevin MacDonald’s work deals with issues that influence every white American, but his books and essays are clearly targeted to the right half of the bell curve, toward the highly intelligent, the educated, professionals, etc.  The same can be said of Salter’s work.  That is not a bad strategy, given the reality of “American democracy” and the fact that “per capita,” elites have a much stronger influence on policy than do the masses.

Individuals in this target audience have, or should have, the intelligence to understand the content of the work of MacDonald and Salter.  They have, or should have, the intelligence to grasp high-level discussion, critique, and analysis of these issues, and they should be at the level where they could, in theory, participate.

I see these people who are the real targets.  The masses, through a “trickle-down effect,” can start to assimilate these ideas, which can be transmitted by the elites in a more digestible form (eg, kinship/family, phenotype/beauty, economic displacement, culture, or what have you).

If this blog is predominantly aimed at putting forth ideas toward the elite (for example, GW’s commentaries about the nature of conservatism, the posts by Bowery, Nuenke, Soren, etc are clearly aimed at the 120/130+ IQ crowd), then we have to consider how to target these people.  I believe they should be given EGI as it is, including our criticisms and additions, which are important; the work is “in progress” and for the elites, this extra complexity may be of utility.  Related phenotypic issues are of utility as well, but, Steven Palese aside, I’m not sure the types of pictures that were posted here are the types of information that the elites are looking for from us. 

JR, another point: as GW can confirm, I had nothing to do with his decision to ask you to put the pictures into link form.  In fact, I was away for most of the day last Friday, and didn’t even know the pictures had been up until the following day, after they had already been put into link form.  More to the point, many of the things I suggest to GW are ignored and the opposite is done; I say that without rancor, it is his blog and he can ignore, or listen to, who he wishes.  Point being that that entire “controversy” was “sans Brute.”  Although, I do agree with GW’s decision, maybe that is prudery on the part of GW, Andy, and myself, but we are not comfortable with those types of pictures.

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:19 | #

Peter South,

…perhaps less cognisance has been given to a certain crudity and vulgarity of deportment, a general air of ‘harshness’ and ‘bitchiness’ , combined with acomplete alck of sympathy, bordering on hostility towards the male sex.Of course, the fact that </b>many</b> White English women consciously identify with blacks as ‘fellow oppressed’ and take their symapthy so far as to copulate with them goes without saying. (Furthermore, it is alleged that there is a massive traffic between Britain and Jamaica in which obese, frumpy English ‘mares’* - a fine word in this context! go to Jamaica to be ‘serviced’ by paid-for negro studs).

Bolded parts are my emphasis.  You appear to be a straightforward case of a white male of low mate value, assuming you are one.  Why else would the typical English woman you come across be a masculine feminist type?  The good ones are already taken or wouldn’t be interested in you.  Besides, few English women have any interest in black men; the very notion is abominable.  It is the rare English woman that goes to Jamaica to look for a gigolo, and these women are not just obese but also middle aged or older.  Black men have low standards and some have almost no standards.     

Now consider the young, female Chinese student diaspora in London.Are they not winsomely beautiful and beautifully attired, wearing jewels ofthe finest delicacy about their persons?  Are they not well-mannered, charming and joyful in conservation? Do they notinstinctively repect solid depenable, hard-working men, whosefaces are creased with the struggle oftheir toils?, Isn’t their mission in life to be the most wonderful, warm-hearted wives and mothers?

These nice-appearing Chinese women are trying to charm white men.  Don’t be fooled.  Besides, comparing white females of low mate value with Chinese women of high mate value is absurd.  Chinese women that compare well to white women with respect to crudity, vulgarity, harshness and bitchiness still remain worse looking than their English counterparts matched for percentage body fat.

—————————-
 
Brute,

“Animal brains are shaped to consider phenotypic issues”

I thought it was kinship.

And how is kinship assessed by animals?  By phenotypic cues and memory of past occurrences. 

In an ethnically homogenous state, John is walking with his child to the local lake.  They encounter an unrelated child.  John notices that this second child looks more like him than his own, is better looking, and seems smarter.

Suddenly, tragedy happens, both children are drowning.  John can only save one.  Which one is he likely to choose?  Which choice is most adaptive?

If you wish to invoke emotional attachment as a reason for “which is he likely to choose”, then imagine that John just found out he had a child 5 minutes before the drowning incident.  Is it less likely for him to make the same choice?

The person will save the biological child because he has knowledge that the child is his, and this knowledge has been acquired through phenotypic cues/memory of past occurrences, not by a DNA test.  The point is, and we have debated this before, that nature acts on the phenotype; the genotype is selected indirectly.   

“However, the question is what is to be gained by introducing the complications you mention?”

Accuracy.  These are important issues, the most important issue.  Why not have the best, most accurate information available to use for analysis?

Accuracy is likely not the right word here; you are looking for precision.  As far as EGI is concerned, it suffices to understand that losses in terms of child equivalents from large-scale immigration of an alien ethny are so large that they cannot be offset under normal circumstances or even extraordinary circumstances if the ethny is sufficiently distant, which has been amply demonstrated.

I don’t see the point though of posting pictures of naked or semi-naked women with respect to these issues.

The point is related to your argument about targeting the high IQ elite.  This is well and good, but we shouldn’t leave out the common man.  Showing examples of fine-looking whites makes a powerful case for racial preservation since non-whites have no hope of matching their beauty.

JR, another point: as GW can confirm, I had nothing to do with his decision to ask you to put the pictures into link form.

I did not implicate you.  Replacing the images with links was my own idea; Guessedworker did not ask me to do so.  Besides, Guessedworker is not a prude.

Posted by brute on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:14 | #

JR, after spending so much time recently with the “Leftist White Supremacy Thread” (and I notice that “jdog” and “interracialist” are no respectors of private property or freedom of association.  They ironically support our point that the mongrelizers wish to force themselves on the rest of us), I have no interest in spending the time rehashing all these points, but would like to say one thing about the necessity of expanding Salter’s ideas.

According to Salter’s original analysis, two Bantu-English hybrids are ~“equal” to one pure English or Bantu child with respect to genetic interests of the parents (and unrelated co-ethnics).

I think you agree with me that there is something wrong with that analysis.  Intuitively, using phenotype, obviously something is not right.  After all, thousands of Bantu-English breedings will never produce a child that looks like, for example, an unmixed English child.  Does this mean there is thus no connection at all, particularly at the racial level,  between phenotype and genetic interests? - which I know you would disagree with and a point I disagree with as well.

The answer is genetic structure.  It is not enough to look at the alleles on a one-by-one basis, but you must also look at the correlation structure of these, as well as other types of genetic structure leading to differences in genetic information.

True enough, for the common man, I agree, all you need to do is point out the obvious differences between the English and the English-Bantu and say, “hey, how can two of the latter ever equal one of the former?”

But, from a formal standpoint, to target the high-IQ professionals, to battle the likes of Ziv, and to convince honest sociobiologists of the full dangers of miscegenation, it’ll be helpful to know the extent of these effects.

What if Martin-UK says, hey, I have 3 Eurasian children, which is more than the white English standard, that compensates for a “mere” 38% decline in parental kinship and to me, my children’s appearance and behavior is great and all the other kids love them?

In my opinion, it would be useful to have an objective measure that tells him that the genetic effect of the mating on parental kinship is in fact considerably greater than 38%, and may be in the range that no practical family size could compensate.

This would be a useful addition to the “armory” of intellectual weapons to bring to bear against mixing, and would make Salterism both more accurate and precise.

It doesn’t change the basic facts (except to make these stronger), but it corrects a gaping flaw in the analysis of miscegenation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:36 | #

Brute,

Perhaps the thesis needs re-centering in some way so the emphasis is less on parental kinship and more on ethnic kinship?  Is this where the problem is really manifest?  It seems that the “majority” parent of a mixed-race child easily tends to a position that accords with the minority interest, as does the child in due course.  The majority ethny, meanwhile cleaves to its inevitable course.

It must be possible to formulate EGI to accomodate this plasticity on the behalf of the majority parent and rigidity on the behalf of the majority (or minority) ethny.

Posted by Peter South on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:10 | #

The current object of my (sadly unrequited) affection is one Ja Tharong, who occaisonally reads the business news on the ‘BizChina’ program on the Chinese State channel CCTV 7, which is available free on satellite.
I watch strictly for research puroposes, you see, to get some idea of the strength of China’s economic boom.

Posted by crude hulking brute on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:21 | #

GW, you need to read the chapter in Salter’s book on miscgenation, much of what you ask is covered.  Indeed, throughout the book the issue of context comes up.

True, in a multiculturalist society, the white parent of a hybrid, whose child will benefit from the society’s anti-white “diversity” and myriad of pro-colored programs and outlooks, will move in the direction of eschewing any defense of their own race’s interests whatsoever.

That a racially homogenous family has everyone on “the same page” as to what their interests are (not that they support the interests, but that at least the interests are the same) is a another fine proximate reason for endogamy, and another fine proximate problem for exogamy.

This doesn’t change though the need to actually add to the core of the theory by including genetic structure.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:35 | #

Where do you usually go to see them?

  To my girlfriend. 

  Anyway, better avoid reading my comments, especially in my entries, since you never know what they may contain.

  I certainly don’t seek out your comments, as 99% are on the same topic and don’t even have anything new or particularly interesting to say on the matter. News flash! Many white women are hot! Not exactly a revolutionary idea.  Additionally, the vast majority of your comments feature unsolicited personal attacks and questionable amateur psychologizing. 

  My problem lies in having to scroll past your comments to get to more interesting, relevant entries. I (sometimes) read this site while I’m at work. Committing thought-crimes while on company time is one thing; they don’t monitor the sites employees visit and a co-worker would have to be standing over my shoulder and peering at my computer to notice the heterodoxy of views expressed at majorityrights.com. However, large photos of semi-naked women can be seen from across the room, which poses an unacceptable risk in my particular office environment. 

  I suppose a more fruitful argument would be that for a white male to have a child with a non-white as opposed to a white is to reduce the probability of sharing, with his child, the same gene at a given locus by one-fourth of Fst, where Fst is the genetic distance between the two populations that is calculated by subtracting the average diversity within the two populations from the total diversity in the two groups combined and then dividing the result by the total diversity in the two groups combined.  This is much more fruitful, right?  I know that Brute would agree.

  The issue here is writing for the correct audience.  As Brute noted, the majority of posts on this site seemed to aimed at a group that resides 2 or 3 SDs above the group you’re aiming at with your white babe posts. Is majorityrights.com really the place for your outreach to the left half of the bell-curve? I know that I come here to see arguments slightly more sophisticated than “Goddamn! Check out this chick! Look at dem titties!”

  Furthermore, you’re not even consistently aiming this message at what you claim is your target audience.  You used it in response to KD and Kulturkampf, two posters who are clearly not double-digiters.

Posted by martin_uk on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:53 | #

“True, in a multiculturalist society, the white parent of a hybrid, whose child will benefit from the society’s anti-white “diversity” and myriad of pro-colored programs and outlooks, will move in the direction of eschewing any defense of their own race’s interests whatsoever. “

There are very many whites who don’t need a hybrid child as a motive for promoting ethnic minorities at the expense of their own people. Wealthy whites appear to acquire status with their peers by behaving altruistically towards non-whites. Behaving altruistically towards whites is perceived by them as being “selfish”.

Of course, no such out-group concern is discernible amongst non-whites. Their altruism targets only their own community. Orientals seem to think that it must be humiliating for blacks to be the beneficiaries of non-black altruism. By accepting help from the white man, blacks are thereby admitting they are not equal. This recognition is humiliating for blacks, so that blacks hate whites, yet they don’t hate those ethnicities, - Orientals, Indians, who are indifferent to black plight. Whites are the only ethnicity who are altruistic to other ethnicities at the expense of their own, and it does them no good. Whites need to take on board some Oriental values in this regard.

I doubt that what would be in a female hybrid’s interests would differ from what would be in the interests of a white daughter. The kinds of safeguards for women that exist in white societies are there because historically these societies have been governed by white men brought up in an enlightened culture. As a father of a hybrid, I know that it is in my daughter’s interest that white men should continue to dominate the society in which she is growing up.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:38 | #

This recognition is humiliating for blacks, so that blacks hate whites, yet they don’t hate those ethnicities, - Orientals, Indians, who are indifferent to black plight.

If so, how is the black targeting of Korean store owners in LA in the Rodney King riot of 1992 explained? And more recently, the battles in the Lozells area of west Birmingham. As Darwin asserted tribal conflict will occur when different groups share geographic proximity.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/5129.asp

Posted by JR MA brute on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:58 | #

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020215

I’d like to give credit to J Richards now for out-debating Malcolm A in another thread, concerning the genetic distinctiveness of the South Asian.

As can be seen from this new paper (linked above), the data support J Richards’ contention that South Asians can be considered a race separate from that of Europeans.

They tend to be, as expected, somewhat closer to Europeans and Middle Easterners than to East Asians, but are obviously a clustered genetic unit.

Posted by PCA on Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:36 | #

For me, many of these arguments are entirely irrelevant.

Are Asian women attractive (I believe many are)?, etc, etc.

The simple fact of the matter for me is that the most important thing in my life will be my children. They will be far more important than even my than choice of partner, that is to say that I will seek the best partner, however she must be a white partner.

In saying that, I essentially mean the following, I grew up as a white person, so did my parents and so did my ancestors. I am culturally, racially and historically a product of my descendants (that is my white descendants). I am not an idiot and if my children were a cross breed (I certainly have nothing against any children of whatever race), they would grow up in a world I would not understand (neither would they understand my world). Sorry, but race follows culture, regardless of whether I debate with a committed socialist until dawn about social disparities - it does not matter if is genetic or social – the truth is simply that it is exists.

I do not define my self as a WN or have a puritanical urge to do it for the sake of my race, but I want my children to be essentially the same as myself.

I simply wish, and consider it important, that they will carry my racial, cultural and historical lineage further (that is my lineage).

For this reason, I would prefer‘ugly’ white women, to the sexiest Asian or Black women any day. It is my offspring that at the end of the day matter.

However, as a young (in my twenties) professional, I shun white girls all the time. Many of the posters are entirely right in questioning their rather lacking feminie state. (Last month a girl tried to impress me (seriously on the first date) by rattling off how many men she had slept with – truly ridiculous – what did she think I would say?).

As an atheist, it is about time I started attending church (hopefully there will be some decent women there).