0 comment Saturday, November 29, 2014 | admin
Yet another in the endless 'Surrender, Dorothy' series from the media. Today a headline trumpets
Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'
'Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."
Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.
Today's Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.
The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.''
There are some depressing comments at the Houston Chronicle blog, the usual melting pot drivel, but the real prize comments come from Free Republic. Some samples of the FReeper wit and wisdom:
''When you have an immigrant group build up enough strength to "go forth and multiply" the best looking chicks are going to go for the guys with the best jobs, and there goes the old ethnic purity.
Even by Harry Truman's time it was common for an American to have half a dozen ethnicities lurking in the ol'woodpile.
Their Anglo-Chokras are struggling to present themselves AND they will! More than one Mexican momma is going to cry herself to sleep seeing that "the blond girl" has her little boy!''
And:
That Blond Girl just might be one of my GrandDaughters.
Blond Hair, Yes.
Blue Eyes, Yes.
1/4 Mestizo
Last name of Galvez.
Point well taken.
Many of the young people today are not so hungup on the whole Race thing.
People need to look past all the superficial stuff and concentrate on the person Values.
19 posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 5:05:58 PM by SwedeBoy2''
So the clueless and the colorblind are heard from.
Next, the inevitable 'we're doomed' posts, always popular everywhere this subject is discussed:
''Looking at population projections for Texas, "It's basically over for Anglos.
It was over years ago for Texas...
In fact, you're likely seeing the last White Governor of Texas...Eventually, the illegals will turn the Alamo into a medical clinic for illegal aliens.
No joke... ''
The first Mr. Clueless-and-colorblind returns to dispense more of his wisdom:
BTW, I'm aware that there's a tribe that used to own bunch of territory running from Kansas down to Waco ~ they eventually lost even their very dimished [sic] reservation during theCivil War.
They've outmarried to the degree that 'blond" is normal ~
BTW, everybody knows how they use the term "Anglo" West of the Mississippi. Still, if I were you and had any "anglo blood" I'd take my dirk and cut a hole in my arm to let it leach out. You just don't want any of that stuff ya' know. Scotts and Sa'ami are best by test!''
And there's more if you are in a masochistic mood.
I think that sadly, the FReepers pretty much represent a cross-section of the Republican voters of this country, and you can see how little ethnoloyalty or even basic knowledge of American history, genetics, culture, or anything else they possess. It was not always so on that Forum.
One side note here: it is disheartening to see how often, even on the 'realist' blogs, men will indicate that they are OK with outmarrying amongst Mexicans, Asians, and so on. And yet women are said to be more likely to outmarry. I don't know how it is possible to be an ethnopatriot and think outmarriage is OK if the women chosen as partners are of certain groups. You either are loyal to your people and your family line, or you are not. There is no kinda-sorta there.
Reading various blogs and forums, I am starting to think the doomsayers may be right -- or maybe it's just that their attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The question becomes, are these people salvageable? Is it realistic to think that we can 'reach out' and pull these people from the demographic conflagration that is America? Or must they be written off as basically ineducable and irredeemable? Ignorance is indeed bliss for some people. So these guys must be very blissful.
Maybe there is one in a thousand, or one in five thousand, that will one day get it. The rest, who do get it but who are total pessimists, will simply resign themselves bitterly to what they see as an inevitable fate.
I think we have to soldier on without some of these people who will never 'get it', because it is a waste of effort and an exercise in futility to think we can 'wake everybody up.' To use an analogy that I've used before, I recall the story that when Paul Revere, Samuel Prescott, and William Dawes rode out on that night in April, 1775, to warn the Middlesex folk that 'the Regulars' were coming, many people were angered at being awakened. Rather than wanting to help spread the alarm, or to prepare to defend themselves and their neighbors, they preferred to sleep on. They'd rather not know what was happening. I've often wondered why.
I suppose it is easier to cynically pronounce that we're powerless and the situation is hopeless, rather than having to roll up one's sleeves and prepare.
Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'
'Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."
Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.
Today's Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.
The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.''
There are some depressing comments at the Houston Chronicle blog, the usual melting pot drivel, but the real prize comments come from Free Republic. Some samples of the FReeper wit and wisdom:
''When you have an immigrant group build up enough strength to "go forth and multiply" the best looking chicks are going to go for the guys with the best jobs, and there goes the old ethnic purity.
Even by Harry Truman's time it was common for an American to have half a dozen ethnicities lurking in the ol'woodpile.
Their Anglo-Chokras are struggling to present themselves AND they will! More than one Mexican momma is going to cry herself to sleep seeing that "the blond girl" has her little boy!''
And:
That Blond Girl just might be one of my GrandDaughters.
Blond Hair, Yes.
Blue Eyes, Yes.
1/4 Mestizo
Last name of Galvez.
Point well taken.
Many of the young people today are not so hungup on the whole Race thing.
People need to look past all the superficial stuff and concentrate on the person Values.
19 posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 5:05:58 PM by SwedeBoy2''
So the clueless and the colorblind are heard from.
Next, the inevitable 'we're doomed' posts, always popular everywhere this subject is discussed:
''Looking at population projections for Texas, "It's basically over for Anglos.
It was over years ago for Texas...
In fact, you're likely seeing the last White Governor of Texas...Eventually, the illegals will turn the Alamo into a medical clinic for illegal aliens.
No joke... ''
The first Mr. Clueless-and-colorblind returns to dispense more of his wisdom:
BTW, I'm aware that there's a tribe that used to own bunch of territory running from Kansas down to Waco ~ they eventually lost even their very dimished [sic] reservation during theCivil War.
They've outmarried to the degree that 'blond" is normal ~
BTW, everybody knows how they use the term "Anglo" West of the Mississippi. Still, if I were you and had any "anglo blood" I'd take my dirk and cut a hole in my arm to let it leach out. You just don't want any of that stuff ya' know. Scotts and Sa'ami are best by test!''
And there's more if you are in a masochistic mood.
I think that sadly, the FReepers pretty much represent a cross-section of the Republican voters of this country, and you can see how little ethnoloyalty or even basic knowledge of American history, genetics, culture, or anything else they possess. It was not always so on that Forum.
One side note here: it is disheartening to see how often, even on the 'realist' blogs, men will indicate that they are OK with outmarrying amongst Mexicans, Asians, and so on. And yet women are said to be more likely to outmarry. I don't know how it is possible to be an ethnopatriot and think outmarriage is OK if the women chosen as partners are of certain groups. You either are loyal to your people and your family line, or you are not. There is no kinda-sorta there.
Reading various blogs and forums, I am starting to think the doomsayers may be right -- or maybe it's just that their attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The question becomes, are these people salvageable? Is it realistic to think that we can 'reach out' and pull these people from the demographic conflagration that is America? Or must they be written off as basically ineducable and irredeemable? Ignorance is indeed bliss for some people. So these guys must be very blissful.
Maybe there is one in a thousand, or one in five thousand, that will one day get it. The rest, who do get it but who are total pessimists, will simply resign themselves bitterly to what they see as an inevitable fate.
I think we have to soldier on without some of these people who will never 'get it', because it is a waste of effort and an exercise in futility to think we can 'wake everybody up.' To use an analogy that I've used before, I recall the story that when Paul Revere, Samuel Prescott, and William Dawes rode out on that night in April, 1775, to warn the Middlesex folk that 'the Regulars' were coming, many people were angered at being awakened. Rather than wanting to help spread the alarm, or to prepare to defend themselves and their neighbors, they preferred to sleep on. They'd rather not know what was happening. I've often wondered why.
I suppose it is easier to cynically pronounce that we're powerless and the situation is hopeless, rather than having to roll up one's sleeves and prepare.
Labels: Demographic Warfare, Ethnoloyalty, Mass Immigration, Outmarriage, Race Replacement
0 comment Monday, November 17, 2014 | admin
Am I mistaken in thinking that our people are weakening when it comes to Hispanics?
Over at AmRen, which in many ways is not all that atypical of (moderately) pro-White/ethnonationalist sites, I am seeing a lot of posts which compare Hispanics favorably to blacks, and which praise Hispanics in some way, even if faintly.
On this thread, which had to do with changing demographics and the encouragement of outmarriage for Whites, there were comments like this:
''There is no such thing as a "hispanic". There are white people, black people and amerind (mestizos) all of whom speak spanish. They have extremely different genetic backgrounds, do not mix, for the most part, yet speak the same language.
Most of the "miscegenation" they are talking about is nothing but english speaking whites marrying spanish speaking whites. And having kids who are white. No different than a french person marrying a white person from britain or spain.''
Well, the old bit of sophistry about Hispanic not being a race has been around for a while. Technically speaking, no, Hispanic is not a race, but a linguistic designation, though in a way the word Hispanic does denote various non-White peoples who speak Spanish, given the undeniable fact that the great majority of Hispanic immigrants are nonwhite.
No doubt some skeptic would challenge me on that, and say 'prove it', but going by the evidence of our senses, it is apparent that the vast majority are nonwhite for the most part, with little to no European blood.
In some localities, like Florida, there may be many White Cubans, but in most other places which have large Spanish-speaking populations, the majority of them are either Amerindian or mulatto (as with the Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in New York). So when we associate the 'Hispanic' label with non-European origin, we are on pretty solid ground.
Some people insist that many Hispanics are White (European-descended), like this commentator:
''I work around an awful lot of latinos, and upwards of a quarter of them, especially the south americans, are basically white descended from numerous waves of european immigration to that region. (Spanish, Italian, English, German, etc) Lighter skinned mestizos are also mostly white in their genetic makeup.
Many others like mexicans and puerto ricans have a lot of white in them too, so the white race can survive some mixing with them, as long as the core western values predominate.''
This man does not say where he lives and works, but it must be an unusual place with lots of European-blooded Hispanics. But this comment is so out of touch with reality I have to wonder if the writer is attempting to put over a bit of propaganda, attempting to misrepresent reality.
And the second paragraph leads to one of my recurring themes: culture vs. race. I've said repeatedly, ad nausaeam probably, that race and culture go together, and that culture merely reflects genetics. We can't say that culture exists in a vacuum, and that it is a disembodied thing which can basically be 'put on' by anyone, like one of those one-size-fits-all garments.
However, I don't think any ethnonationalist would agree that 'core Western values' can be carried on no matter what the demographics or racial makeup of a country may be. I would hope that no real ethnopatriot or ethnonationalist would be so cavalier as to think that our people can survive even if we absorb Hispanic or other genes. No, we would not be 'we' then; we would be somebody else, probably a Spanglish-speaking exotic-looking people whose 'culture' and environment would resemble Latin America more than Europe or Old America.
But this comment takes the cake:
''Point I am making is that the white latinas may be a salvation for the white race, along with importing some russian/ukranian [sic] type girls to help the white population survive. Things have changed in the last 20ish years, once it was more single females, but now with miscenation [sic] there are more single white guys, and thankfully, most single guys dont have any desire for the black girls as the white girls do for the black guys.''
This kind of thinking is becoming not at all uncommon at AmRen and some other such sites.
First of all, I think the amount of outmarriage is greatly overestimated by men who write these kinds of comments. The statistics show that it is just not as common as some claim it to be. It may be that the people who say these things live in areas where the rate is especially high (liberal big cities, Seattle for example) or other areas, perhaps with a high proportion of White underclass types who tend to adopt underclass ways and to mate outside their race.
Or it may be that the people who claim all the attractive White girls are mating with outsiders are people who magnify the examples they see out there in the world until they believe it is widespread or epidemic. Or it may be that these guys are not succeeding with the opposite sex for various reasons, and want to rationalize their lack of success by blaming it on women supposedly preferring nonwhites.
Some men have an attraction to the exotic-looking women, like Latinas and Asians, and this is a longstanding thing, since long before multiculturalism and political correctness. Some men, understandably, are attracted to exotic Eastern European women. But to say that American or other Western men have to look for 'salvation for the white race' by mating with 'white latina' women is reaching a bit.
If we are going to discuss 'White Latina women', I can think of two well-known examples.
Exhibit A and Exhibit B if you can watch a 3-minute video of her.
I acknowledge they are extreme examples, but I suspect they reflect a widespread cultural attitude or style,
Sure, there are White Latina women; both of those women were immigrants who married White Anglo men. One of the women was well-educated and quite intelligent. Still, despite their outward appearance, I would say that cultural differences between the women and their hapless husbands contributed considerably to their, ahem, marital problems. As a result one of the men is now dead, and the other one, shall we say, scarred.
The second woman has now snagged yet another Anglo White male; I thought only stupid women married psychopaths. But some men find that Latina allure irresistible, knife or no knife.
Sure, bad things happen in non-mixed marriages, but cultural differences of some magnitude do exist even among people of European descent, especially as you mix Southern European or Eastern European with Western European. There are just differences in outlook, temperament, character, values, manners, emotional styles. The idea that 'love conquers all' is just romantic-age twaddle. It sounds nice and makes for a good happy-ever-after movie, but in reality, love does not conquer all, much less does lust conquer anything.
Culture does matter, because it is intertwined with genetics.
I've worked with people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe and there is a greater distance between us and them than between us and Western Europeans, although even with them, misunderstandings and crossed signals occur.
Also, the idea that Hispanics are 'Western' is absurd, yet it is still a popular claim made these days; they are 'Christian' so therefore they are Western, or they speak a European language so they are part of our heritage. This is erroneous, and we cannot gamble the future of our country and our people on that kind of faulty belief.
So, where do we stand? Are people softening towards Latinos and about to join them? Or am I being alarmist?
Over at AmRen, which in many ways is not all that atypical of (moderately) pro-White/ethnonationalist sites, I am seeing a lot of posts which compare Hispanics favorably to blacks, and which praise Hispanics in some way, even if faintly.
On this thread, which had to do with changing demographics and the encouragement of outmarriage for Whites, there were comments like this:
''There is no such thing as a "hispanic". There are white people, black people and amerind (mestizos) all of whom speak spanish. They have extremely different genetic backgrounds, do not mix, for the most part, yet speak the same language.
Most of the "miscegenation" they are talking about is nothing but english speaking whites marrying spanish speaking whites. And having kids who are white. No different than a french person marrying a white person from britain or spain.''
Well, the old bit of sophistry about Hispanic not being a race has been around for a while. Technically speaking, no, Hispanic is not a race, but a linguistic designation, though in a way the word Hispanic does denote various non-White peoples who speak Spanish, given the undeniable fact that the great majority of Hispanic immigrants are nonwhite.
No doubt some skeptic would challenge me on that, and say 'prove it', but going by the evidence of our senses, it is apparent that the vast majority are nonwhite for the most part, with little to no European blood.
In some localities, like Florida, there may be many White Cubans, but in most other places which have large Spanish-speaking populations, the majority of them are either Amerindian or mulatto (as with the Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in New York). So when we associate the 'Hispanic' label with non-European origin, we are on pretty solid ground.
Some people insist that many Hispanics are White (European-descended), like this commentator:
''I work around an awful lot of latinos, and upwards of a quarter of them, especially the south americans, are basically white descended from numerous waves of european immigration to that region. (Spanish, Italian, English, German, etc) Lighter skinned mestizos are also mostly white in their genetic makeup.
Many others like mexicans and puerto ricans have a lot of white in them too, so the white race can survive some mixing with them, as long as the core western values predominate.''
This man does not say where he lives and works, but it must be an unusual place with lots of European-blooded Hispanics. But this comment is so out of touch with reality I have to wonder if the writer is attempting to put over a bit of propaganda, attempting to misrepresent reality.
And the second paragraph leads to one of my recurring themes: culture vs. race. I've said repeatedly, ad nausaeam probably, that race and culture go together, and that culture merely reflects genetics. We can't say that culture exists in a vacuum, and that it is a disembodied thing which can basically be 'put on' by anyone, like one of those one-size-fits-all garments.
However, I don't think any ethnonationalist would agree that 'core Western values' can be carried on no matter what the demographics or racial makeup of a country may be. I would hope that no real ethnopatriot or ethnonationalist would be so cavalier as to think that our people can survive even if we absorb Hispanic or other genes. No, we would not be 'we' then; we would be somebody else, probably a Spanglish-speaking exotic-looking people whose 'culture' and environment would resemble Latin America more than Europe or Old America.
But this comment takes the cake:
''Point I am making is that the white latinas may be a salvation for the white race, along with importing some russian/ukranian [sic] type girls to help the white population survive. Things have changed in the last 20ish years, once it was more single females, but now with miscenation [sic] there are more single white guys, and thankfully, most single guys dont have any desire for the black girls as the white girls do for the black guys.''
This kind of thinking is becoming not at all uncommon at AmRen and some other such sites.
First of all, I think the amount of outmarriage is greatly overestimated by men who write these kinds of comments. The statistics show that it is just not as common as some claim it to be. It may be that the people who say these things live in areas where the rate is especially high (liberal big cities, Seattle for example) or other areas, perhaps with a high proportion of White underclass types who tend to adopt underclass ways and to mate outside their race.
Or it may be that the people who claim all the attractive White girls are mating with outsiders are people who magnify the examples they see out there in the world until they believe it is widespread or epidemic. Or it may be that these guys are not succeeding with the opposite sex for various reasons, and want to rationalize their lack of success by blaming it on women supposedly preferring nonwhites.
Some men have an attraction to the exotic-looking women, like Latinas and Asians, and this is a longstanding thing, since long before multiculturalism and political correctness. Some men, understandably, are attracted to exotic Eastern European women. But to say that American or other Western men have to look for 'salvation for the white race' by mating with 'white latina' women is reaching a bit.
If we are going to discuss 'White Latina women', I can think of two well-known examples.
Exhibit A and Exhibit B if you can watch a 3-minute video of her.
I acknowledge they are extreme examples, but I suspect they reflect a widespread cultural attitude or style,
Sure, there are White Latina women; both of those women were immigrants who married White Anglo men. One of the women was well-educated and quite intelligent. Still, despite their outward appearance, I would say that cultural differences between the women and their hapless husbands contributed considerably to their, ahem, marital problems. As a result one of the men is now dead, and the other one, shall we say, scarred.
The second woman has now snagged yet another Anglo White male; I thought only stupid women married psychopaths. But some men find that Latina allure irresistible, knife or no knife.
Sure, bad things happen in non-mixed marriages, but cultural differences of some magnitude do exist even among people of European descent, especially as you mix Southern European or Eastern European with Western European. There are just differences in outlook, temperament, character, values, manners, emotional styles. The idea that 'love conquers all' is just romantic-age twaddle. It sounds nice and makes for a good happy-ever-after movie, but in reality, love does not conquer all, much less does lust conquer anything.
Culture does matter, because it is intertwined with genetics.
I've worked with people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe and there is a greater distance between us and them than between us and Western Europeans, although even with them, misunderstandings and crossed signals occur.
Also, the idea that Hispanics are 'Western' is absurd, yet it is still a popular claim made these days; they are 'Christian' so therefore they are Western, or they speak a European language so they are part of our heritage. This is erroneous, and we cannot gamble the future of our country and our people on that kind of faulty belief.
So, where do we stand? Are people softening towards Latinos and about to join them? Or am I being alarmist?
Labels: Assimilation, Culture, Miscegenation, Multiculturalism, Outmarriage
0 comment Sunday, October 12, 2014 | admin
This story out of Grand Rapids, Michigan has been provoking discussion here and there. The AmRen discussion is interesting to read, though I don't agree with some of the theories about it.
As to the 'why' of it, I think it fits a pattern, obviously. But several people at AmRen vote that 'low self-esteem' is a big factor, and they assert that the White female targets of the shooter, specifically the women who had children by the killer, were women with 'low self-esteem'. Low self-esteem of course is the diagnosis of choice by armchair psychologists when looking for causes of anything from weight problems to drug abuse to poor grades in school. It's always 'low self-esteem.' In my estimation, too high a self-esteem is the cause of a good many problems in our society.
But the idea that White women in such relationships suffer from low self-esteem seems to be a popular one. I don't agree with that assessment, just based on observation in real life. Sure, there are some women who get little attention from males of their own people but that's not the only reason why such women seek out or accept the attentions of males of other races.
And the case in question -- though I don't want to be found exploiting somebody's tragedy by using it to make a point -- I think there are other factors. The community in question is one where a lot of people of Calvinist background live; the town is the home of Calvin College. Many of the people in the area are of Dutch ancestry. Many of the churches in the Reformed category have of late become obsessed with 'diversity' and Africa and various forms of diversity-meddling and do-gooding. Though these churches and their congregants were once very socially conservative and clannish in an ethnic sense, now they have embraced 'diversity and inclusion' with a vengeance, and are full-on liberals in racial matters, as well as social issues like homosexuality.
And speaking more generally, most White women can tell you that they have been approached by black men, and that the black men, if turned down, will play the race card. ''Are you a racist? It's just because I'm black, isn't it?'' Sometimes the pity card is played, and many women out of sympathy or guilt will acquiesce to going out with the man in question.
Those of us who were brought up with the old-fashioned mores would not have fallen prey to the 'race card' or racial pity ploy. Nowadays, girls are much more likely to do so.
This of course applies to women who have already been softened up by diversity propaganda, the media, and now their multicult churches. Some Christian women, whether they admit it or not, see mixed relationships as a kind of domestic missionary work, or as a kind of 'ministry' in a secular way. Some of them honestly believe that this kind of relationship is their own contribution to 'stopping the hate' or 'bringing the races together', saving the world.
And then, with the hot trend of interracial adoptions, why go to the trouble and expense of adopting from Africa or Haiti if you can have a mixed family the 'natural' way?
Some people would protest that 'true love' crosses all barriers, and who are we to judge? But the choice to cross those lines has a ripple effect. Choosing to mate with someone of a drastically different faith, culture, or race is a choice that affects more than just two people; whole families are affected and changed by that 'individual' choice, as we've seen tragically in this story. Parents, siblings, nieces and nephews have all been victims of incidents like this in the past, as well as in this instance. None of this need have happened.
And yet the blind will go on being blind. They will make silly arguments like ''well, Whites kill their spouses and children every day'' or similarly lame responses. Or they will just say that the poor shooter had a hard life because of poverty, racism, and the legacy of slavery, so it wasn't his fault. Or: he was on some kind of medication that made him go berserk. Or 'this is just an individual case; you can't make judgements about a whole group of people.'
This blindness, of course, is aided by the media's censorship on matters like this. The AmRenners say that the newspapers are deleting comments mentioning the 'r-word' in this story, and that seems to be the direction the media are taking: block out any discussion of the r-word. Make sure only politically corrected viewpoints are heard. And so far, it's worked like a charm, but will it continue to do so?
As to the 'why' of it, I think it fits a pattern, obviously. But several people at AmRen vote that 'low self-esteem' is a big factor, and they assert that the White female targets of the shooter, specifically the women who had children by the killer, were women with 'low self-esteem'. Low self-esteem of course is the diagnosis of choice by armchair psychologists when looking for causes of anything from weight problems to drug abuse to poor grades in school. It's always 'low self-esteem.' In my estimation, too high a self-esteem is the cause of a good many problems in our society.
But the idea that White women in such relationships suffer from low self-esteem seems to be a popular one. I don't agree with that assessment, just based on observation in real life. Sure, there are some women who get little attention from males of their own people but that's not the only reason why such women seek out or accept the attentions of males of other races.
And the case in question -- though I don't want to be found exploiting somebody's tragedy by using it to make a point -- I think there are other factors. The community in question is one where a lot of people of Calvinist background live; the town is the home of Calvin College. Many of the people in the area are of Dutch ancestry. Many of the churches in the Reformed category have of late become obsessed with 'diversity' and Africa and various forms of diversity-meddling and do-gooding. Though these churches and their congregants were once very socially conservative and clannish in an ethnic sense, now they have embraced 'diversity and inclusion' with a vengeance, and are full-on liberals in racial matters, as well as social issues like homosexuality.
And speaking more generally, most White women can tell you that they have been approached by black men, and that the black men, if turned down, will play the race card. ''Are you a racist? It's just because I'm black, isn't it?'' Sometimes the pity card is played, and many women out of sympathy or guilt will acquiesce to going out with the man in question.
Those of us who were brought up with the old-fashioned mores would not have fallen prey to the 'race card' or racial pity ploy. Nowadays, girls are much more likely to do so.
This of course applies to women who have already been softened up by diversity propaganda, the media, and now their multicult churches. Some Christian women, whether they admit it or not, see mixed relationships as a kind of domestic missionary work, or as a kind of 'ministry' in a secular way. Some of them honestly believe that this kind of relationship is their own contribution to 'stopping the hate' or 'bringing the races together', saving the world.
And then, with the hot trend of interracial adoptions, why go to the trouble and expense of adopting from Africa or Haiti if you can have a mixed family the 'natural' way?
Some people would protest that 'true love' crosses all barriers, and who are we to judge? But the choice to cross those lines has a ripple effect. Choosing to mate with someone of a drastically different faith, culture, or race is a choice that affects more than just two people; whole families are affected and changed by that 'individual' choice, as we've seen tragically in this story. Parents, siblings, nieces and nephews have all been victims of incidents like this in the past, as well as in this instance. None of this need have happened.
And yet the blind will go on being blind. They will make silly arguments like ''well, Whites kill their spouses and children every day'' or similarly lame responses. Or they will just say that the poor shooter had a hard life because of poverty, racism, and the legacy of slavery, so it wasn't his fault. Or: he was on some kind of medication that made him go berserk. Or 'this is just an individual case; you can't make judgements about a whole group of people.'
This blindness, of course, is aided by the media's censorship on matters like this. The AmRenners say that the newspapers are deleting comments mentioning the 'r-word' in this story, and that seems to be the direction the media are taking: block out any discussion of the r-word. Make sure only politically corrected viewpoints are heard. And so far, it's worked like a charm, but will it continue to do so?
Labels: Diversity, Miscegenation, Outmarriage
0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 | admin
At Vox Day's blog there is a discussion around Vox's question ''Why do white women choose black men?''
One comment brings up a common argument:
NateM
Also, not to be a threadsh***er, but couldn't it be argued that interracial breeding could actually be beneficial for a group, as a way of avoiding eventual flourishing of a genetic disorders that large numbers of a racial group are carriers for due to relative inbreeding? In a way, fresh blood in a group is a long term benefit for the strength of that group. Hell, look at the Russians, they are a mixture of a number of ethnic backgrounds, thanks to years of war between them before eventually settling down to relative homogeny. That's not to discount the cultural strife that usually happens with the process though. I would even say that could be the rhyme or reason behinds mankinds natural tendency towards war and conflict: it puts them into new areas in contact with new groups, and prevents genetic stagnation.''
This is often asserted by proponents of 'diversity' and miscegenation, and it often goes unchallenged, implying that many people accept this claim as having at least some truth.
How do we define 'inbreeding', though? There seems to be no hard-and-fast definition; many of the online definitions I found said only 'breeding between close relatives.' Well, what is a close relative? Judging by what I've read and heard in various discussions, many Americans consider a first cousin as too close a relative to mate with, though many countries and cultures around the world actually favor first-cousin marriages.
Half of the states in our country prohibit first-cousin marriages, reflecting the widespread belief that such marriages are incestuous or at least 'trashy'. Unfortunately, though, many Americans have associated such marriages with 'White trash' from the South. However, looking at the list of states which prohibit such unions, there is no clear breakdown along North and South lines.
Steve Sailer, in an article from 2003, says
''American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa through West Asia and into Pakistan and India.
In contrast, Americans probably disapprove of what scientists call "consanguineous" mating more than any other nationality. Three huge studies in the U.S. between 1941 and 1981 found that no more than 0.2% of all American marriages were between first cousins or second cousins.
Americans have long dismissed cousin marriage as something practiced only among hillbillies. That old stereotype of inbred mountaineers waging decades long blood feuds had some truth to it. One study of 107 marriages in Beech Creek, Kentucky in 1942 found 19% were consanguineous, although the Kentuckians were more inclined toward second cousin marriages, while first cousin couples are more common than second cousins pairings in the Islamic lands.''
Some people mention Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as being cousins who married, though their relationship was not that close. They were fifth cousins once removed.
Most of us have little contact with cousins that distant from us, unlike with first or second cousins with whom we grow up, and who seem more like close family.
In earlier eras in New England, there was some cousin marriage; my genealogy researches showed that it was not at all uncommon but most of the marriages that I've found were third or fourth cousins, never first cousins, although that probably happened now and again. Massachusetts permits first cousin marriags. The reason for this marriage pattern was their relative isolation in the 17th and 18th century. Travel was arduous, there were few colonists, and most people did not even meet people from distant towns. The fact that they married cousins does not indicate immorality or backwardness. Over time as more colonists arrived, and isolation decreased, there were fewer such marriages. However, reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft, we see that he often alluded to 'inbred' and degenerate families up in the hills or in the remote areas. This is not to say they were the rule; if it were so, then there would be no disdain or social stigma attached to it, as there obviously was.
Today, though, when scientists want to study the effects of inbreeding, they look at certain populations who isolate themselves:
Isolated populations with homogenous genes such as the Amish in central Pennsylvania, the Ashkenazi Jews and Indian tribes offer genetic researchers unparalleled insight into disease and genetics.
These closed populations, whether by geography or religion, were created by just a few families � called the "founder effect" � and built on generations of inbreeding.''
We're all familiar with the genetic diseases that have developed among these populations, due to consanguineous marriages.
But it should be obvious that real inbreeding among average White Americans is not a problem; it just does not happen that much. I find it baffling that so many people, usually proponents of multiculturalism and racial blending, believe that being White is itself proof of being inbred. There are, after all, White people of just about every European ancestry in this country. Except for extreme cases of group isolation, as with the Amish, they have all intermingled to some degree. I would say there is less intermingling of European nationalities in the Southern states traditionally, because there was less immigration of non-British Isles peoples. There were of course Huguenot descendants, especially in certain areas, but they arrived in colonial times and quickly began to intermarry with the English-speaking population. The same is true of the pre-Revolution colonists from Germany who came to Virginia. They did not remain a distinct or isolated population.
Today, too, everyone has become so mobile that few people live their whole lives in the place of their birth. There is little geographic isolation in this mobile age. So the thought of inbreeding in a country of 310 million very mobile people is absurd. Still, the multicultists harp on the subject of inbreeding, implying that we have to mate with every race to keep our progeny 'vigorous and healthy' or to attain 'hybrid vigor', as in the comment I quoted from Vox Day's blog.
As Sailer's article emphasizes, inbreeding is hardly a problem among Americans, especially White Americans, who express considerable aversion to it. So any argument that is based on the supposed 'inbreeding' of White Americans is foolish.
The hybrid vigor argument is not always true, even among animals:
In any case, humans cannot be 'bred' in the same fashion as zoo animals, although at times it seems as if the propagandists working with our rulers seem to believe we can -- and should -- be, as witness the blitz of advertising featuring race-blending.
A leftist professor said, when I was in college, that one day everybody will be required to marry someone of another race, and that will effectively end 'racial prejudice.' Some of us laughed at his words, but it looks as though he was prophetic.
One comment brings up a common argument:
NateM
Also, not to be a threadsh***er, but couldn't it be argued that interracial breeding could actually be beneficial for a group, as a way of avoiding eventual flourishing of a genetic disorders that large numbers of a racial group are carriers for due to relative inbreeding? In a way, fresh blood in a group is a long term benefit for the strength of that group. Hell, look at the Russians, they are a mixture of a number of ethnic backgrounds, thanks to years of war between them before eventually settling down to relative homogeny. That's not to discount the cultural strife that usually happens with the process though. I would even say that could be the rhyme or reason behinds mankinds natural tendency towards war and conflict: it puts them into new areas in contact with new groups, and prevents genetic stagnation.''
This is often asserted by proponents of 'diversity' and miscegenation, and it often goes unchallenged, implying that many people accept this claim as having at least some truth.
How do we define 'inbreeding', though? There seems to be no hard-and-fast definition; many of the online definitions I found said only 'breeding between close relatives.' Well, what is a close relative? Judging by what I've read and heard in various discussions, many Americans consider a first cousin as too close a relative to mate with, though many countries and cultures around the world actually favor first-cousin marriages.
Half of the states in our country prohibit first-cousin marriages, reflecting the widespread belief that such marriages are incestuous or at least 'trashy'. Unfortunately, though, many Americans have associated such marriages with 'White trash' from the South. However, looking at the list of states which prohibit such unions, there is no clear breakdown along North and South lines.
Steve Sailer, in an article from 2003, says
''American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa through West Asia and into Pakistan and India.
In contrast, Americans probably disapprove of what scientists call "consanguineous" mating more than any other nationality. Three huge studies in the U.S. between 1941 and 1981 found that no more than 0.2% of all American marriages were between first cousins or second cousins.
Americans have long dismissed cousin marriage as something practiced only among hillbillies. That old stereotype of inbred mountaineers waging decades long blood feuds had some truth to it. One study of 107 marriages in Beech Creek, Kentucky in 1942 found 19% were consanguineous, although the Kentuckians were more inclined toward second cousin marriages, while first cousin couples are more common than second cousins pairings in the Islamic lands.''
Some people mention Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as being cousins who married, though their relationship was not that close. They were fifth cousins once removed.
Most of us have little contact with cousins that distant from us, unlike with first or second cousins with whom we grow up, and who seem more like close family.
In earlier eras in New England, there was some cousin marriage; my genealogy researches showed that it was not at all uncommon but most of the marriages that I've found were third or fourth cousins, never first cousins, although that probably happened now and again. Massachusetts permits first cousin marriags. The reason for this marriage pattern was their relative isolation in the 17th and 18th century. Travel was arduous, there were few colonists, and most people did not even meet people from distant towns. The fact that they married cousins does not indicate immorality or backwardness. Over time as more colonists arrived, and isolation decreased, there were fewer such marriages. However, reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft, we see that he often alluded to 'inbred' and degenerate families up in the hills or in the remote areas. This is not to say they were the rule; if it were so, then there would be no disdain or social stigma attached to it, as there obviously was.
Today, though, when scientists want to study the effects of inbreeding, they look at certain populations who isolate themselves:
Isolated populations with homogenous genes such as the Amish in central Pennsylvania, the Ashkenazi Jews and Indian tribes offer genetic researchers unparalleled insight into disease and genetics.
These closed populations, whether by geography or religion, were created by just a few families � called the "founder effect" � and built on generations of inbreeding.''
We're all familiar with the genetic diseases that have developed among these populations, due to consanguineous marriages.
But it should be obvious that real inbreeding among average White Americans is not a problem; it just does not happen that much. I find it baffling that so many people, usually proponents of multiculturalism and racial blending, believe that being White is itself proof of being inbred. There are, after all, White people of just about every European ancestry in this country. Except for extreme cases of group isolation, as with the Amish, they have all intermingled to some degree. I would say there is less intermingling of European nationalities in the Southern states traditionally, because there was less immigration of non-British Isles peoples. There were of course Huguenot descendants, especially in certain areas, but they arrived in colonial times and quickly began to intermarry with the English-speaking population. The same is true of the pre-Revolution colonists from Germany who came to Virginia. They did not remain a distinct or isolated population.
Today, too, everyone has become so mobile that few people live their whole lives in the place of their birth. There is little geographic isolation in this mobile age. So the thought of inbreeding in a country of 310 million very mobile people is absurd. Still, the multicultists harp on the subject of inbreeding, implying that we have to mate with every race to keep our progeny 'vigorous and healthy' or to attain 'hybrid vigor', as in the comment I quoted from Vox Day's blog.
As Sailer's article emphasizes, inbreeding is hardly a problem among Americans, especially White Americans, who express considerable aversion to it. So any argument that is based on the supposed 'inbreeding' of White Americans is foolish.
The hybrid vigor argument is not always true, even among animals:
In any case, humans cannot be 'bred' in the same fashion as zoo animals, although at times it seems as if the propagandists working with our rulers seem to believe we can -- and should -- be, as witness the blitz of advertising featuring race-blending.
A leftist professor said, when I was in college, that one day everybody will be required to marry someone of another race, and that will effectively end 'racial prejudice.' Some of us laughed at his words, but it looks as though he was prophetic.
Labels: Miscegenation, Multiculturalism, Outmarriage, Race Denial