Occidental Dissent

Feb 6th, 2009 by Hunter Wallace

Briefly Noted

Greg Laden doesn’t believe in the concept of race. Fun ensues.

Tags: Race Denial, Racialism

Posted in Uncategorized

102 Responses to “Race Doesn’t Exist, Continued”

on 06 Feb 2009 at 11:27 pm1Fred Scrooby

Laden’s Jewish, right?
on 06 Feb 2009 at 11:33 pm2Prozium

I doubt it.
on 07 Feb 2009 at 4:55 pm3Name withheld out of fear and loathing

Laden was born a Catholic and intended to join the priesthood as a child. Later, he became an agnostic Buddhist. Then, he was abducted by New York Jews and converted culturally to Communistic Judaism. Form there, the step to atheism was an easy one, and more recently he has become a Radical New Atheist.
on 07 Feb 2009 at 9:17 pm4Prozium

No time as a Muslim?
on 07 Feb 2009 at 9:20 pm5Fred Scrooby

“The White Supremacists Are Wondering About My Religion.” ( — Greg Laden’s blog)

Well?

What is it, Greg? I’m waiting …..

(Afraid the truth might help confirm the Out of Israel Theory?)
on 07 Feb 2009 at 9:27 pm6Fred Scrooby

The Out of Israel Theory is ….. well …. let’s put it this way — people aren’t the only ones who can get fleas, lice, and ticks: countries can get them too, and in the case of countries the flea-lice-and-tick role is played by the (fill in the blank) ________ .
on 07 Feb 2009 at 9:27 pm7Prozium

I’m not a “white supremacist.” I just want to preserve my own race. If my efforts were targeted at some whale or dolphin, there would be no controversy.
on 07 Feb 2009 at 9:52 pm8Prozium

Re: Buzz

“Positive racial bias” is equally prejudice.
on 07 Feb 2009 at 11:13 pm9Name withheld out of fear and loathing

I’m not a “white supremacist.”

are too
on 07 Feb 2009 at 11:25 pm10Prozium

1.) I don’t rank the various races in any hierarchy.
2.) I have no desire to see whites rule over other races.
on 08 Feb 2009 at 7:28 pm11Ben Abbott

I just want to preserve my own race. If my efforts were targeted at some whale or dolphin, there would be no controversy.

Biologically speaking there are no human races. There is only one human race.

Your use of the term is a social construct, not a biologcal one.
on 08 Feb 2009 at 8:13 pm12Notagod

Preserving “your race” is simple; just don’t have sex with any other person. After ya die you’ll be all preserved up!
on 08 Feb 2009 at 8:54 pm13Alec Cockbelly

I’m English and blonde with pale skin. And I’m not white. I’m alive.

Man, you’re all crazy. Wasting your time with this “races are real!” horseshit. You want to preserve “white culture” and the “white race”? Well, this white guy says: That’s retarded. There is no “white culture”. Culture is an individual thing, especially in the modern world; the places from which we absorb creative, aesthetic and practical values are many and varied, and I know my own culture wouldn’t be anything like as groovy without Jimi Hendrix and Tang poetry. Culture only exists in blocks in tiny areas - only a single isolated village without modern communications could be considered to have a single homogenous culture, and even then, it is subject to change, even within a single generation. See, there’s a whole academic discipline that studies this kind of thing; it’s called social anthropology. Your simplistic race crap doesn’t get you anywhere in understanding anything.

As for race, well, sorry guys, it doesn’t exist. I fail to see how that could be scientifically disputed or even make sense to dispute. But that’s beside the point. Even if races were neat little blocks as you seem to hope, they aren’t “pure” and never were. If you want to “preserve” a race, what you mean to say is that you want everyone you deem white to refrain from fucking people you deem non-white. That isn’t going to work, and it’s authoritarian bullshit. If you want to live like that, no one’s going to stop you, but you try to impose it on others and you’ll meet my fist halfway.

Every individual has a unique genome. The universe is an enormous place full of awesome stuff. You’re limiting your views on it to some archaic nonsense. It’s silly. It’s ridiculous. You’re wasting your time and energy on shadows and bollocks. You could be learning to do something cool. You could be having fun. Instead, you’re focusing on the pigment of skin like it’s divine. Get a fucking life.

And this is a message that will be ignored or hated, despite it’s essentially decent nature. You’ve devoted your silly lives to an aesthetic impression of “whiteness” which isn’t borne out by reality. You’re not going to give up now. I bet it staves the depression away - a lot of bullshit does that. I find it’s best just to eat healthily, do plenty of exercise and be sexually fulfilled - you know, real methods to attain contentment-, but maybe that’s just me.

Chill pills all round.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 12:35 am14Iceman

I have a hierachy and blacks are at the bottom.

Mongols and Caucasoids are on top.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 4:26 am15Captainchaos

It is widely noted that Border Collies are more intelligent than Golden Retrievers - Border Collie supremacism.

No need to round up Golden Retrievers and put them in concentration camps; although leash laws are nice.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 5:26 pm16Prozium

Sorry for the delay in approving recent comments. I have been out of two for the last two days.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 5:27 pm17Prozium

Ben Abbott,

As noted elsewhere, forensic anthropologists determine the race of skeletons for law enforcement agencies all the time. So no, race does exist.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 5:30 pm18Prozium

Alec,

1.) We had anti-miscegenation laws and other race-based policies in North America for over three centuries.

2.) “Culture” is even more vague and harder to define than “race.”

3.) It is a straw man to argue that we believe in perfectly discrete racial categories.

4.) Race is deeper than skin color. See the previous comment.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 7:04 pm19Alec Cockbelly

1) So? It didn’t stop people from fucking other people whose skins and bodies were different and who came from different social groups. And all those laws did was make people pissed off enough to move away from the states barbarous enough to have those statutes. People screwed each other regardless of race and those laws were ridiculous.
If you want to stop people from screwing, then tell them. It won’t work, but neither will a law like that.

2) So you concede that culture and race are two amorphous terms, but still claim to want to preserve “white culture”? Doesn’t seem to make any sense, I’ll be honest. Whilst culture may be hard to define, we all have a working idea of what it is, and it would seem to be a ridiculous idea to claim that all white people have the same culture. And if that isn’t what you claim, then what the heck does “white culture” mean?

3) If race isn’t obvious and discrete, then how can there be a homogenous “white race”? And how can you preserve something that is already a group of millions of genetically distinct individuals in different areas with different backgrounds, futures, offspring, sexual preferences and ideologies? It just seems bizarre. What is it that you actually want to preserve, then?

4) Race is a tiny bit deeper than skin colour; there are a few differences in eye colouration and shape, height, yadda yadda yadda. But the vast majority of these differences are small and only on the outside; in any community of human beings worldwide there are smart people, stupid people, wackaloons, contrarians, cultural supremacists, supreme artists and every other kind of human. No group is a caricature.

People will get it on with other people. It’s like a law of human relations. Wherever there is trade, there’s screwing - wherever there’s contact, there’s screwing. Jews move into Europe and suddenly they’re white skinned and speak the local language. How odd! Well, not really. People want to fuck people they find attractive, whether they’re black or white or whatever else. To try and stop that would be deliberately going against some extremely natural urges and creating repressed populations, for no good reason.

On top of this, it seems clear to me that different groups of people have different things to bring to the human table, and I for one would be very bored if I only liked things done by people deemed to be white. There’d be no delta blues, for one, not in my life, and much as I like metal, I can’t survive on Scandinavian and British bands alone. Branch out and experience things. Seems like a reasonable policy, given that there is so much to see and lives are so short.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 7:39 pm20Prozium

1.) The anti-miscegenation laws and social taboos against racial intermixture, in addition to other public policies like race-based immigration laws and Indian Removal, drastically curtailed interracial marriage for centuries as well as nonwhite gene flow into America’s white population. The United States is not a mestizo country like Mexico or Brazil because of this. Your argument that people will always screw other people is ridiculous. It is not reflected in admixture levels or the history of America’s colonization. The United States is not comparable to Latin America.

2.) Both terms exist along a continuum. These categories are no more mysterious than other concepts like “hot” and “cold” or “young” and “old” or “yellow” and “green” that do so as well. Of the two, “race” is actually the easier one to define and describe. The methods used to classify “races” (blood and skeletal analysis) are far more accurate and objective than those used by cultural anthropologists to identify “cultures.” Finally by “white culture,” I am referring to traditional Anglo-American customs and mores. I have said nowhere that all white people share the same culture. Plainly, they do not.

3.) Race is a level of genetic variation below the level of species. In other words, the various races are interfertile and shade into each other. This has never stopped anti-racists though from attacking the straw man of racial purity and proceeding from there to dismiss the entire concept of racial classifications. Racial preservation is easy. It can easily be promoted by establishing legal, geographic, and cultural barriers to racial intermixture.

4.) Racial differences are not skin deep. Forensic anthropologists can determine the race of suspects from blood, hair, tissue, or skeletal analysis. The traits you mention above such as intelligence or personality type vary in frequency across populations.

5.) The liberatarian hippie/beatnik “live and let live” philosophy is not a law of human relations. It is of very recent historical vintage.

6.) As noted above, legal, geographic, and cultural barriers can be erected that would eradicate miscegenation entirely.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 9:03 pm21Alec Cockbelly

1) The reason America is full of Europeans is because Europeans just kept coming. Immigration from Africa has been quite limited, and so most African-Americans are the descendants of slaves. It’s also because they killed everyone else, or kept them as slaves; kinda keeps fucking at bay, murder. At the same time, the largest ethnic group in the states is people of German ancestry. What’s important about that is that Germans are themselves mongrels. People like to think of Krauts as being the blonde haired, blue-eyed dude, the typical Thors and Odins. But Germanic people and Slavs have boned each other continually for centuries - and so too with Jews, despite anti-semitic views being popular. Germans are less likely to be blonde, for instance, than most of northern Europe. Perception != reality.

That’s the power of tits. Races are just convenient but illusory groups after a few generations - a few generations of riotous and excellent anti-social fucking.

2) Oh, Anglo-American culture? So, about 20 people in New England and Utah? Yeah. Worth preserving. I’m glad it leaves me out then. I’m just British - no need to mess around with my relationships. Groovy.

3) So you want to control people’s decisions about who and what they fuck. Great! Yeah, I can see that being popular. Legal restrictions on the sexual choices made between consenting adults are fundamentally immoral and oppressive. Especially since genetic variation is good for the health of a population. Small gene pool = greater problems with disease. And also, incest. Which is what it comes down to; a greater or lesser degree of incest. You would make it a legal requirement to encourage a greater degree of incest. That’s pretty crazy.

4) It seems like you have some reading to do, in the realm of social anthropology. Cultures all around the world, populations all around the world, have very similar structures, and if intelligence is your thing, then you might resent the fact that Asian people have higher IQs than Anglo-Americans - your people. Whether you have decided to believe in racial supremacy or not, it seems pretty clear that if you took these things at face value instead of at a level of individuals and their idiosyncracies and differences, you’d have to concede that you’re probably more stupid than someone from Singapore.

5) Well, I’m a libertarian beatnik and hippie, and I’m proud of it. It’s a recent idea because the systems we have in place, of free trade and democracy, are themselves recent ideas. In this context, as we can see in most modern societies, people don’t give much of a shit about the imagined racial divides that used to control things. Sure, there might be some irrelevant schmucks, and some fear and idiotic attempts at political correctness. But in the end, people will buy music regardless of the artist’s ethnic origin, they’ll trade with any viable business in any market run by any kind of person. People don’t care, and it’s because they’re happier and better catered for by life than ever before. It just seems to me as if you’re not one of the people who is happier - you just want to live in the slime and sludge like our primitive ancestors, unable to just ditch irrelevant shit and look out at the stars, enjoying life.

But then again, I live in the UK, and my first wife was Mexican, my second was Chinese, and I used to live in Taiwan. I guess I’m just different.

6) Well, you make it illegal for me to screw beautiful women, and I’ll show you how much miscegenation I can get done in one night. It might surprise you. Hmm, African booties. Om nom nom.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 9:22 pm22Iceman

Actually, there genetic evidence that Poles are NOT mixed with German blood, and I say that being completely descended from Eastern EUrope.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 9:28 pm23Prozium

1.) The reason the United States is full of Europeans is due to the fact that we had a race-based immigration policy for 162 years. American immigration policy is a good example of the efficacy of legal and geographic obstacles to miscegenation. The U.S. was 90% white as recently as the 1960s and would be whiter still today were it not for the Immigration Act of 1965. BTW, “Germanic” and “Slavic” are linguistic and ethnic distinctions, not racial ones.

2.) This blog is focused on the United States. There are a number of groups and individuals in the UK with a similar agenda. For the record, there are millions of Anglo-Americans in the South.

3.) As noted above, anti-miscegenation laws were enforced in over 40+ states for over three hundred years in America. In some states, miscegenation was a felony. The last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by judicial fiat in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. They were very popular at the time.

There is nothing whatsoever immoral about anti-miscegenation laws. Finally, there are millions of white Americans, not a few hundred, so your argument about incest is unfounded. The most genetically diverse country in the world is Tanzania. It also happens to be one of the poorest. It has a far higher infant mortality rate and a far lower life expectancy rate than my own.

4.) I think it is great that East Asians have high IQs. I’m not motivated by malice against other races.

5.) This is an ad populum argument. An idea isn’t necessarily good or true because it is popular.

6.) That’s disgusting.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 10:35 pm24Alec Cockbelly

1) OK - so the USA has had a lot of white people since the 1600s, continuing up to 1965. Before then, there were only native people, and after 1965, there have been lots of immigrants arriving from other nations. It’s not like white people have any more of a right to the land - the idea is entirely transient.
And beyond that, since 1965, life expectancy, quality of life and contentment have risen in the USA. People’s lives are better now, more productive, more interesting, with more chances and options in life. I struggle to see why immigration is so terrible.
Be open to new stuff - it’s just as good as the old stuff, and sometimes better. Culture is never, ever, static, and people screw across borders.
2) Yes, all those millions of “Anglo”-Americans, whose ancestors are Irish and Scottish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:English2000.png
Here in the UK, if you call Irish, Welsh and Scots “English”, they get pretty angry. Alright, it’s stupid anger, but there’s really no reason to think that the descendants of Irishmen (etc) wouldn’t feel the same. Yes, there are quite a few Anglo-Americans in the south, technically - but since people have been there a long time, and since rates for adultery, divorce, and children outside of marriage are higher in the south than in the rest of the states, I wouldn’t want to bank on the ancestry of the children born there.
English-Americans are a tiny minority and already exert an enormous cultural influence in the USA; what’s to preserve?
3) You don’t find it immoral that someone would enforce a law telling you who you can and cannot have sexual relations with, despite the fact that both (or more!) parties are above the age of consent, in right mind and supposedly free? You know what, I’m going to go out tonight and get married again, just to spite you. The subcontinent of India is an area wholly unexplored by my penis…
4) Well then here’s the thing I don’t get: Asians have higher average IQs, and a lot of Asian women are absolutely beautiful. Why wouldn’t you want to have children with those intelligent genes? More to the point, why would you stop other people from wanting their children to have those genes?
5) Nah, it’s an argument based on being happy. You have hundreds of extra opportunities to experience new and wonderful things due to people or different nationalities and races. Why hate that? And why hate it if other people want to do that?
It’s like you’ve taken a few ideas from formal logic but don’t really apply logic generally - racial segregation is not a logical thing. Your talk of “straw men” etc is window dressing; it’s not like you’ve applied logic to the rest of the thing.
6) Disgustingly hot. You wait - YouPorn will love it.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 10:38 pm25Alec Cockbelly

Iceman,
What is that evidence, and how is that possible to show? Especially since large swathes of Polish and German land have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries, and the definitions of “Pole” and “German” have changed too. And especially since there is always rape during war, and there are always people break who break social taboos… Sounds like two countries with constantly changing borders and common need to trade would have fucked quite a bit.
You know, here in the UK, eastern Europeans are considered lower than Brits by racist groups. It would be just as rational to take a stand against anyone screwing your degenerate race as it does for you to make a stand against having sex with Africans, Asians, and every other ethnic group.

We’re a small species. And there are no races.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 10:57 pm26Prozium

1.) I see you have given up on the argument that “people will always screw other people” and that laws, customs, and geography are not effective obstacles to miscegenation.

2.) The United States was created by white men for their posterity. America is our birthright. It doesn’t belong to foreign races.

3.) The United States is not a better country on account of third world immigration. If anything is true, it is a drag on our standard of living which would otherwise be higher than it is today. It leads to higher rates of poverty, crime, illiteracy, disease, and income inequality.

The technological innovations that have enhanced our standard of living have not been accompanied by cultural advances. Instead, American culture has degenerated; our culture is coarser than it once was, good manners are less common, people are less invested in each others lives, etc.

4.) Irish Catholics settled in the Northeast. Southerners are overwhelmingly Protestants of English, Scottish, and Welsh ancestry.

5.) I’m not a libertarian. I reject the harm principle.

6.) You have a tourist’s view of the world. Exotic cultures are there for you to sample like items on the shelf at a supermarket. I find this worldview to be shallow, materialistic, and inauthentic.

7.) Racial segregation is a logical extension of the ideal of racial preservation.
on 09 Feb 2009 at 11:47 pm27Alec Cockbelly

1) No, I haven’t given up on that argument. It’s true. Anti-semitism has been widespread in Europe since the early middle ages, and yet, somehow, Ashkenazi Jews are white, Sephardic Jews from Spain look Spanish. And let’s not forget, say, Thomas Jefferson. Let’s just say that Barack Obama is not the first president with a taste for dark chocolate.
2) Unfortunately for you, thief, there were people there before your ancestors got to the land and stole it. Sorry - it just happens to be a fact. The United States was created by slave labour making viable the economic conditions for rebellion and independence; that the law makers and founders were white makes little difference to the fact that the land is not anyone’s, except the legal landowners - many of whom are indeed white, but many of them are also not white, and certainly the vast majority of them are not English Americans, “Anglo-Americans.”
3) If you could prove that, that would be helpful. I’m going to stick with the fact that immigration has boosted the US economy since it began - with YOUR ancestors, Mr Immigrant - and especially since 1965. Since that year, life expectancy has shot up, as has quality of life, and standards of medicine. Intellectual life and science have also improved and knowledge as a sum total is a lot, lot greater than in 1965. Immigration rules, and immigrants from third world nations can end up at the top of the tree.
As for the arguments about manners, you’re quite, quite wrong. Taking the 19th century as an example, the common conservative paragon of good manners; spitoons were common because people spat everywhere. Shit flowed into the street, violence was at a much greater level, crime was much more common, and class divides were great enough to insure a healthy stream of hate from one class to the next - far from polite behaviour. Being “invested in other peoples’ lives” is code for being a nosey prick, and if you want that, then you must live in small communities; it is not possible in a city, whether the city is all-white or completely multi-racial. Either you want to move out of the cities and live in small, technologically backward, nosey villages (which is your right), or you just get on with the fact that most people, regardless of race, really don’t care that much about you.

People swore back in the 19th century, too, and it’s not like dime novels about cowboys are high culture.
There has been no cultural decline; that can’t realistically occur. Culture certainly has “advanced”, in that music nowadays is just as good as it was back in the old folky day, and is more varied. Books and literary forms evolve and change, and you can find great stuff if you look hard with open eyes. It’s always been that way.
4) The majority of English Americans are in Utah (Mormons are overwhelmingly descended from English settlers) and the north-east. Yes, Boston is quite an Irish city, as is New York, Philly…. But Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine? English ancestry is the norm there. In the south, most immigrants were Scots and northern Irish - protestants for the most part. And that’s not forgetting the rest of the folks in the south, the black folks.
5) On what grounds do you reject it? I mean, it’s not enough to say that you’re not a libertarian - you’d have to show why being a libertarian is wrong. As for the harm principle, it seems quite utterly sound.
And it’s about harm to you. I don’t give a shit if you want to only jerk off over Scarlett Johanssen; it really doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I’m just saying that perhaps you could be happier. Failing that, I’m saying that the idea of imposing your views on others is repugnant.
6) Well, no. I studied Chinese for my undergraduate degree, and I have a deep appreciation of a lot of places in which I’ve lived. I speak several languages. My interests go deeper into the sciences as well, and my father was a particle physicist, so it’s not really a tourist’s view, but an astounded child’s. Call it shallow, but glorifying “whiteness” is retarded, and I’d rather be Paris Hilton than a blathering gom-gom.
7) Which may be so, except that racial preservation itself is not a logical premise. It’s based on an enormous number of flawed fundamentals: that there is such a thing as race, that it is possible to “preserve” a race, that somehow this will contribute to your happiness, that preserving said race will contribute to the happiness of the race, that natural drives (like boning) can be suppressed and sublimated without any harm…. I may be thinking too scientifically here, but I’m wondering how it is that it will make you happy that white people you don’t know only fuck other white people you don’t know.

Try push ups. Much easier. And, you know, they work.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 12:38 am28Iceman

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/06/strong-differentiation-between-germans.html

Read that. It is conclusive evidence that Poles and Germans are sharply segregated in their racial characteristics, if physical appearance isn’t enough.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 1:15 am29Fred Scrooby

Alec’s thing isn’t thinking, it’s shagging, and he’s apparently big into shagging black, and being someone who’s exclusively copulation-oriented — there’s nothing for him in life but that, not really — he enormously resents anyone so much as implying his preferences for shagging are in any way disapproved of.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 1:17 am30Fred Scrooby

We’re not remotely interested in your preferences for shagging, Alec, not run along there’s a good lad and stop boring the participants.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 4:58 am31weston

Biologically speaking there are no human races. There is only one human race.

Your use of the term is a social construct, not a biologcal one.

No one here is impressed by the fact that you can recite propaganda on cue.

A biological race or subspecies of a species is a population that is distinguished from other biological races/subspecies of this species by the following criteria:

Each race has developed in a unique geographic location. Uniqueness does not imply non-shared environmental variables with the geographic location of other races.

Each race has a unique natural history.

Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary relationships; the more recent the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behaviors and other manifestations of gene expression.

There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the races.

Evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically-based traits.

see Avise JC, Ball RM. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. In: Futuyama D, Antonovics J, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Volume 7. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:45-67.

Based on this definition, there are no less than five distinct human races.

So there’s your biological concept of race right there, buddy. Feel free to come back with more nonsense that you heard from your Marxist sociology professor so that I can smack that down, too.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 5:04 am32Robert Lindsay

It’s completely obvious to me that there’s such a thing as race. That’s what I was trying to do with that classification of the human race that I did that for some reason Fred attacked. It divided Homo Sapiens into I think 82 minor races, I think 9 major races and I think 3 macro races on the sole basis (in general) of genetic distance.

Beyond that, it’s clear to me that race exists. Even if races don’t behave differently for biological reasons, they may for cultural reasons. What it boils down to is that when a White town turns Black or Hispanic (unless the non-Whites make good money) some very real and concrete changes occur than in many ways are not positive.

This comes from a guy who like Alec here has dated and slept with all sorts of non-White women. I did that because I am (was) a sex addict, not for racial reasons. So I don’t dislike Blacks or Hispanics. Nevertheless, when a town turns, it’s often not so great.

The debate about whether races act real for cultural or biological reasons is irrelevant. Bottom line is they just do. If you’re looking for a town to live in, that’s all you need to know.

Mass immigration of 3rd world poor and peasants has been catastrophic. Come to California and see for yourself. And I’m speaking as a Leftist. My problem is the immigrants are low quality. Nothing against Hispanics per se. I think quality Hispanic immigrants would be ok, so I doubt it’s a racial thing.

We are selective about African immigrants, and they do great. But importing Africa willy nilly like we do Mexicans would be a nightmare. Swathes of the US, instead of becoming Tijuanas, would become Lagoses. That’s worse.

It’s clear that Whites did create this country, and being White is something that one can be proud of, if you look on the positive side. The notion that Whites should be self-hating is perverse and nonsensical. When America loses its White majority, it will change, and not always for the better.

Obviously, miscegenation has always occurred and will always occur.

73% of US Whites are ethnocentric. They think that White culture is worthwhile and worth preserving. They are correct. As we fade to minority status, we have no choice but to encourage non-Whites to “act White” in the positive sense. To me, what’s important is not whether people are White or not, but whether they act White in a positive sense.

White nationalism doesn’t worry me, because I think it’s a lost cause. I talk to Whites and most of them are disgusted by WN. Obviously, it’s a failed movement with no future.

“Preserving the White race” is an interesting idea, but I could care less about it.

Although racism is disgusting, WN’s make many interesting claims and points that ought to be examined scientifically, no matter how repugnant they are.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 5:21 am33weston

I’m English and blonde with pale skin. And I’m not white. I’m alive.

You say you’re “alive”, I say you’re an automaton mindlessly aping a sub-moronic non-culture.

I find it’s best just to eat healthily, do plenty of exercise and be sexually fulfilled - you know, real methods to attain contentment-, but maybe that’s just me.

So, your life consists of running around, eating, and fucking. How is this in any way distinguishable from the life of an animal?
on 10 Feb 2009 at 5:30 am34weston

White nationalism doesn’t worry me, because I think it’s a lost cause. I talk to Whites and most of them are disgusted by WN.

Of course they react this way, considering that white nationalism has never been given anything close to fair hearing, and that the average white’s only exposure is through the propaganda of anti-white racists. Any political position could be made to seem repugnant if the only exposure it received was through those that hate it.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 5:36 am35weston

Obviously, it’s a failed movement with no future.

Nonsense. It’s impossible for anyone, even a genius like Lindsay, to say what the future holds. At the beginning of the 20th century, most would have predicted that the complete and utter and domination of multiculturalism in the West was not possible.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 6:07 am36Iceman

Particularly to Lindsay, here is a more polished version of the comments I made earlier in this thread.
http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/?p=631

The basic point is that exists, but racial differences are more like a collection of individual traits caused by a few important genes, whereas the differences of species are more like a change in the structures which hold the genes. So while race exists, certainly there is no doubt that all races are quite similar in the basics of their DNA, it is just that important genes make the difference.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 6:08 am37Iceman

*race exists
on 10 Feb 2009 at 10:04 am38Alec Cockbelly

Guys, you are focusing (for good reason) on the fact that I’m talking a lot about sex, but I’m really using it for effect - I’m fairly sure you don’t like the idea of a blonde white metalhead copulating with women from Africa, so I’m putting it out there. I actually have a stable family life.

Iceman: All that blog told me was that resettlements of people had introduced homogenised groups in the 20th century, not that Germans and Poles have historically been entirely separate groups, although it is an interesting idea if that is the case too. Another interesting implication of the work is this: Germans are not a homogenous group and clearly have plenty of ancestry which was not originally German, in the sense of Germanic-speaking people who came from Scandinavia. So that shifts the question of who they did get it on with.
I daresay that the Polish population will change significantly after having moved across Europe, to France, the UK and Ireland. They come over here and make money, and make money for everyone, in the end, and they also have sex. One of my buddies is married to a Polish woman who came over here a few years ago.

Weston: “white nationalism has never been given anything close to fair hearing”
Really? Never? Even when there were actually laws governing the idea, keeping whites from having sex with blacks and others? It seems like it was given a 300 year long hearing, and after all that time, people decided that it was a stupid idea.
HOW DOES IT CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR HAPPINESS IN ANY WAY THAT SOME WHITE PEOPLE YOU DON’T KNOW ONLY FUCK OTHER WHITE PEOPLE YOU DON’T KNOW? Could you answer that? It seems like it would make no difference whatsoever to happiness, at all.
You’re all doing this for purely aesthetic reasons. You love “whiteness”, love the idea of white people and the old times of manners and whiteness and blah blah blah. It’s all just nonsense, though. White people are just as scared, shit, stupid, cultureless, boring, and venial as any other people. Alexander Pope wrote the Dunciad in an all white culture, effectively, for the same reasons that Bill Hicks did his stand up; because people are stupid whatever culture they come from, and upholding standards is something they find hard to do, whatever standards they may be.
There’s nothing wrong with that, it just happens to be true. People kinda suck, and white people are just like all other people in that respect.

You know what I love? It’s a bunch of racists, whose ideas are clearly against science, decency, and reason, psychologically analysing me and claiming that I’m only interested in boning. Let me try some silly armchair psychology that probably isn’t right: I’m going to guess that at some point, each one of you had a white girlfriend stolen away by a bigger black dude.
Makes as much sense as saying that I’m motivated solely by getting my rocks off.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 11:39 am39bah

Lindsay,

White nationalism doesn’t worry me, because I think it’s a lost cause. I talk to Whites and most of them are disgusted by WN.

Most of them only know about it through lies disseminated by liars like you. Too often they are right to be disgusted. But with only a few easy adjustments racialism can quickly be shown to be perfectly moral, and a practically far superior arrangement to multiracialism.

Robert Lindsay is thoroughly incapable of speaking honestly about WN. He can’t even handle straightforward discussion about it in private. He is, essentially, an idiot. (I find him as idiotic as I find Fred Scrooby and F. Braun repulsive, which is certainly saying something.)

Obviously, it’s a failed movement with no future.

Actually, what is obvious are the advantages that the homogeneity it seeks and requires would bring.

Whether whites manage to preserve themselves or not, racialism is the future. If whites assert themselves racially, everyone else will follow suit and the claims of non-white anti-racists will reveal themselves as the pretense they surely are (they have something on the order of zero interest in or respect for negroes, as but one example). If whites become extinct, the same will eventually ensue.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 11:51 am40bah

because people are stupid whatever culture they come from, and upholding standards is something they find hard to do, whatever standards they may be.

And yet some races do so much more successfully than others. That alone is an excellent reason for whites to wish to preserve themselves: their living standards can only suffer decline as they are replaced by less intelligent, more rancorous races who hate them and blame them for all their failings.

Alec, you can’t possibly have much experience with black Africans. There are plenty of them in your country (if you’re British). Why don’t you go try living around them for a while? Blacks to me are the epitome of multiracial impossibility — and that was long before I learnt anything of their true nature. I wasn’t thrilled to learn it, but obviously the same reasoning can be extended to the other races, less radically different than black Africans, with whom the “impossibility factor” is diminished — sometimes so much so that it isn’t even apparent. Yet it’s there. It’s always been there. And it needs to be acted on in order to secure greater happiness for future generations. It’s true that it’s a happiness which some races will enjoy much sooner than others, but that is the only course of action with any promise. The alternative is mayhem and misery without end.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 12:18 pm41bah

Alec,

5) On what grounds do you reject it? I mean, it’s not enough to say that you’re not a libertarian - you’d have to show why being a libertarian is wrong.

My suspicion is he’s a control freak. He’s not alone. There seems to be this haunting fear in white intellectual racialist circles of people engaging in activities that aren’t a straight celebration of racial life, race, in their view, being the only meaningful reason to live. At its most visceral this fear culminates in an intense, implacable hatred of all inferiority, and a desire, not uncommonly expressly stated, to eradicate every trace of it. It’s a sort of mirror image of the commie inability to tolerate any manifestation of superiority/inequality without wanting to try something, anything to stamp it out, in the meantime ascribing every extent misery to it.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 12:50 pm42bah

Alec,

Weston: “white nationalism has never been given anything close to fair hearing”
Really? Never? Even when there were actually laws governing the idea, keeping whites from having sex with blacks and others? It seems like it was given a 300 year long hearing, and after all that time, people decided that it was a stupid idea.

Yes, intellectual racialists aren’t too keen on admitting that multiracialism was an idea that simply had to be tried. They’re even less keen on my observation that now that’s it has been tried and has proven a massive failure, a failure so massive that it can only be masked by constant propaganda and heavy-handed censorship, there is an important, indeed invaluable, lesson to be drawn from the experience. Most of them, I think, are just so livid that they are living toward the tail end of the experiment, amid the ubiquitous fallout from its shortcomings, that they refuse to accept that hadn’t the 60s generation tried another generation would have. They seem to prefer playing the blame game than advancing a program that will reverse multiracialism.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 12:56 pm43Alec Cockbelly

I’m exactly the opposite of a control freak, bah. I’m a fucking libertarian - if you only want to fuck white women, then only fuck white women. My point, that I’ve repeated often, is that if you try to impose your anti-scientific nonsense on me and others, then you’ll find yourself with a big fist in the mouth. Fair? I think so. I don’t want to control you; I just don’t want you to control me.

And it’s not that I’m some socialist who thinks that all people are exactly equal; it’s that race and attitudes to it are just one (tiny) facet of what makes an individual good or bad at something, and that judgements based on race won’t get you very far in predicting the precise future of an individual. There are plenty of white fuckwits around, plenty of stupids and trailer park inhabitants. I’m nowhere near as incisive and smart as Thomas Sowell, I can’t wail on the guitar like Prince, and I don’t have a Nobel prize like Stephen Chu. To say that someone from a certain race cannot achieve because of their race is clearly incorrect, and if you use statistic to judge your reactions to someone, then you’re an idiot.

I actually have plenty of experience with Africans. I lived in Birmingham in the 90s, which has an enormous Afro-Caribbean population. Also notice that Greg Laden has clearly spent a lot of time in Africa, with Africans, and doesn’t share your opinions. Maybe you need to spend more time with Africans, dude.

Statistically, some racial groups do better in certain countries. The causes for this are not genetic in the majority of cases; they are social. OK, you’re going to disagree with that one, but I’ve lived in Taiwan, and I saw plenty of stupid people there. There are stupid people everywhere. And yet, Asian Americans are the most successful ethnic group in the nation, and that goes here in the UK too. Asians do have on average higher IQs than Europeans; that definitely has something to do with it. But it’s a matter of a couple of points, and clearly diet, social status, and money make a difference to IQ score along with genetics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
And genetics do make a difference; it’s just that you can’t actually predict someone’s IQ based on their race. IQ averages don’t tell you all that much.
IQ is also not the best way to predict success. Richard Feynman, an absolutely hero and one of the smartest people I can realistically imagine, had an IQ of something like 120, high but not that high.
And on top of that, combining with the indubitable fact that a larger gene pool is better for an individual in any population, why wouldn’t you want to fuck Asians? Why would you prevent white people from getting off with Asians and producing children with a higher likelihood of a higher IQ? It seems like a no brainer to me.

You claim that multiracial societies and miscegenation create “mayhem and misery without end”. That must be problematic to prove, since we are now living in possibly the greatest time in history. Several diseases have been wiped off the planet by modern science and knowledge as a whole is at a peak never before known. People have ample opportunities to feed and clothe themselves, all around the world, and life expectancy, quality of life, and yes, IQ, have all gone up globally since the end of WWII by unprecedented amounts. If multiculturalism and interracial sex are so evil, they’ve yet to show that. In reality, you’re a misguided twit, thinking that the cure to your own mental ills is to impose same race boning on everyone.

Chill out and stop caring about race. It’s not that important.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 2:12 pm44Fred Scrooby

“that classification of the human race that I did that for some reason Fred attacked.” ( — Robert Lindsay)

Sorry, I don’t remember why I attacked it. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

“Even if races don’t behave differently for biological reasons, they may for cultural reasons. [...] The debate about whether races act [different] for cultural or biological reasons is irrelevant.” ( — Robert Lindsay)

No, that’s the crux. That right there is precisely why the matter is crucial. Race, i.e., biology, produces culture. Culture doesn’t produce race. Poles can’t make or sustain Italian culture or vice-versa and the reason they can’t is the genes so you can’t get in there and do anything about it. They just can’t. The genetic incapacity is only more pronounced the further apart racially you get — whites and Negroes for example.

“multiracialism was an idea that simply had to be tried.” ( — “Bah,” Silver’s latest incarnation)

No, anyone with two eyes always understood what Negroes were, that mulattoes were half-way between Negroes and us, and that mulatto demographics such as the centuries-old and millennia-old ones in Brazil, Egypt, and the Maghreb, weren’t what we wanted to change our white demographics into. There was no need to “try the experiment and see what would happen”: one look at what happened to Egypt gave the answer to that cockeyed notion. No one but the Jews wanted to “try multiracialism,” and for the Jews the insistence on trying it has been merely a form of attack on the Eurochristian people whom they fervently want to extinguish by turning them into mystery meat. It’s very simple.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 2:17 pm45Lenny

Alec Cockbelly:
Chill out and stop caring about race. It’s not that important.

To a nihilist, nothing is “that important”. Non-nihilists, OTOH, actually do care about things.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 2:51 pm46Fred Scrooby

As “The Narrator” put it this morning, over at MR.com,

“Philosophies can be adapted and updated. Religions can be adopted or abandoned. But Race is the only concrete thing upon which Western Civilization truly stands….past, present and (hopefully) future.”

( http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/no_anti_semites_just_anti_europeans/#c69310 )
on 10 Feb 2009 at 3:33 pm47Lenny

A white person “not caring” about white extinction is philosophically equivalent to a human being “not caring” about human extinction.

One of the great tragedies of 1945 was that it ended racial discussion in mainstream historiography in the Western world. Today there’s thousands of Alec Cockbellys shouting that Nihilism Is Great, Race Doesn’t Matter, etc. for every person who would dare point out that Rome pretty obviously declined and fell because it became a bloated multiracial empire with miscegenation rife.

Even though race is pretty clearly “the key to history” (as Disraeli said), 1945 ensured that new generations were socialized to enthusiastically believe the opposite.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 3:49 pm48Robert Lindsay

Here you go, Fred. The classification is at the end. The Caucasian one needs some fixing, because for one I want to create some sub-races in the Caucasus, Russia and with the Jews. They’re all close to mainstream Euros, but outside the main cluster. I’m also debating whether or not to give Yugoslavs a subrace. Clearly an outlier.

There’s really no agenda to that at all. It’s supposed to be just based on genetic distance. In a few cases in N Africa though, I ended up with obvious Caucasians and obvious Africans in one race (like Algerians and Nubians) so I had to go beyond genetics and toss one to Caucasian and one to African because having Blacks in Caucasian or Whites in African seemed too stupid.

Also there was one Asian group that landed over in Caucasians on some charts (Chukchi) so I had to move them. Berbers ended up slightly in the Black quadrant, even if they are mostly White.

I’m not into race-denial, but race is clearly a little bit fuzzy. There’s a cline running through N Africa and the ME where it gets really hard to toss people into Caucasian or African. And a similar one going from about Turkey to the Chukchi Peninsula where it gets really hard to toss people into White or Asian. Both groups are kind of riding the borders.

WN’s sometimes get mad that I had to put Sardinians and Basques outside main Euros, but that was a genetic necessity.

Chinese and some others got furious that I threw Hong Kong Chinese in a subrace with “inferior” Filipinos, but that’s what the genetics said.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 4:26 pm49Prozium

1.) If that were true, then Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews ought to have substantially interbred with Europeans. This doesn’t appear to be the case. Jews still cluster at the genetic level with other Levantine populations like the Syrians. The genetic evidence only shows that a male of the Jefferson line could have fathered Sally Hemmings’ children. It doesn’t prove that Thomas Jefferson was the father; a charge he vehemently denied at the time.

2) The land I am sitting on now used to belong to the Creek Indians. They were deported to Oklahoma in the 1830s by the federal government to make room for white settlers. The notion that the United States was a “white man’s country” (created by whites for their posterity) used to be as mainstream and unquestioned as the contemporary anti-racist consensus is today. Until the 1970s, only a handful of Americans believed that aliens races have just as much a right to be here as whites.

3.) The negro did not acquire U.S. citizenship until the 14th Amendment was ratified during Reconstruction. The Dred Scott decision (and legal precedent before that) held that negroes were ineligible to become American citizens on racial grounds.

4.) Land can be held in common as a trust for future generations of our race. This is the system we should move to after dispensing with liberalism.

5.) My ancestors were settlers, not immigrants. They created a new civilization out of the wilderness where one did not exist before. Immigrants have contributed to America’s prosperity, but they only came here later to take advantage of our prosperity and high standard of living.

The increase in life expectancy, scientific progress, as well as access to modern conveniences such as computers, cell phones, dishwashers, central heating and so on has nothing whatsoever to do with third world immigration from Asia and Latin America. It is due to the ingenuity of American natives. All of this happened in spite of, not because of immigration of unskilled, uneducated, impoverished common laborers. The benefits of immigration (their contribution to our GDP) accrue exclusively to the immigrants themselves and their employers. The costs fall on American taxpayers.

Feel free to look up the statistics. Mexican immigrants are poorer, less educated, carry diseases, more involved with gangs, and work for lower wages than American natives, although they are not necessarily more inclined to criminality. They run down areas where they settle en masse. Robert Lindsay is from California and can testify to that effect from first hand experience.

6.) American culture has degenerated significantly since the mid-twentieth century: more Americans live anonymous lives in weaker communities than ever before, divorce is far more common, the illegitimacy rate is much higher, far more children live in single parent homes, miscegenation is more common, more families are on welfare than before, violent crime is far more common, the teenage suicide rate is much higher, teen pregnancy is more common, more time is spent watching television than engaging in family activities, SAT scores are lower, American culture is hypersexualized, teenagers have dozens of sex partners (”hooking up”) while still in high school, violence and vulgarity have moved from the fringes of our culture to its center, music and films are cruder, concepts like “ladies” and “gentlemen” have vanished, harlotry is now glorified, celebrities have replaced heroes, etc.

7.) You have been misinformed. The majority of white Southerners are of English ancestry. The Scot-Irish settled the Southern backcountry and Appalachia. English settlers were far more common than Scottish settlers in the South; the latter tended to settle in the Mid-Atlantic states.

8.) The harm principle is baseless. It doesn’t have a foundation. There is no such thing as a “natural right” to liberty. “Rights” are discursive constructs that evolved from earlier precursors in English common law. It is not logically incumbent upon me (as a critic) to disprove the harm principle either. Wasting my life away indulging in drugs and frivilous sex strikes me as a shallow, meaningless, irresponsible, empty existence - one that is ultimately parasitic on a civilization based upon different mores.

9.) Your lifestyle strikes me as rootless existence. You wander from place to place like a nomad, sampling exotic cuisines and copulating with alien women, in all likelihood stimulating yourself with drugs, never stopping in any one place long enough to contribute to or cultivate any tradition. It is a tourist’s view of the world; one that is always in transit and never at home in any particular place. It is sad really that you equate such a meaningless, dissolute, unattached life with happiness. The Romans would have equated it with barbarism.

10.) Racial preservation is a logical extension of a collectivist frame of mind. Segregation is a logical extension of a racialist mindset.

- You can’t seem to make up your mind on race. In one post, you deny that race exists. In the next, you boast about miscegenation and relapse into using racial and ethnic categories.

- Racial preservation is actually quite easy to implement. All it requires is legal, geographic, and cultural barriers to miscegenation. This will prevent gene flow between racial populations. Given enough time, the two populations will diverge into separate species.

- Ethnocentrism is natural. It is found in varying degrees across all human societies. The happiness felt by the future success of one’s own race or ethnicity is an example of kin selection.

11.) BTW, I usually do around 30 pushups a day.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 4:28 pm50bah

Scrooby,

No, anyone with two eyes always understood what Negroes were, that mulattoes were half-way between Negroes and us, and that mulatto demographics such as the centuries-old and millennia-old ones in Brazil, Egypt, and the Maghreb, weren’t what we wanted to change our white demographics into. There was no need to “try the experiment and see what would happen”

…

No one but the Jews wanted to “try multiracialism,”

Why do you insist on telling yourself ridiculous lies like this when the facts so clearly state otherwise?

Even today, with evidence abounding to the contrary, there are countless white (and other) numbskulls who, inexplicably, insist that racial differences are illusory or insignificant and that multiracial societies are mega cool stuff, that the “experiment” has proved a smashing success.

Poles can’t make or sustain Italian culture or vice-versa and the reason they can’t is the genes so you can’t get in there and do anything about it. They just can’t.

But both can do American culture no problem, nothing to it, right?

Sheesh, you just can’t make this stuff up. Just incredible. Well, actually, no… you’ve never really been able to get your story straight. Not that that’s dimmed your enthusiasm, hell no.

Alec,

I’m exactly the opposite of a control freak, bah. I’m a fucking libertarian

Me too. Kind of. Not the “big L,” dogmatic, devout, government-is-the-cause-of-all-our-problems type. Just a belief that this, imperfect as it is sure to be, is probably the most rational way to go about things, and allows the greatest possibility for correcting for inevitable fuck-ups, whose framework provides the individual the widest scope for self-fulfillment and pursuit of meaning in this thing called life. Someone in Kenneth Minogue’s mold, I like to think.

My point, that I’ve repeated often, is that if you try to impose your anti-scientific nonsense on me and others, then you’ll find yourself with a big fist in the mouth.

Then I guess you’d best prepare to be socked in the mouth, because any political arrangement that ignores or irrationally downplays the significance of race is pretty much by definition ‘anti-scientific’. Okay, kidding aside, what exactly do you suppose is anti-scientific about racialism? If anything, I would have thought the view that race doesn’t exist (or is insignificant if it does) is as dogmatically anti-scientific as it gets.

And it’s not that I’m some socialist who thinks that all people are exactly equal; it’s that race and attitudes to it are just one (tiny) facet of what makes an individual good or bad at something, and that judgements based on race won’t get you very far in predicting the precise future of an individual.

Alec, Alec, Alec, that’s all perfectly true. But this isn’t about how you or I can best get ahead, make the most friends, or — you’ll love this one — bone the most chicks. We’re talking about effects on society of various population groups in the aggregate. It’s perfectly legitimate to assess them on this basis — and to base policies on such findings.

I actually have plenty of experience with Africans. I lived in Birmingham in the 90s, which has an enormous Afro-Caribbean population.

In that charming little hamlet, Birmingham, eh? /smirk. Come on Al, where exactly in Birmingham did you live? Anywhere near the Africans, where you’d be surrounded by them daily?

And on top of that, combining with the indubitable fact that a larger gene pool is better for an individual in any population, why wouldn’t you want to fuck Asians? Why would you prevent white people from getting off with Asians and producing children with a higher likelihood of a higher IQ? It seems like a no brainer to me.

Because monoracial societies are superior. Procreating mongrels with Asians makes it more difficult to achieve monoracial conditions. Since associating with your own kind is more rewarding than associating with other races, my kind loses if it breeds with Asians so I’d prefer to prevent them from doing so, and excluding them (as kindly as possible) if I’m unable. This may never come to pass, but I consider it the wiser course of action. (I have something of a personal stake in this, btw. My cousin married a Malay and produced two half-breeds. They are fine kids and I certainly don’t hate them, but neither am I nearly as enthusiastic about them as I would have been had my cousin bred truer. Mixed couples should avail themselves of reproductive technology and produce monoracial offspring; their kids and families will thank them for it.)

You claim that multiracial societies and miscegenation create “mayhem and misery without end”. That must be problematic to prove, since we are now living in possibly the greatest time in history. Several diseases have been wiped off the planet by modern science and knowledge as a whole is at a peak never before known. People have ample opportunities to feed and clothe themselves, all around the world, and life expectancy, quality of life, and yes, IQ, have all gone up globally since the end of WWII by unprecedented amounts. If multiculturalism and interracial sex are so evil, they’ve yet to show that. In reality, you’re a misguided twit, thinking that the cure to your own mental ills is to impose same race boning on everyone.

Oh you silly, smarmy git. Mass multiracialism and multiculturalism are recent innovations and have had nothing to do with the advances you cite; we’re riding on the crest of a wave that’s about to come rudely crashing down. It’s about the future, Alec, not about the moment — which is apparently all you’re interested in living in.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 5:42 pm51Fred Scrooby

Robert Lindsay, thanks for posting the link. I vaguely recall looking through that when it was first up. I don’t recall why I criticised it, and I didn’t see comments by me in the thread there, so it must have been elsewhere that I said something.

I don’t have time just at the moment to read through it, but I will later.

I consider it obvious and not even remotely falsifiable that True West-Central African Negroes and True Europeans are different species, not just different races.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 6:29 pm52Iceman

Western Ashkeanzi Jews may not have bred with Europeans much. A little bit, but not that much.

But Russian Jews definately have bred with Eastern Europeans.

Sephardic Jews are a mediterranean population. If they are (indigenous) Arabs they are Mediterraneans and if they are Spainards they are also Mediterraneans.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 6:35 pm53Iceman

Lindsay and I have one trait in common. We are both “racial sociopaths” who don’t care about offending anybody and draw our categories based on genetics.

I don’t care if it offends people to say that Greeks (and therefore West Europeans) are linked to Arabs. They are.

I don’t care if it offends Russian Jews to tell them that they are impure. They are.

I don’t care if it offends Nazis to tell them that Slavs have more indo-aryan blood than Germans. They do.

And I agree about basques.

That is the differences between race realism and white nationalism.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 6:59 pm54bah

It’s your imprecision and dubious reasoning people take issue with, Iceman.

I don’t care if it offends people to say that Greeks (and therefore West Europeans) are linked to Arabs. They are.

What does “linked to” mean? And what connection does that establish to “Western Europeans” (such as…?)?

I don’t care if it offends Nazis to tell them that Slavs have more indo-aryan blood than Germans. They do.

What the heck is “Indo-Aryan” blood and do you seriously think any German racialist (”nazi”) could possibly give a shit anyway?

I don’t see eye to eye with Rienzi on very much at all, but it’s rather obvious he’s got a better grip on race than you.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 7:17 pm55Iceman

This would be obvious to anyone who posts on anthropology forums (real ones, not JWH’s website), but I’ll explain it anyways. This proves that geography doesn’t lie. Indeed, Slavs are closer to indo-aryans in DNA than Germans are.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1235289

Two Y-chromosome lineages, HG 9 and HG 3, show frequency clines that may reflect population movements in southwestern Asia (fig. 1A and B).

In other words, HG 3 is an indo-aryan haplotype.

http://racialreality.110mb.com/indo_europeans.html

“The distribution of HG 3 chromosomes is also strongly clinal, but with a very different axis and more on a regional scale…. It reaches its highest frequencies in central-eastern Europe, comprising approximately half of the chromosomes in the Russian, Polish, and Slovakian samples; frequencies in the southeast and southwest are low. This distribution resembles the third principal component of variation of classical gene frequencies, which has been interpreted by some geneticists (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994) as marking the movement, from north of the Caspian Sea, of the Kurgan people, dated to ~7,000 YBP.”

HG3 Frequencies in European, Central Asian and Mediterranean groups:

Poles………..54%
Russians……..47%
Slovaks………47%
Belarusians…..39%
Czechs……….38%
Slovenians……37%
Latvians……..41%
Lithuanians…..34%
Norwegians……31%
Ukrainians……30%
Mari…………29%
Estonians…….27%
Germans………23%
Hungarians……22%
Lapps………..21%
Icelanders……21%
Romanians…….20%
Swedes……….18%
Chuvash………18%
Yugoslavs…….16%
Dutchmen……..13%
Bulgarians……12%
Finns………..10%
East Anglians….9%
Greeks………..8%
Scots…………7%
Danes…………7%
Georgians……..6%
Armenians……..6%
Turks…………5%
Frenchmen……..5%
Belgians………4%
Ossetians……..2%
Cypriots………2%
Spaniards……..2%
Italians………1%
Portuguese…….1%
Irishmen………1%
Cornish……….0%
Basques……….0%
Algerians……..0%
North Africans…0%

from same website

The thing is, these are not dissident sources. You can find plenty of respected studies that would support my position. I agree with some of the other stuff written by RR too, but I didn’t post it because it was irrelevant to the topic.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 7:21 pm56Iceman

I answered your questions but it is marked as spam because of links. Prozium has to okay my post.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 7:21 pm57Alec Cockbelly

“I consider it obvious and not even remotely falsifiable that True West-Central African Negroes and True Europeans are different species, not just different races.”

Fred, you might want to look up the definition of “falsifiable”. It might surprise you to learn that you scuppered your own fucking boat.
Idiot.

OK, there are some pretty long screeds above. I’m going to sound like a coward here and say I’m too bored to continue. But here’s the thing - there are some blatantly obvious fallacies above, such as the idea that “monoracialism” is superior to a larger gene pool. First, the dude shows no inclination to prove that, and second, it’s actually completely untrue - a larger gene pool reduces chances of disease destroying a population, for instance.
Here’s something new for ya: To assert something does not make it factual.

Now, it’s been nice talking to you. I’ve discovered what it is you believe, and I have to say, it all sounds like a pile of shit. I have to say, I didn’t expect too much, and you’ve not disappointed.

And as for Jefferson… come off it.

You know what’s ironic? I’m probably the most “Aryan” looking person here. My hair is white blonde and runs down to my collarbone. I’ve worked out three times a week for fifteen years, and I listen to Viking metal. Why is it that I’m the only one here with the cojones and sense to see through this shit? Why are you all such ooze? Why don’t you want to leave the fucking swamp and take a look around?

Well done with your 30 push ups, Prozium. You might want to try something called “progression”, though….
on 10 Feb 2009 at 7:22 pm58Alec Cockbelly

Birmingham isn’t a charming little hamlet, fuckwad. It’s the second biggest city in the UK. And I lived with a Jamaican guy; most Afro-Caribbeans get annoyed if you call them “African”…
on 10 Feb 2009 at 8:29 pm59Robert Lindsay

Yeah, Fred, I think it was back when you and I were fighting it out a lot.

I don’t agree with some stuff posted here. Jews have clearly bred in quite a bit with Europeans. A lot of them seem to be actually converts of some sort or another. They are close to Arabs on some charts, yes. But if you compare them to Arabs as a whole, not so much. Mostly they are close to Turks, Armenians, Kurds. And that is where the Caucasian/Asian cline starts.

Jews, Turks, Armenians, Kurds (Anatolians) are sort of hard to toss into Asians or Caucasians. But none are real far from mainstream Euros. They’re kind of a Euro subrace. Yugoslavs, Russians, Caucasus, Basques, Greeks and Sardinians seem farther away from main Euros than Anatolians (they’re really outside the main group). Greeks are the Euro subrace that links Euros to Arabs - the only one.

But Arabs are not really a Euro race - they are outside that. If you don’t like Jews and want to say they are a Euro subrace hostile to most Euros, that would make more sense. Iranians are actually really close to Euros. You can almost call them a Euro subrace. I would not mess around with one little blood group for categorization. Better to look at autosomal DNA or MtDNA in toto. Cavalli-Sforza is the gold standard.

Bottom line is I don’t think that WN’s should base being White or being Euro on genes. Geography, phenotype, culture might make more sense.

Mexicans are more inclined to crime than Whites! Oh yeah!
on 10 Feb 2009 at 8:57 pm60Robert Lindsay

Fred, I don’t want to get into the whether or not some races are subspecies or species thing (yuck). Thing, Africans are dramatically, incredibly different from the entirety of the rest of the human race. They are an “outlier” compared to the rest of humanity. I’ll just leave it at that. We can clearly breed with them no problem, but…Aborigines and Papuans are also outrageously different from everyone else.

Ethiopian types are very different from the rest of Blacks, they are sort of transitional between Blacks and Caucasians (I mean they are part way in between). If you divide humanity into racial quadrants, NE Asian, Caucasian, SE Asian/Australoid, Africans, you have Berbers that are barely into Macro-Africans. But they are vastly away from the rest of Africans (kind of General African). I’m going to be Black-friendly here and just say Black folks are really different!
on 10 Feb 2009 at 9:03 pm61Robert Lindsay

Silver, have you ever seen a dialect chain? That’s what races really are, at base. So you have mainstream Euros, then a Greek outlier, then Arabs. Euros and Arabs are clearly separate subraces, and probably Greeks too. But Greeks and linked to both and serve to connect the two of them as a linking point. So, are Euros close to Arabs or vice versa? No, but Greeks are, and serve to link them. Set theory also is a good visualizer.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 9:52 pm62Iceman

You say “Asians” and “Cacuasians” as if the two terms are mutually exclusive.

Afghans / indigenous Indians (not racially mixed modern Indians) and Arabs are indeed Caucasians, event though they are Asians.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 9:56 pm63Iceman

The explanation of the variation within Europe is the fact that there are dual origins - Indo-Aryans from the East and Mediterraneans from the South.

Further southwest = more mediterranean
Further Northeast = more indo-aryan

If you had a line measuring the genetic variation of Caucasoids, it would go in this order.

North Africans / Arabs - > Europeans <- Indo-Aryans

The two extremes of the Caucasoid race exist within Asia, and Europeans are mixes between those two extremes in varying proportions on a northwest/southeast axis.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 10:04 pm64Iceman

Also Europeans have lighter pigmentation due solely to natural and sexual selection caused by exiting the desert. Nords couldn’t survive in the desert.

But founding populations of Europe indeed were South Asians and Mediterraneans (ie, similar to Arabs).
on 10 Feb 2009 at 10:21 pm65Fred Scrooby

“I’m going to be Black-friendly here and just say Black folks are really different!” ( — Robert Lindsay)

It’s not black-unfriendly to opine that they’re a different species, any more than it’s white-unfriendly to say they’re a different species. Yet both views are the case: Negroes are a different species from Euros and Euros are a different species from Negroes. Neither should take those facts as something negative. Is it negative for polar bears and grizzly bears to be different species? African elephants and Indian elephants? Coyotes and wolves? Neither is it in the case of True Euros and West-Central African True Negroes.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 10:57 pm66Robert Lindsay

Asians = Mongoloids. Those Afghans and East Indians are really on the border of Caucasians and Mongoloids, though I put them in Caucasians. Caucasians and North Mongoloids are pretty close for major races.
on 10 Feb 2009 at 11:39 pm67Iceman

I’d say Afghans are further out of the woods than Indians. Indians have miscegenated more

Here is a typical afghan man.
http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS276&=&q=afghan%20man&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

If you lowered their pigmentation, they would be hard to distinguish from Georgians, Ossetians, etc. in terms of bone structure.
on 11 Feb 2009 at 4:52 am68Robert Lindsay

Yes, a lot of Afghans definitely look like White people. They want to be White too. I had an Afghan doctor and I told him that Afghans were White and he about jumped out of his chair. “Yes! We are Aryans! We are the original White people!” he said.

Too bad WN’s don’t want to let these guys into the party.
on 11 Feb 2009 at 4:55 am69Lenny

What “party”? Being white in the USA is a slur to be avoided these days.
on 11 Feb 2009 at 1:08 pm70bah

Ice,

Indeed, Slavs are closer to indo-aryans in DNA than Germans are.

What exactly is an “Indo-Aryan”? Got a pic of one for me?

More importantly, and this is where it gets hilarious, I can’t help but picture some German gently nudging and leading you towards the door, smiling and nodding his head at your explications, “Yes, yes, you are the “real” Aryans. Good-bye now.”

Point is: who cares about any of this “Indo-Aryan” trivia? And why would some German be “offended” by it?

Alec,

OK, there are some pretty long screeds above. I’m going to sound like a coward here and say I’m too bored to continue. But here’s the thing - there are some blatantly obvious fallacies above, such as the idea that “monoracialism” is superior to a larger gene pool. First, the dude shows no inclination to prove that, and second, it’s actually completely untrue - a larger gene pool reduces chances of disease destroying a population, for instance.
Here’s something new for ya: To assert something does not make it factual.

I’d be quite happy to put forward my case for monoracialism. It’s certainly not at all difficult. But you said yourself you’re too bored to continue. I don’t think you’re too bored at all. I think you’ve come here, steam gushing from your ears in outrage at what you’re reading, and tried to simply shut everybody up. Well, that might help you sleep a little easier, but it doesn’t make the problems go away. I submit your purported “libertarianism” is no more than an immature and irresponsible refusal to face reality, racial reality.

Birmingham isn’t a charming little hamlet, fuckwad. It’s the second biggest city in the UK.

Er, you don’t say. I guess that one went whooshing right over your head.

And I lived with a Jamaican guy

I want to know if you lived they live, or near them, where you see them all over the place and are forced to interact with them every day. Living with one is meaningless if you lived well away from the rest of them.

; most Afro-Caribbeans get annoyed if you call them “African”…

I’m addressing you here, not them. They’re black Africans; it makes no difference to me where any in particular are from.

Now, it’s been nice talking to you. I’ve discovered what it is you believe, and I have to say, it all sounds like a pile of shit. I have to say, I didn’t expect too much, and you’ve not disappointed.

Fundamentally, we can divide people into those who consciously believe race matters (as opposed to simply acting as though they believed it, which describes probably most of the latter group) and those who insist that it doesn’t (marital and residential practices almost indistinguishable from the first group’s notwithstanding).

There are great differences of opinion (and differences of intensity of opinion) among those who believe race matters. It’s incredibly boneheaded to lump us all together. There are some slimy, vile types with whom I’d have nothing to do. Yet it’s almost impossible to discuss race anywhere without encountering them.
on 11 Feb 2009 at 1:23 pm71bah

Lindsay,

Silver, have you ever seen a dialect chain? That’s what races really are, at base. So you have mainstream Euros, then a Greek outlier, then Arabs. Euros and Arabs are clearly separate subraces, and probably Greeks too. But Greeks and linked to both and serve to connect the two of them as a linking point. So, are Euros close to Arabs or vice versa? No, but Greeks are, and serve to link them. Set theory also is a good visualizer.

I was taking Iceman to task for his imprecision, remember, as well as his dubious claims. So I want to know what “linked to” means before I decide whether it’s anything a Greek might be “offended” by.

Seems to me all he meant was that overlap exists. Of course, he meant to say Levantines, which is a little more racially precise than the incredibly racially vague “Arabs.” This isn’t dubiuos; it’s just inane. Overlap exists between Germans and Sicilians, but why describe this as “linked to” or add “and from there to Scotland”?

PS - don’t go getting too chummy with me, Lindsay. Remember, my motto is, “First, we kill all the commies.”
on 11 Feb 2009 at 2:19 pm72bah

I had an Afghan doctor and I told him that Afghans were White and he about jumped out of his chair. “Yes! We are Aryans! We are the original White people!” he said.

“Afghan” means “White Man” in Pashto doesn’t it?

Too bad WN’s don’t want to let these guys [Afghans] into the party.

Coming on the heals of:

Bottom line is I don’t think that WN’s should base being White or being Euro on genes. Geography, phenotype, culture might make more sense.

Afghan muslims are some of the most execrable muslims on earth (a set execrable enough on its own).

What do you care about WN for anyway, commie? You can’t even bring yourself to admit a permanent moratorium on immigration is a good idea. (Yeah, yeah, we know, we know. “White people” you’ve mentioned it to have blanched or stormed out of the room. Clearly it’s a no go.)

You really should endeavour to take your meds more regularly, Linds. You can be quite lucid when you’re brain is functioning normally.
on 11 Feb 2009 at 5:35 pm73Robert Lindsay

I’m trying to offer you guys some helpful advice on how to achieve your goals. Why? I dunno.

I know you fascists want to kill us. We advocate killing you too, you know. At least I do. My motto is, “You can make alliances with anyone, but no alliances with fascists. You don’t ally with fascists. You kill fascists.” Anyway, we have guns and bombs and all kinds of deadly weapons, and we actually use them around the world to attack, wound and kill lots of lots of people, unlike you guys these days. So we have lots of experience killing people, and I’m not worried about you all taking power and killing us.

It’s like this. Euros in general are not close to Arabs and vice versa. But Greeks are close to Euros, and Greeks are also close to Arabs. So Greeks are like the link that links Euros to Arabs. Similarly, Euros are not close to South Asians. But Iranians are close to South Asians, and they are also close to Euros. Iranians serve to link Euros to South Asians. Caucasians are actually pretty closely related, except the Kalash. There’s way more distance with NE Asians, SE Asians, Africans, Aborigines, Papuans, Oceanians. The real outliers in Caucasians are East Indians, Berbers and Arabs, especially Bedouins.

What meds?

Silver, Germans are not Aryans. That’s just some crap your hero the H-man made up. The real Aryans are people like my doctor, the Afghan. Tajiks, Punjabis, Iranians, etc etc.
on 11 Feb 2009 at 10:18 pm74Fred Scrooby

“I know you fascists want to kill us. We advocate killing you too, you know. At least I do. My motto is, ‘You can make alliances with anyone, but no alliances with fascists. You don’t ally with fascists. You kill fascists.’ “ ( — R. Lindsay)

If I’m a fascist, fascism must simply be the normal way to be, since I’m normal and totally apolitical. As a matter of fact, “fascism” as used by the so-called “left” designates normalness. The “left” want to kill everyone who’s normal.

I don’t want to kill anybody on political grounds. I do want criminal politicians arrested and tried on capital charges though, starting with George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld,
on 11 Feb 2009 at 10:20 pm75Fred Scrooby

The capital charges of course for those three would be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, starting aggressive wars, and high treason.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 6:06 am76bah

Lindsay,

What meds?

The meds you need to prevent you restating in thirteen sentences what I managed to say in one: overlap exists. You do it constantly. Every time you reappear on a WN board we have to read your autobiography about how you one day woke up “proud to be white”; and then your recitals about how towns turning some percent hispanic effectively ruins them, how every white you talk to is aghast at the idea of anything WN and so on. Over and over again. Grow up or something, eh?

Silver, Germans are not Aryans. That’s just some crap your hero the H-man made up. The real Aryans are people like my doctor, the Afghan. Tajiks, Punjabis, Iranians, etc etc.

The point is who gives a fuck what label you want to stick on them. Whatever “Germans” racially are is what they are; and what they are is obviously distinctly different to what Punjabbers are. Iceman, the “racial sociopath” (must be his jewish genes at work;) ), said he doesn’t care if Germans are offended by the fact (that he obviously loves to wave around) that easterners have more “indo-aryan” blood than Germans. My question was obviously what on earth is there to be offended by?

Lastly, dude, I’m much more of a liberal (classical lib/libertarian) than I am a fascist. But “fascism” is obviously miles more intelligent than communism. I like your motto, alliances with everyone except with commies. Bullets only for commies.

You’re wrong that it’s only you doing the fighting and killing. There are plenty of right-wing militias in Colombia (heroes to a man), and Brazil still maintains a subterranean Death Squad mentality. These people are my heroes, not the H-man.

That segues into my interest in race. There is altogether far too much genetic offal being produced, most of it on account of the emotional commitment commies (and people they’ve duped) like you have to absurd, thoroughly non-scientific, notions of equality. Demographics is destiny. It’s plainly insane to ignore it or downplay or to pretend that no action must be taken to shape it, that it’s some uncontrollable force of nature. That’s point one.

Point two is just the observation that people prefer people like themselves, the more like themselves the better. While a dash of racial diversity can sometimes be interesting or delightful (usually superficially), anything more is fatal, and racial separatism becomes necessary simply in order for future generations to be able to enjoy the same benefits of homogeneity. That’s because they’re always some fruitcakes in your group who will mate with genetic entities far removed from their own, like two cousins of mine have (a Malay and a negro), ruining it, in the long run, for everyone else. Racial separatism restricts their choice of mate. At bottom it’s just prudent planning for the future. And it’s guaranteed to work, completely unlike the loony schemes your boys come up with. Wouldn’t you like to put your name to something that works for once?
on 12 Feb 2009 at 8:28 am77ATBOTL

“Jews, Turks, Armenians, Kurds (Anatolians) are sort of hard to toss into Asians or Caucasians. But none are real far from mainstream Euros. They’re kind of a Euro subrace. Yugoslavs, Russians, Caucasus, Basques, Greeks and Sardinians seem farther away from main Euros than Anatolians (they’re really outside the main group). Greeks are the Euro subrace that links Euros to Arabs - the only one.”

This is just total nonsense with no basis in reality.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 9:39 am78Robert Lindsay

Hmm, well, I’d spare Fred, because for some reason I like him.

You support the paras in Colombia and the rightwing paras in Brazil. Those are more or less fascists, as we see it. So you support fascists.

You make a very interesting case for racial separation, but most people don’t really want it. Sure people like to live around their own kind, to some extent. But you don’t get it. Blacks prefer to live in mostly White towns. Any sane Hispanic does too. Here in CA, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don’t mind living with Whites at all. The cities where they are happiest of all are pretty thoroughly mixed.

These people are not idiots and they don’t hate Whites. I get the impression that a lot of these Hispanic and Black women around here want to grab a White guy. And in towns like mine, it’s so mixed that after a while, everyone starts mixing. Especially once they start getting some money, Hispanics and Whites start mixing bigtime. Hispanic-White mixing has been going on for a good 100 years here in CA to the point where it’s a major racial event.

The real problem from your POV is not that people prefer their own all that much (deep down inside they don’t care that much) but that once things get real mixed, Whites readily start mating out. It’s not the odd man either, it becomes quite common. Part of the reason is that the White man is seen as a good catch by non-White women. He treats them better and marrying White is moving up in the world. White guys will grab an Hispanic or Asian because they don’t care, or they’re exotic, or they’re traditional and submissive.

So from your POV, racially mixed places are deadly because Whites are simply going to start mating out. If you want to prevent this, you should encourage Whites to live with Whites, but most of them don’t give a damn enough to do that.

The real quandary here is you won’t get majority support for separatism. Hispanics and Blacks are not idiots, they know the more Whites around, the better. Most of them don’t want separatism. Just about all non-Whites will oppose separatism as some evil White plot.

And no way will you get most Whites to go along with separatism. You might have a while back, but as things get more and more mixed, more and more Whites start breeding out, and once they do that, they are pretty much lost to you guys. It’s not that separatism is a bad idea; that’s not the point. The point is no way will you ever get enough support for it for it to fly.

I don’t really know what advice to give you. Your best bet would be to try to encourage racially minded Whites to move to a particular part of the US where they could be with their own kind and form a good solid majority. And push for workable stuff like throwing out the illegals. Realistically, the US is a lost cause for any racially minded White. Maybe they should move to Europe or something.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 2:11 pm79Fred Scrooby

“they’re always some fruitcakes in your group who will mate with genetic entities” ( — Bah, aka Silver)

“Genetic entities.” I like that. I’m going to start using that alongside “mystery meat.” Just for a little variety in my terminology.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 8:10 pm80Iceman

Speculatively and jokingly, Lindsay, if we did “Caucasian nationalism,” the most unbiased way to do it would be to find the purest ideal Caucasoid, and include everyone who is within a certain amount of standard deviations from the mean based on the best autosomal DNA testing possible. IE if Portuguese and Basque show up as only marginally white and Jews, Iranains and Lebanese show up as white, then too bad. Certainly Basques are as far outside the mean in terms of standard deviation as Arabs. “Europeaness” shouldn’t matter, as that’s an artificial geographic barrier. The deviation between Greeks and Russians is certainly bigger than the deviation between Near easterners and Greeks. Going purely by DNA, it may be more logical to put Greeks with Arabs. haha.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 9:16 pm81Captainchaos

Lindsay,

Being proud of being White tends to arouse to impulse to preserve the White race. Get a clue.

P.S. I’m glad to see you didn’t actually kill Prozium, that would have been poor form; especially for a bleeding heart like you.

silver,

Florid insults and hyperbole, you are back in form. They don’t make wogs like you anymore, the mold has been broken. Keep it up.

Iceman,

Something tells me you and Dienekes would get along swimmingly.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 9:41 pm82Iceman

I’m a big Dienekes fan.

You guessed right! And I post on anthroscape too with RR.
on 12 Feb 2009 at 11:08 pm83Captainchaos

Nordics have EGI too.
on 13 Feb 2009 at 1:50 am84Iceman

I don’t necessary disagree with that. They do. But that doesn’t make everyone else “Non-white” or make the theories of Madison Grant correct.
on 13 Feb 2009 at 3:53 am85Robert Lindsay

Chaos, this is what you don’t understand. All over the world, most people are proud of their race or ethnicity. But nowadays, many of them will gladly miscegenate out, pollute their racial line, produce half-breeds and commit race suicide. At the same time, they are quite proud of their racial / ethnic heritage. Pride in heritage doesn’t have much of anything to do with wanting to preserve the race.
on 13 Feb 2009 at 5:25 pm86Captainchaos

Lindsay: “But nowadays, many of them will gladly miscegenate out, pollute their racial line, produce half-breeds and commit race suicide.”

What do the numbers say?

According to the 2000 Census 90.5% of non-Hispanic White women cohabitate with non-Hispanic White men. And 93.2% of non-Hispanic White men cohabitate with non-Hispanic White women.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t19/tables/tab02.pdf

Ever heard of Rushton’s genetic similarity theory?

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/N&N%202005-1.pdf

The propensity to miscegenate is most likely genetically based. The few race traitors there are, are being removed from our gene-pool. Which portends a higher level of ethnocentrism from Whites in the future.
on 13 Feb 2009 at 6:24 pm87Fred Scrooby

“The few race traitors there are, are being removed from our gene-pool. Which portends a higher level of ethnocentrism from Whites in the future.” ( — CC)

Not to mention a higher level of taste in the opposite sex.
on 13 Feb 2009 at 7:34 pm88Brazilification

Just at Stoddard predicted would happen in the 1920s (especially in regards to the USSR), in America we are in the midst of a revolt against Whites by the easily-led and easily deceived mixed-race masses which is, in effect, a revolt against civilization itself - http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01027004&id=sG8AAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP7

But of course the overlords of this new anti-civilization, this triumph of the mixed underman over the ‘evil White oppressors’ will be the Jews, who will obviously remain un-mixed and manage and profit from the teeming and uncivilized mixed masses; they will eventually lord over this anti-civilization cruelly and barbarically, living in their houses like kings up in the mountains while chaos and violence reigns below in the mixed valleys.
on 13 Feb 2009 at 7:46 pm89Brazilification

I also want to say that maybe a reason White solidarity is so difficult to come by in America is that very many American Whites are themselves quite mixed, a mixture between all kinds of different White European ethnic groups like the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German, Italian, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, Slavic, and on and on and on.

Of course White Americans are still genetically European, but they are MIXED Whites - this massive blending of American Whites likely contributes massively to a lack of White solidarity because, as has been noted by many, ethnically mixed populations (even if they are within the same RACE like American Whites) are less likely to be cohesive as a whole.
on 14 Feb 2009 at 9:10 pm90Brazilification of America

Over on INCOGMAN’s blog a commenter named ‘White in LA’ sums up the situation which the Jews are trying to realize in America:

“Dubtrice, their goal is to turn the US into a third world country. It’s the only way the NWO would work. Let the unimaginative and generally passive Asians handle the technical infrastructure, the browns handle manual labor, and the jews can live the life they feel they deserve, like in Brazil. Lording it over all, traveling in helicopters, living in protected areas far from the animals. With no white people around, they’ll feel they’re in paradise. This isn’t all a joke. Take a look at how the jews live in Brazil, their model for the US. They travel between hi-rise buildings in private helicopters to avoid the stinking, sub-human masses and so on.” - http://incogman.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/the-stimulus-bill-give-illegals-job-access/#comment-8035
on 14 Feb 2009 at 10:25 pm91Fred Scrooby

INCOGMAN is correct, and this is no joke, I completely agree with him. It’s dead-serious.
on 15 Feb 2009 at 2:00 am92INCOG MAN

“I also want to say that maybe a reason White solidarity is so difficult to come by in America is that very many American Whites are themselves quite mixed, a mixture between all kinds of different White European ethnic groups like the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German, Italian, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, Slavic, and on and on and on.”

Let’s also remember that Whites always come under attack by the media and “progressives” whenever we group together to voice the least racial concern. Immediately Whites get called Supremacists, Nativists, Xenophobes, Neo Nazis, etc etc.

They simple cannot let Whites have any racial solidarity. It scares the bejeesus out of them.
on 15 Feb 2009 at 2:47 am93Lenny

The Jews may have beaten whites, but who knows what would happen in the event of an Asian/”Eurasian” power grab in a generation or two. Racial-Orientals will reach 35 million in the USA by 2040*, and mixed-race “Eurasians” will be at least 5 million by the same time*, and mostly young. Together this Asian/Eurasian bloc will be over 10% of the national population, and will have a lot of economic power.

White-Asian miscegenation is odious in various ways, but maybe it is understandable in this context (to complement the cliche “Asian women are submissive”,etc). Whites sense that they are finished as a global power player, and want their descendants to be “on a winning team”; evolutionary biology and all that.

(* - http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html).

It’s sort of amazing to think this is only a single generation away… Serious Yellow-Peril-ism on the North American continent seems to have taken a 150-year break. (1850s-1880s; 2030s-?).
on 15 Feb 2009 at 2:49 am94Lenny

I think that Orientals are pretty much immune to Jewish hysertics about ‘Holocaust’, ‘racism’, etc.
on 15 Feb 2009 at 3:48 am95Robert Lindsay

Captain Chaos, two of my cousins have married Jews, and we are not Jewish. My brother has married a Vietnamese and produced an Amerasian kid. One of my nephews has married a very light-skinned Black woman. I think the kid was born brain-damaged and died, but there will be more on the way. In my apartment complex, there is a White-Mexican couple with a little part-Mexican kid.

You need to come out to California. Sure, Whites mostly marry Whites. But understand that the Mexicans have been here for 100 years and they have been slowly marrying into the Whites the whole time. So you can’t just look at one generation. Those low figures extend over multiple generations and start to add up. The number of part-Mexicans here in the US - 1/2 Mexican, 1/4 Mexican, etc. is quite large and you run into them all the time. For the most part, they look pretty White. A 1/2 Mexican is probably about 15% Indian, and a 1/4 Mexican is probably about 7% Indian. I grew up with assimilated Mexican-Americans and the number of them who were marrying into Whites was very large. There is a lot less Black-White mixing going on, but in every White town now, you do see these mulattos, products of White and Hispanic women and Black men. The Black men have all left their White wives, and all these mulattos are being raised by single Moms.

Keep in mind that up to 50% of US Asian females are marrying out, almost all to Whites.

I can see why you guys hate Panmixia, because as things get more and more mixed, Whites (and other races) just start breeding out. I don’t know why, they just do. The only way to stop it is probably some sort of separation. Exhortations to breed White probably are not going to cut it.
on 15 Feb 2009 at 5:21 am96Iceman

It isn’t guaranteed that all Mexicans are mestizos. Some have Mediterranean Spaniard blood, though they still pose a threat when it comes to crime rates.
on 15 Feb 2009 at 10:01 am97Captainchaos

You rely too heavily on the anecdotal, Lindsay. The numbers from the census simply don’t support the contention that we are on the verge of a race-mixing explosion such that , say, fifty percent of Whites are going to start miscegenating.

I believe the United States will balkanize, we are already beginning to see it. History suggests that it will.
on 15 Feb 2009 at 10:45 pm98Maverick

Iceman, over 95% of Mexicans are mestizo. And it’s a good thing that we’re starting to interracially mate with all races, we are a rainbow nation and we need to be tolerant and diverse.
on 16 Feb 2009 at 3:04 am99Robert Lindsay

Almost all Mexicans have Mediterranean Spaniard blood. California is not an anecdote. It’s real. And after 100 years, the # of Whites marrying out, in particular with varying types of Mestizos, is very high. Keep in mind that although Mexicans are proud of their ethnicity like everyone, they are perfectly willing to miscegenate with Whites, as it is not seen as race suicide.

There is no Mexican race. Mexicans are genetic mystery casserole, and most of them have at least some White in them, and the ones in California have traditionally been about 70% White on average. So a Mexican marrying White is not committing race suicide in any way, shape or form. Hence they are more than willing to do so. After 100 years here, the number of Californians with some Mexican ancestry (including many “Whites”) is quite high.

Once a state gets as mixed as California is, everyone is just going to start mixing like crazy. There’s no denying it. The only way to keep Whites from miscegenating out is probably separation.
on 16 Feb 2009 at 4:18 am100Iceman

It varies by the individual. I agree. There is no Mexican race. And certainly no “Hispanic race.” Compare Castro to Chavez.
on 04 Mar 2009 at 11:39 pm101Svigor

3) You don’t find it immoral that someone would enforce a law telling you who you can and cannot have sexual relations with, despite the fact that both (or more!) parties are above the age of consent, in right mind and supposedly free? You know what, I’m going to go out tonight and get married again, just to spite you. The subcontinent of India is an area wholly unexplored by my penis…

I support the individual’s right to choose (consensually, of course) his own mates.

Similarly, I support the right of communities to order themselves.

So, ideally, I’d have both rights live in harmony by, say, allowing a community to evict people for miscegenation.

So the ball’s back in your court, and I have the moral and ethical high ground. I support your right to fuck whoever you want, but you deny my right to join (or create, consensually of course) a community that agrees with my beliefs.

But this is no surprise; liberalism must dominate everyone, and everything, everywhere.
on 04 Mar 2009 at 11:48 pm102Svigor

I’m going to guess that at some point, each one of you had a white girlfriend stolen away by a bigger black dude.

Are you implying that blacks are bigger? But I thought race doesn’t exist?

And how could a black guy steal my girlfriend when there’s no such thing as race, and therefore no such thing as black guys?

Hey, for that matter, there’s no such thing as sex, either, so no such thing as girls, or girlfriends, or guys. (Just getting into the spirit of things).