When Miscegenation Backfires

[Bonam]

Again, 'superior" is a subjective term which can only make sense within a specific context. In precisely what context do YOU mean?

My premise is simply that children of mixed races or at least genotypes tend to be healthier overall. That would include a black haired French Canadian from northern Ontario and one of those blonde Nordic beauties that you keep talking about, or an Asian with a 'white' caucasian or a black African.

Good health is only one trait expressed in the products of 'mixed' breeding. Intelligence, character and aptitudes both physical and mental will be shown in a much greater variety. If you want to define this as 'superior' you absolutely need to state the context! If you need someone to figure out some new aspect of physics then obviously a great long distance runner is not a 'superior' choice. If you DO need fast runners then a child born with a great singing voice may not fit your definition of 'superior'.

People being people and with the contact between humans ever increasing due to travel and migration we are going to see more and more 'miscegenation' as the years go by. Already it can be almost impossible to find someone 'racially pure' in North America. As I said before, Nature has programmed us to be attracted to the 'exotic' and young folks are going to fall in love and not care a fig for the prejudices of some of their elders!

You better get used to it. It's a process that is not only good for the human race as a whole, it can't be stopped!

An implication that the "fast/distance-running" race is the less intelligent race?

[bloodyminded]

neither situation is ideal of course. and I would not approve of one or the other.

???Really?

I don't know about you, but I have two daughters. Personally, the hypothetical with the black man certainly sounds as close to "ideal" as I'd reasonably hope to find.

between the creature on the left and the child on the right... i,d much rather have the white child on the right. Because by doing this: MILLENNIAS of biological evolution that began in Europe would continue.,.. I have no inclination to make that stop for the sake of PC platitudes.

Accepting the mixing of races is "PC platitudes"?

as I said I see nothing wrong with the way white people look, I see nothing wrong with my traits or that of my "race"... why would I have a reason to want to efface them? I don't understand why this would be a moral thing to do for me...

It's not an effacement, though I find your revulsion so stereootypically bigoted that it's actually amusing. You then go a step further:

Why would I want a brown dot in my family pictures... an embarrassing question mark?

I have no desire to efface our identity, in fact, i`d like us to stick around for a few more decades. To me, my race is my nation in a way. Race is more primitive, more deeply seated in men, it is all encompassing, it is a uniform, much more immediate then language, much more meaningful then nationality. Its in our GENES. IT IS OUR GENES. Its who we are. It is the link with thousands of generations of evolution that originated in our northlands.

People are already mixed like crazy. I not only have the fine genes of the ruddy English and the pale Northern French, but also some dirty, subhuman Irish.

Hell, my people have been in Maritime Canada for so many generations, that who knows? I could have Mi'kmaq in my blood.

And I assure you that my daughters are genuine beauties--both with slightly different melanin levels, to boot.

The instinct of Racial loyalty lies deep in men. And though it may be crushed over with sophistic blabber, although it may seem to have disappeared under the powder of words sprinkled over it, it remains dormant in the flesh, dormant in the soul.

No. Race loyalty is entirely a learned phenomenon, and wholly political.

[lictor616]

An implication that the "fast/distance-running" race is the less intelligent race?

again biometric studies carried out over a period of 40 years corroborate this. and centuries before that craniometry and similar studies also

Furthermore, evidence of different mental aptitudes are obvious looking at the countries from which certain clines or races sprang.

The Congo is pretty much a non-state, with all the technological knowhow of a stone age culture, and a chaos that is as complete as any known in the primitive world..., while Japan shows a different level of statecraft.

To explain away such monumental differences, one must look at the PEOPLE who built such vastly different cultures.

Edited July 17, 2010 by lictor616

[lictor616]

People are already mixed like crazy. I not only have the fine genes of the ruddy English and the pale Northern French, but also some dirty, subhuman Irish.

No. Race loyalty is entirely a learned phenomenon, and wholly political.

Northern French Britanny, is Celtic in origin... that you are English Norther French Irish is like saying, youre a mix of celtic and celtic and gealic.

And race loyalty is a biological imperative... even animals have it, two different species of tigers (bengal and siberian) will fight to the death if competing on the same territory. The "in vs out" mentality is a survival trait that originated in millenias of human evolution, and millions of years of biological evolution before that.

Studies on children and face recognition all concede that babies have a harder time trusting or indeed recognizing a face from a different race:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

What you're saying is this:

It’s horrifying to imagine kids being “proud to be white.”

It’s horrifying to think that many white people will continue to subscribe to Newsweek even after they publish anti-white hatred like this.

After the two-week history class, the children were surveyed on their racial attitudes. White children who got the full story about historical discrimination had significantly better attitudes toward blacks than those who got the neutered version. Explicitness works. “It also made them feel some guilt,” Bigler adds. “It knocked down their glorified view of white people.” They couldn’t justify in-group superiority.

The reality is that racial blindness and poltiical correcntess IS THE LEARNED BEHAVIOUR... it is a product of the classrooms, I still remeber taking morality classes all through primary and secondary, every single class had components teaching us how we're all the same and that blacks are victims of white racism even today etc... I actually used to believe this myself until the gap between observable reality and my learned political correctness became intolerably too great.

yes bloodyminded!

Yes, you’ve got to teach white kids to be guilty as early as possible. Another excellent reason to home school your kids, and keep them away from the “professionals”. You’d better not tell the kids about Volta, Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Galileo, Newton, Gauss, Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Darwin, Watson, Crick, etc., etc. because each of those men did things far more important than hit a ball with a bat and they’re all white. We wouldn’t want those white kids getting any sense of pride about the accomplishments of their people. no of course not!

Edited July 17, 2010 by lictor616

[Wild Bill]

Hell, my people have been in Maritime Canada for so many generations, that who knows? I could have Mi'kmaq in my blood.

I too come from eastcoaster blood, that is Irish and Scottish.

This has meant that I do enjoy a drink but I don't like to pay for it!

[Moonlight Graham]

I like the way I look, in fact I like the way "my people look"... and I don't understand why you think it should be illegal for me to frankly state my preference to my daughter that my traits, and my ancestors traits be carried forward.

Where did i say it should be illegal?? I don't share you view, but you have every right to state your preferences for your daughter and choose whomever you yourself wish to procreate with. As for the other crazy stuff you probably love to become law...

Its unhealthy and unnatural.

Mixing of races is perfectly natural. Whatever your opinions of it is constructed within your mind. But nature and genetics makes it that a white person and a black person can have a 100% healthy baby together just the same as 2 white people can have a 100% healthy baby together. What is unnatural are 2 siblings or cousins etc. having a baby together, which can cause abnormalities and whatnot in the baby.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your racial bullcrap posts any more because its a waste of my time. You speak of people being "brainwashed" by the liberal media/universities etc. Yes our opinions, morals, identity etc. are greatly influences by our environment. What's funny is that you yourself have also almost certainly been "brainwashed" by someone close to you, whether your parents, a sibling, or some other family member or someone else you've known who has deeply planted this sick racist crap in your brain. Your beliefs are not your own original observations, you have been taught/told at some point that whites are superior to blacks and you are just following along.

All this science you link and your views on genetics are just rubbish. You are trying to logically/rationally legitimize your racism to yourself and others, when in fact deep down i'm willing to bet the farm that you just straight-up despise black people and what other non-whites are also included. They simply disgust you and you fear them. A rational/logical person looks at the evidence first, and then establishes a conclusion based on the evidence. You have clearly long ago formed your main thesis and are searching for evidence to justify it.

Good luck with life.

[Jack Weber]

Where did i say it should be illegal?? I don't share you view, but you have every right to state your preferences for your daughter and choose whomever you yourself wish to procreate with. As for the other crazy stuff you probably love to become law...

Mixing of races is perfectly natural. Whatever your opinions of it is constructed within your mind. But nature and genetics makes it that a white person and a black person can have a 100% healthy baby together just the same as 2 white people can have a 100% healthy baby together. What is unnatural are 2 siblings or cousins etc. having a baby together, which can cause abnormalities and whatnot in the baby.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your racial bullcrap posts any more because its a waste of my time. You speak of people being "brainwashed" by the liberal media/universities etc. Yes our opinions, morals, identity etc. are greatly influences by our environment. What's funny is that you yourself have also almost certainly been "brainwashed" by someone close to you, whether your parents, a sibling, or some other family member or someone else you've known who has deeply planted this sick racist crap in your brain. Your beliefs are not your own original observations, you have been taught/told at some point that whites are superior to blacks and you are just following along.

All this science you link and your views on genetics are just rubbish. You are trying to logically/rationally legitimize your racism to yourself and others, when in fact deep down i'm willing to bet the farm that you just straight-up despise black people and what other non-whites are also included. They simply disgust you and you fear them. A rational/logical person looks at the evidence first, and then establishes a conclusion based on the evidence. You have clearly long ago formed your main thesis and are searching for evidence to justify it.

Good luck with life.

Oh,that last paragraph is spot on...

The fear and loathing is obvious...

The intellectualized rationalizations simply prove it...

But ol' Licky's not anti any ethnic group...He's just pro-Caucasian...

er...ethnonationalist(I'm thinking just Nationalist which is code for Fascist)...er...Xenophobic Crapticulist...

Edited July 18, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lictor616]

Mixing of races is perfectly natural. Whatever your opinions of it is constructed within your mind. But nature and genetics makes it that a white person and a black person can have a 100% healthy baby together just the same as 2 white people can have a 100% healthy baby together.

It is indeed possible to create offspring with any variety of human races, but the fact remains that miscegenation carries with it a immutable characteristic, that of the abolition of "souche" genes....

have you seen the child sired by seal and heidi klum?

[lictor616]

All this science you link and your views on genetics are just rubbish. You are trying to logically/rationally legitimize your racism to yourself and others, when in fact deep down i'm willing to bet the farm that you just straight-up despise black people and what other non-whites are also included. They simply disgust you and you fear them. A rational/logical person looks at the evidence first, and then establishes a conclusion based on the evidence. You have clearly long ago formed your main thesis and are searching for evidence to justify it.

Good luck with life.

I only hope that liberals will offer me well thought out evidence to at least combat my racist leanings! So far I have seen nothing but pressure to conform...

[bloodyminded]

Northern French Britanny, is Celtic in origin... that you are English Norther French Irish is like saying, youre a mix of celtic and celtic and gealic.

Fair enough...does this make me racially inferior or racially superior? Because I'm not sure you've clarified such matters through proper enumeration.

Thanks to you, we do know that pygmies, Congolese, and the singer, Seal, are genetically inferior...aside from that, it gets hazy.

And race loyalty is a biological imperative... even animals have it, two different species of tigers (bengal and siberian) will fight to the death if competing on the same territory.

Two Bengals and two Siberians will also fight to the death, as they are mostly solitary animals. So yoru analogy is rather poor.

After the two-week history class, the children were surveyed on their racial attitudes. White children who got the full story about historical discrimination had significantly better attitudes toward blacks than those who got the neutered version. Explicitness works. “It also made them feel some guilt,” Bigler adds. “It knocked down their glorified view of white people.”

Wow! No doubt you collapsed in tantrum at this one.

They couldn’t justify in-group superiority.

Fairy tales are indeed hard to justify.

The reality is that racial blindness and poltiical correcntess IS THE LEARNED BEHAVIOUR... it is a product of the classrooms, I still remeber taking morality classes all through primary and secondary, every single class had components teaching us how we're all the same and that blacks are victims of white racism even today etc... I actually used to believe this myself until the gap between observable reality and my learned political correctness became intolerably too great.

Your notions of racial superiority ARE political correctness, albeit of the discredited sort no longer as widely held.

Yes, you’ve got to teach white kids to be guilty as early as possible. Another excellent reason to home school your kids, and keep them away from the “professionals”. You’d better not tell the kids about Volta, Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Galileo, Newton, Gauss, Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Darwin, Watson, Crick, etc., etc. because each of those men did things far more important than hit a ball with a bat and they’re all white. We wouldn’t want those white kids getting any sense of pride about the accomplishments of their people. no of course not!

I wouldn't think you'd consider the Jewish gentlemen among this list to be "your people," considering your stated antipathy.

Though to be fair, as I've noted through fascinated perusal of many supremacists' comments (which most people do not read carefully, and so mistake some of the views), the Jewish people are held to a certain amount of grudging respect. White supremacists don't much like the Jews, but they have an innate respect for power and achievement--the latter reasonable, but the former underlining your essential obedience and servility to power.

It's the blacks and the Arabs, mostly, who are ridiculed as inferior.

[Remiel]

If my daughter is too pig headed to understand that she would be cutting herself away from her roots, and opting for what amounts to a evolutionary dead end or suicide, then id rather she stay childless. What kind of mother could tolerate bearing children who will look nothing like her? What a sick scenario!

Oh, how true. To say that you would rather your child be childless than to have a child of their own with an African is a very sick, sick, sick scenario indeed. Unfortunately, that scenario appears to be the reality; I pity any child of yours.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, you’ve got to teach white kids to be guilty as early as possible. Another excellent reason to home school your kids, and keep them away from the “professionals”. You’d better not tell the kids about Volta, Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Galileo, Newton, Gauss, Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Darwin, Watson, Crick, etc., etc. because each of those men did things far more important than hit a ball with a bat and they’re all white. We wouldn’t want those white kids getting any sense of pride about the accomplishments of their people. no of course not!

I totally fail to see how you can link those names to their race! They also appear to have worn shoes. Should we therefore consider all people who wear shoes to be superior?

The more important factor to me would be their CULTURE! Britain developed the "protestant work ethic", which then spread to Europe in a diluted form, as many of the names you mention achieved their success after coming to either Britain or America.

Culture has little or nothing to do with race. Raise an Innuit child in a Scottish household and you'll get a Scottish kid, likely a whiz with machinery and able to stomach haggis.

There are many cultures but not all are equally positive as far as advancing the quality of life for human beings on an average. Some cultures throw people into a life of hard work and poverty under a caste system and excuse it by saying that those unfortunates will be repaid in a future life. Others have mostly people that lie around all day, living in a climate where they have no fear of freezing and where food is cheap and easy, literally hanging free on trees. Such cultures are not the most obvious examples of inventing steam engines, putting a man on the moon or inventing cures for diseases. It does appear that a culture where you have to plan for cold winters is more positive for initiative, hard work and innovation.

Some folks try to use Asian kids in our schools as examples of how one race is superior in intelligence. That's a very short-sighted and weak premise, since it more truly appears that it is the cultural force of their parents instilling the values of education and hard work that is responsible for Asian kids tending to win the math and science awards. Children of 'incumbent' Canadians who achieve highly in schools usually share the same values as the Asian families. It's the children who's parents are part of the 'victim' and 'don't hurt their self-esteem!" culture who seem to find a stop sign to be a week's good reading!

So much for race! As an aside, I didn't see too many Estos in that list of yours. I wonder why?

Edited July 18, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Bonam]

I totally fail to see how you can link those names to their race! They also appear to have worn shoes. Should we therefore consider all people who wear shoes to be superior?

The more important factor to me would be their CULTURE! Britain developed the "protestant work ethic", which then spread to Europe in a diluted form, as many of the names you mention achieved their success after coming to either Britain or America.

Culture has little or nothing to do with race. Raise an Innuit child in a Scottish household and you'll get a Scottish kid, likely a whiz with machinery and able to stomach haggis.

There are many cultures but not all are equally positive as far as advancing the quality of life for human beings on an average. Some cultures throw people into a life of hard work and poverty under a caste system and excuse it by saying that those unfortunates will be repaid in a future life. Others have mostly people that lie around all day, living in a climate where they have no fear of freezing and where food is cheap and easy, literally hanging free on trees. Such cultures are not the most obvious examples of inventing steam engines, putting a man on the moon or inventing cures for diseases. It does appear that a culture where you have to plan for cold winters is more positive for initiative, hard work and innovation.

Some folks try to use Asian kids in our schools as examples of how one race is superior in intelligence. That's a very short-sighted and weak premise, since it more truly appears that it is the cultural force of their parents instilling the values of education and hard work that is responsible for Asian kids tending to win the math and science awards. Children of 'incumbent' Canadians who achieve highly in schools usually share the same values as the Asian families. It's the children who's parents are part of the 'victim' and 'don't hurt their self-esteem!" culture who seem to find a stop sign to be a week's good reading!

So much for race! As an aside, I didn't see too many Estos in that list of yours. I wonder why?

A good post, and I agree with you. While certain races may have some advantages/disadvantages when it comes to certain areas (i.e. some Africans ethnicities being characteristically fast and tall, etc), it is culture that plays a greater part. Here you admit a critical point about cultures, that: "not all are equally positive as far as advancing the quality of life for human beings on an average". Now, when we import immigrants, if the rate is low enough, they assimilate into the surrounding culture, their original culture is diluted, and they become like the rest of us. But if the rate is high enough, then enclaves form, the original culture is retained, and assimilation does not happen (or at least happens slower than even more immigrants are brought over). And if this is the case, then the impact of these "not as positive" cultures begins to be felt, as it now is in many places in the West, where some of these cultures are taking hold.

[Remiel]

A good post, and I agree with you. While certain races may have some advantages/disadvantages when it comes to certain areas (i.e. some Africans ethnicities being characteristically fast and tall, etc), it is culture that plays a greater part. Here you admit a critical point about cultures, that: "not all are equally positive as far as advancing the quality of life for human beings on an average". Now, when we import immigrants, if the rate is low enough, they assimilate into the surrounding culture, their original culture is diluted, and they become like the rest of us. But if the rate is high enough, then enclaves form, the original culture is retained, and assimilation does not happen (or at least happens slower than even more immigrants are brought over). And if this is the case, then the impact of these "not as positive" cultures begins to be felt, as it now is in many places in the West, where some of these cultures are taking hold.

If we were to relate this issue to sub-cultures, what sort of conclusions might you draw? A shortcoming, I think, of the common notion of assimilation is that it assumes that there is some gold standard for " normal one of us " . I recall seeing, however, one time my parents had Oprah on (which they watch on occassion) she conducted an " experiment " in which she took a list of criteria that constituted a " normal " American, and then asked her audience to stand. As she rattled off the criteria, if a person did not fit the one mentioned, they were suppoed to sit down. At the end, of the entire audience, one, one, person, a guy, actually fit all of the criteria of " normal " . Even if you take the assimilationist approach to immigration, what should the standard be then? As close to normal as everyone else? As normal on average? On average no more different from us than the average member of our most-different sub-culture?

[Bonam]

If we were to relate this issue to sub-cultures, what sort of conclusions might you draw? A shortcoming, I think, of the common notion of assimilation is that it assumes that there is some gold standard for " normal one of us " . I recall seeing, however, one time my parents had Oprah on (which they watch on occassion) she conducted an " experiment " in which she took a list of criteria that constituted a " normal " American, and then asked her audience to stand. As she rattled off the criteria, if a person did not fit the one mentioned, they were suppoed to sit down. At the end, of the entire audience, one, one, person, a guy, actually fit all of the criteria of " normal " . Even if you take the assimilationist approach to immigration, what should the standard be then? As close to normal as everyone else? As normal on average? On average no more different from us than the average member of our most-different sub-culture?

I'd define someone assimilated as someone that: 1) speaks and understands the mainstream/official language reasonably well; 2) cares more about the country in which they reside than their country of origin; 3) is not beholden to a culture/religious interpretation which imposes values in direct opposition to the fundamentals of our culture (i.e. stamping out freedom of speech, or condoning honor killings, or holding members of certain other genders/races/religions to be the inferior/enemies and encouraging violence/oppression against them, etc).

As you can see, my criteria are not particularly unreasonable. Unfortunately, I think many of the immigrants we get today fail on at least one of these 3 counts.

To be clear, I have no problem with any immigrant who 1) speaks English (or French if they are immigrating to Quebec), 2) is more interested in what happens in Canada than in their homeland, and 3) does not oppress women, hate Jews, hate white people, or oppose free speech (etc).

If they also are economically useful and bring some benefit to Canada rather than being an economic burden then I definitely would have nothing bad to say about them.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Bonam