Friday, September 13, 2013

MYTH: Race-Mixing Is Unnatural

OMG, STOP! THAT'S UNNATURAL!
This is really among my favorite white nationalist claims. It is the claim that effectively introduced me to white nationalism and triggered an obsessive, morbid interest in it.

I study biology, so the claim struck me immediately as the epitome of ignorance. People who don't study biology might easily realize it's wrong too, but in light of some biological facts which aren't common knowledge, it becomes even more stupid.

So what exactly makes it so stupid?

Short answer: it's false.

Long answer: below.




Once upon a time, I was an innocent little libtard anti-white. I associated with all kinds of people with varying traits and cultures, and didn't think anybody would hold that against me. I thought racism was really an artifact of the past, at least in the West, and any racists who still existed must know they're wrong.

I blissfully thought that anybody stupid enough to be racist would be halfhearted, cowardly, and embarrassed about it. That's why you can't spot them, isn't it? They just never voice their racist opinions because they know it's complete bullshit. True, militant racists though, must a thing of the past, right? They really don't exist anymore in the developed world, like wooly mammoths of ideology. I didn't consciously think it, but that was my general feeling towards it.

Then I saw a video on youtube. A black African man was in the video, claiming that race-mixing was unnatural. I got into a few arguments with his followers in the comments, but he didn't have that many followers to begin with, and in the end, I didn't think racism was any more prevalent than I had thought before. Moronic, annoying, worthy of ridicule, yes, but ultimately irrelevant. Nobody was listening. Furthermore, this wasn't even racism in Europe or the Americas, this was in Africa.

But then, something else came up, closer to home.

I like neofolk music. Wardruna is my favorite neofolk band. So I was checking their Facebook page for updates about their new album, and I saw this:


Oh my god. Who was this asshole? What was he doing on Wardruna's Facebook page? Was Wardruna really racially-motivated music and I've been oblivious to it all along?

I decided not to engage, at first. For my own sense of security, I did some googling and tried to see whether Wardruna was meant to be a racist band. I didn't find much, only that one of the members is a practicing Odinist, and had once been openly racist, but had later rejected this and claimed he wasn't racist anymore. Whether this was just more white nationalist double-speak (claiming they actually aren't racist because they want to preserve all cultures), or he truly isn't racist anymore, I don't know. In light of the lack of evidence, I'm inclined to still enjoy their music.

I began watching the conversation unfold below the original poster's comment. It was a long line of ass-kissers mostly, and if anybody voiced a counter-opinion, they were quickly ridiculed and drowned out by racists. I was surprised: I had expected the exact opposite to happen.

Then this happened.


I couldn't resist. The comparison of sparrows and seagulls was just too much.


(I didn't realize till after that I'd been calling Troy Tony. Thanks, dyslexia.) Anyway, he goes off into one of those paranoid Jew-hating rants which I've gotten used to by now:


At the time, I had no idea what the fuck he was talking about. Who is "they"? What's a "Goyim"? I wasn't familiar with white nationalist doctrine, so I actually had no idea they hated Jews or that this comment was about Jews.

A mind-numbingly self-righteous circle-jerk quickly followed:


Again, I had no idea what "them", or "our masters", or "thoroughbred thralls" referred to and was completely bewildered by these comments. Now, I realize they're about Jews.

The underlined section is worth noting, since many fans of Norwegian bands consider "Christian" to be an insult (a lot of Norwegian music is anarchistic in nature and questions traditional values). Also ironic, seeing as he himself doesn't understand "natural law".

So I shrug off the bewildering anti-Semitic comments and try again at a blunt appeal to logic:


Like talking to a wall.

Hey, white nationalists, if biology "discredits" you, that's probably a sign that white nationalism is stupid. If biology "bewilders" you, that's probably a sign that you're stupid. If you think biology is a "conversational tactic", then congratulations, you live in Opposite Land. Here, your opinions are facts, and actual facts are conspiracies. By the way, if you believe biology is a "conversational tactic", then I'm eager to also hear your conspiracy theory about how 1+1 actually does not equal 2.

Next, without any rationality whatsoever, Dave chimes in again to mock me and insist that I meant to say the exact opposite of what I said, which triggers another circle-jerk:


I had no idea what "dryskin demon" meant at the time. Now, I still can't be sure, but I think it refers to black people, and the stereotype that they have dry skin.

Note again the hostility towards Christianity: "a thousand years of baptisms to overcome".

Now, I don't like religion either, but when you're essentially trading one set of beliefs for another that's just as bad, but still have the audacity to act like yours is better, you just look like an idiot.

Mystified by their codeword-littered drivel, I drop the biology and address their hypocrisy:


They respond with pseudo-spiritual anti-logic and tell me to not ask questions:


"never ask a question you don't know the answer to"

Excuse me, what? I'm still not sure if this was a typo or not. He never corrected himself if it was.

The lunacy continues.


Another moron named Troy joins (labeled by a red 2), and the original Troy decides to ignore me and take out his frustration by being passive-aggressive and whining to the new Troy. Instead of facing me like a man and saying "fuck you" directly to me, he just complains about me to someone else.


Then another moron shows up with a wall of text about some shitty movie he saw on BET.


Troy emits one more intellectual fart, and I appeal my case one more time.


I get no response after this.

What does this have to do with the claim that race-mixing is unnatural? Well, I want you, the reader, to understand the impact this claim had on me, and what it meant to me as a display of willful ignorance. This was the claim that prompted me to respond to these people. It's the claim that revealed to me that racism still exists in the West, and that people were still trying to use biology as an excuse for it. It's the claim that made me want to investigate racism further. From there, I found Stormfront, the darkest corner of the internet, and poking at this pile of shit in search of truth, I decided that it deserved to be ridiculed and factually debunked as much as possible.

Now that you know my history with this claim, and that this claim alone triggered my fascination with racist ideology, let me explain exactly why it's false.

First, we must consider the definition of unnatural. What do racists mean when they use this word?

If you do a Google search for the definition, several definitions come up, including: 
  • contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
  • not existing in nature; artificial.
  • affected or stilted.
  • In violation of a natural law.
  • Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
  • Deviating from a behavioral or social norm.
  • Contrived or constrained; artificial.
  • In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.

There's only one of these definitions which race-mixing fits into: Deviating from a behavioral or social norm. In the United States, it was quite taboo for decades to "mix" with someone from another race. It was even illegal in many states for them to marry, and it wasn't until the Loving vs. Virginia case in 1967 that all laws banning "miscegenation" were invalidated.

Today, one can more or less say that "race-mixing" in the US isn't taboo anymore. Certain communities within the US, certain families, still consider it taboo of course, which is where it could still objectively be defined as "deviating from a behavioral or social norm", but overall, this isn't really an issue anymore. Even if it was, there's obviously no reason to uphold these taboos if they have no biological basis.

Therefore, it's quite clear to me that racists who claim it's unnatural aren't using this particular definition. They're using the other definitions, insisting that "race-mixing" doesn't occur in nature. They often use animals (like the Facebook comment about sparrows and seagulls) as examples of how it doesn't occur, and insist that humanity and its "races" are actually wholly different species.






The thing that bewilders me the most about this is how these individuals are obviously using the internet to express these ideas: they have the largest source of information ever known to mankind, literally at their fingertips. They could, I dunno, check their facts before spewing ignorance, maybe. But somehow they still manage not to.

Me.

"Mixing"/Interbreeding in Nature

I'm going to try to put this as simply as possible.

Animals "mix" in nature. Like, all the time. (Seriously. Here's even more sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6])

And when they mix, it's usually either inter-subspecies or inter-species. What this means is that not only is "race-mixing" natural, but it's also genetically negligible compared to what we observe in nature, since humans are all one species and subspecies. Basically, when humans "race mix", nothing significant is happening: it can't really be truthfully called "mixing" at all, since we're all one species and subspecies.

I'll break this down in simple biological terms.

These are the taxonomic clades. This is the system biologists use to organize living things in categories. You've probably seen it in a textbook before. Each level is called a clade or taxon.

Complete with psychedelic mushrooms.

Here's an illustration of how it can be applied to an animal, in this case, a killer whale/orca (but they leave out the taxonomic levels of Life and Domain). The names attached to each taxon are called the "scientific" or "Latin" names of the animal.

If you want to sound sciencey and pretentious, just say the Genus and species name of the orca next time you refer to one: you would say, "Orcinus orca" instead of just saying "orca" or "killer whale". This works with any animal, not just orcas.

I always thought it should be in Family Canidae because it looks like a shiny panda bear.

It's worth noting that taxonomy has only just begun to be an exact science: before we had genetic testing to help us see how related animals are to each other, taxonomy was essentially an art form. Biologists essentially guessed how to classify living things.

And this is still happening. In fact, there really isn't an objective or perfect definition for the taxon Species. This is called the "species problem". Generally, a species is classified as an organism that is able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with other members of its same species. This isn't a perfect definition though, since there are some organisms which defy this definition and exhibit exceptions to it (mainly bacteria).

Now, here is an example of two animals (the gray wolf and the coyote) who share the same taxonomy, from Life, all the way down through Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus. If you were to write the whole thing down, both of their taxonomic trees would read like this:
  • DOMAIN: Eukaryote
  • KINGDOM: Animalia
  • PHYLUM: Chordata
  • CLASS: Mammalia
  • ORDER: Carnivora
  • FAMILY: Canidae
  • GENUS: Canis
However, the similarity stops there: they do not share the taxon of species.

Therefore, if these two animals mated and had offspring (which they do sometimes), this would be an inter-species pairing.

DON'T DO IT GUYS! IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS HAVING SEX WITH A PLANT!

Now, subspecies wasn't listed on any of these taxonomic illustrations. This is a taxonomic clade which sits underneath Species, which makes it the smallest clade, but it's not usually discussed or shown unless people are talking about a very, very specific organism.
Are we sure this isn't just a new Japanese toy?

It also isn't shown if there simply aren't any subspecies of an organism. An example of this would be the Patagonian cavy. All Patagonian cavies are too genetically similar to be divided into different subspecies: there's basically just one variety of this animal. With animals like this, biologists don't even bother giving it a subspecies name.

So if you go looking for the full Latin names of animals, and expect to find subspecies with each one, don't! Not all of them have subspecies.

So what does it take for an organism to qualify for having subspecies?

Subspecies has the same problem that Species does. There isn't a perfect definition for it. However, it's generally accepted that if a species has been geographically separated long enough into different populations, it can be considered to have subspecies. Sometimes the differences between subspecies are visible to the naked eye, and other times, they aren't.

Here's an example of inter-subspecies pairing:

I like caribou. Can you tell?

These are just two of many subspecies of caribou. They're all the same Species, and they could all have fertile and healthy offspring with each other if they interbred (and they do), but they're also divided into populations of subspecies, because they have been in separate populations for a long enough time that they became morphologically and genetically distinct varieties of the same animal.

In summation:
  • Animals interbreed naturally with organisms outside their species and subspecies. They do not "stick with their own kind" all the time. 
  • Since interbreeding is observed in nature and under natural conditions, it is a natural behavior. Therefore, even if there were different species or subspecies of humans (there aren't), interbreeding would be a perfectly natural behavior.


 "Race-Mixing" in Humans


I'm going to go a step further with this. Really, I could've ended this post after pointing out and supporting the fact that animals interbreed in nature all the time. That is sufficient to debunk the claim that "race-mixing" is unnatural.

But that's not good enough for me.

I want to make something very clear. I was not using animals as an analogy to explain human "race-mixing". I was not implying that animals naturally interbreeding is the same thing as humans "race-mixing".

All I was doing was pointing out that interbreeding is a natural behavior. This is the claim I set out to disprove, and I did it.

Now, though, I want to elaborate and make sure there is no confusion about the nature of what we call "race-mixing" as a human behavior.

So here's the thing: remember how I discussed what defines species and subspecies? Remember how I said that we don't really have a perfect definition for either of these clades? But that if a species has been geographically separated long enough into different populations, it can be considered to have subspecies?

This has opened the door for eugenicists and racists to try and say that human races are actually subspecies.

Now, I noted several times that humans are all one species, and cannot be divided into subspecies. I will elaborate on this now.

The Biology of the Race Problem:

Psychological characteristics? Oh, so does that mean you're an arrogant scumbag because you're white?

At first glance it might seem like this has some merit to it. Humans have been distributed throughout the globe, and have subsequently developed varying physical traits to fit their respective environments. This fits into the definition of subspecies, doesn't it?

Well, not exactly.

One problem with this is that humans are an extremely young species, only 200,000 years old, and each "race" of humans is younger still. There's a lot of debate around this, but humans only began to migrate out of Africa as recently as 62,000 years ago, and possibly as long ago as 130,000 years ago, which is still only a brief moment of evolutionary time. Generally, a species needs to be geographically isolated for a longer time than this to develop into distinct subspecies.

Then there's the issue that long-term geographic separation has never actually happened to us. Geographic barriers have not succeeded in keeping us separated: massive gene flow has occurred throughout human history, despite being us being separated by mountains, seas, oceans, and other barriers. (Multiple supporting links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5])

Another problem with this is that race exists on a continuum. In the case of distinct subspecies in the rest of the animal kingdom, we can usually see clear divisions between each subspecies, both through genetic testing which proves some degree of long-term geographic separation, and visible phylogenetic traits.

This gets tricky, because obviously, humans do have different traits which are immediately visible to surface observations. However, these traits exist on a continuum, and there is no clear division between one race and another. Start in Scandinavia, and work your way down to South Africa, and notice the gradual changes in physical traits: "white" European people don't just suddenly come to an end where "black" Africans begin.

Instead it's a gradient: Mediterraneans tend to be darker and shorter than Scandinavians, Arabs can be darker still, but can just as easily be pale and have recessive eye colors; Northern Africans show an incredible amount of diversity, from straight-haired and brown-skinned Nubians, olive or pale peoples of Egypt, light brown Wodaabe people - and continuing down further still, the gradient continues to sub-Saharan and Eastern Africa, the most genetically diverse humans in the world.

Further evidence against the argument for human subspecies lies in the fact that our observations of phylogenetic traits are further corroborated by genetic research. No genetic markers can biologically separate us into "races". There is no clear biological or genetic distinction between "races". Furthermore, more diversity is present within populations than between them.

This is why humans don't have subspecies. Genetic variation and differences among us are too small and inconsistent.

So what about all the well-accredited "scientists" and "researchers" who tried (and are still trying) to convince us that "race" has a biological basis? Am I suggesting all these experts are all just wrong?

Absolutely they're wrong. And not just wrong, but also something much worse: academically dishonest. These people are nothing more than salesmen. All they're doing is selling the idea of "race" under the guise of "science". Their papers and studies might look official and well-founded, but under close inspection they fall apart (and I intend to closely inspect some of these documents in another post).

For good measure, here's the scientific classification for humans:

Pretty sexy. No Homo.

All modern humans have this taxonomic tree. Black people do not have a different taxonomy. Jewish people do not have a different taxonomy. All humans are Homo sapiens. All perceived human races are humans, and they all have the same taxonomy.

 THIS is interbreeding:


THIS is interbreeding:


THIS is NOT INTERBREEDING:

Still not convinced these are actual, biological animals, and not just weird Japanese puppets.

AND NEITHER IS THIS:

OH MY GOD, THEY HAVE VARYING PHYLOGENETIC TRAITS! SOMEBODY CALL THE GENOCIDE POLICE!

And even if it was interbreeding, guess what? It would still be natural. It would still be nothing to be upset about. It would still be moronic to suggest it doesn't happen in nature.

The facts do not favor white nationalism in any degree here.

To summarize:
  • Interbreeding occurs in nature. It is a natural behavior.
  • Race-mixing actually isn't a type of interbreeding, since humans are all one species, and not different enough to have different subspecies.


Please comment, follow, and share this post.

WX979329YZPM

68 comments:

  1. I wish you could go back in time so you could tell your family members who were bleeding to death on battlefields at young ages that they were dying for nothing, that you're just going to give our homeland Europe away, not only that, but you're going to fight for it to be taken away from us.
    You need to realize that you're not merely a "race traitor" to some white nationalists, but you're a traitor to your family and to humanity as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish you could go back in time so you could tell your family members who were bleeding to death on battlefields at young ages that they were dying for nothing, that you're just going to fight against other peoples' rights to migrate to a better life or marry who they want to, not only that, but you're going to fight for people to be forcefully relocated based SOLELY on their phylogenetic traits. You need to realize that you're not merely a "white nationalist" to some race traitors, but you're a racist and a supremacist, and a scourge to your family and to humanity as a whole.

      There, see, I can do it too. Doesn't prove a goddamn thing. Try using FACTS to support your position next time.

      Delete
    2. I think your ancestors who fought and died to keep foreigners OUT of our homeland Europe would agree with my position.

      Delete
    3. I think your ancestors who fought and died for personal freedom would agree with my position.

      Yawn. Do you see how this doesn't actually prove a goddamn thing? It doesn't matter who dead people would agree with. Are you going to use any facts anytime soon or just keep whining about "foreigners" because you don't like people who have different phylogenetic traits than you?

      Delete
    4. Dude if you look at this still then PLEASE get your facts straight "Eugenics: Study of human improvement by genetic means. The first thorough exposition of eugenics was made by Francis Galton, who in Hereditary Genius (1869) proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, supported Galton's theories. U.S."!!! It is the selective breeding of specific traits for a more superior person. NOT a specific race. because slave traders used to do the same thing to produce better stronger workers! And your Biological explanations are just moronic at best. There are 3 great races on this planet and several combinations of the 3. If as you suggest we are the same then we all should be able to adapt to each climate we "migrate" to and over time just as some "scientists" claim we should start exhibiting the best traits to survive the climate it should only take a few generations for this to take place. right? that is what modern science teaches and if we all descend from a common root as most "scientists" and "christians" claim then every single gene in our DNA should be identical. right? and therefore we should be able to contract the same diseases and more often than not two people "white" or "black" should produce the exact opposite of the parents because we ALL share the exact same traits in our DNA they will eventually combine and they don't unless they have a white or black in wood pile and that is only a recent issue within the last 200 or so years and if we all started off as the same in the beginning then wouldn't stand to reason that we would ALL BE THE SAME today. Because if we were then we would be. If people want to destroy their heritage by miscegenation then that is theirs to do but PLEASE do not think just because people want to keep their lines "pure" does not mean they hate other races. The world has declared open season on Whites and anything we say or do that is counter to the current world view is evil we are all race haters. that is furthest from the truth while I personally do not like people mixing that is their choice. I just do not have anything to do with them in my personal life but will not mistreat them in the professional arena. I could go further but this is getting tedious always being labeled a hater because I Love my RACE more than any other. You may have gotten into it with a african over this issue but very few do. The current world wants to destroy the White Race! We are the only ones attacked for this type of belief. Everyone else is entitled to it but us and that is not right!

      Delete
    5. I do still look. I plan to make more posts and get the blog running again soon.

      Anyway, I will respond to your comment.

      >"PLEASE get your facts straight "Eugenics: Study of human improvement by genetic means. The first thorough exposition of eugenics was made by Francis Galton, who in Hereditary Genius (1869) proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, supported Galton's theories. U.S."!!! It is the selective breeding of specific traits for a more superior person. NOT a specific race."

      Eugenics has (and still does) play a significant role in racist ideologies, whether it was originally meant to or not. It has also been used as an excuse for genocide. Also, it has struggled ethically since its conception: you cannot "selectively breed" humans without alienating some ethical standards. The only way this could be ethically achieved is if there was a breeding program that people could consent to, but the very nature of a breeding program implies that offspring will be made, and those offspring must be allowed to decline participation if they desire. Most attempts at selective breeding thus far have involved the brainwashing and isolation of a group of people so they have no contact with undesired gene pools, and no desire to have contact with them. The Spartans practiced infanticide to secure traits they believed were superior.

      Eugenics is also very experimental, and it is quite subjective what kind of traits are "better" than others. Like domestic animal breeding, the selective breeding of humans would cause unanticipated traits to surface which aren't easily selected against. For example, the King Charles spaniel is a companion dog which has been bred for certain appearance traits, which is now causing many of the dogs to grow an abnormal skull which is not big enough to house their brain. These dogs suffer pain and seizures, and ultimately death. In fact, purebred dogs in general are known for having poor genetic health, despite being bred to be supposedly superior to mutts. German shepherds have weak back legs, dalmatians suffer from behavior problems, many breeds suffer from ocular disorders such as cataracts, whereas mixed-breed dogs are generally healthier.

      >"And your Biological explanations are just moronic at best."

      Please explain how stating biological facts is "moronic".

      >"There are 3 great races on this planet and several combinations of the 3."

      Incorrect. There is no biological definition for "race". Genetically humans exist on a sliding scale of genetic traits, and are all intimately linked and related to each other.

      >"If as you suggest we are the same then we all should be able to adapt to each climate we "migrate" to and over time just as some "scientists" claim we should start exhibiting the best traits to survive the climate"

      Correct. And this is, in fact, how different phylogenetic traits appeared in humans. When humans first migrated out of Africa, they migrated North into Europe. The humans with slightly lighter skin had a reproductive advantage, and over many generations, their skin got a lot lighter. Other traits like straight hair also appeared this way.

      Delete
    6. >"it should only take a few generations for this to take place. right?"

      Not necessarily. It depends what environment they are migrating to, what traits need to change for optimal adaptation, and whether they have contact with other humans in the new environment. Exchanging genes with humans who already have advantageous traits may speed up the adaptation process, increasing the chances that their offspring will have more adaptive traits.

      >"if we all descend from a common root as most "scientists" and "christians" claim then every single gene in our DNA should be identical. right?"

      Wrong. The only people in the world who have the same exact genes as another person, are monozygotic multiple-birth siblings (twins, triplets, quintuplets, etc). And even they are actually not 100% genetically identical.

      >"and therefore we should be able to contract the same diseases"

      Incorrect. Even siblings have varying disease traits. Someone may be immune to norovirus, for example, but their sibling may not be.

      >"and more often than not two people "white" or "black" should produce the exact opposite of the parents"

      Please clarify what you mean by this. There is no such thing as an "opposite" offspring.

      >"because we ALL share the exact same traits in our DNA"

      There certainly are some traits and DNA that we all share, that's why we're all the same species. However, traits arise via a system of natural selection and mutation. Some gene pools may not have the same traits as other gene pools if they never experienced the same mutations during their evolution. However all humans have the potential to obtain new mutations.

      >"they will eventually combine and they don't unless they have a white or black in wood pile"

      Everybody has "black in wood pile". The first humans were African.

      >"and that is only a recent issue within the last 200 or so years"

      Humans have undergone massive gene flow events many times throughout our entire history and throughout the world.

      >"and if we all started off as the same in the beginning then wouldn't stand to reason that we would ALL BE THE SAME today."

      No. Evolution is not stagnant and never will be.

      >"If people want to destroy their heritage by miscegenation then that is theirs to do"

      Miscegenation does not destroy anything. In fact, when two people with varying phylogenetic traits create offspring, the offspring gets 1/2 of their DNA from the mother, and 1/2 from the father. Nothing is destroyed in this process.

      I do not understand why you have called the biological facts I've cited "moronic", while you yourself have very little understanding of the subject yourself. I find this ironic.

      >"PLEASE do not think just because people want to keep their lines "pure" does not mean they hate other races."

      Purity does not exist. This is a sentimental social value created by humans, not a biological reality. Believing in something which does not exist is highly irrational. Allowing this irrational belief to dictate who you can and cannot produce offspring with, based only on the idea of "race" (also does not exist), is a form of racism. You may claim it is not hateful per se, but it is in fact irrational and racist.

      >"The world has declared open season on Whites"

      No it has not.

      >"while I personally do not like people mixing"

      That is incredibly irrational.

      >"that is their choice."

      It's also a natural behavior.

      >" I just do not have anything to do with them in my personal life"

      That is good. I don't think they would appreciate your irrational opinions.

      >"I could go further but this is getting tedious always being labeled a hater because I Love my RACE more than any other."

      You are labeled a "hater" because you are illogical, and love something which does not even exist.

      Delete
    7. >"You may have gotten into it with a african over this issue but very few do."

      If this is true, I would assume that this is because blacks are a minority population (in the US), so therefore there are probably less black nationalists than there are white nationalists. That being said, black nationalists are just as stigmatized as white nationalists. Both have been in the media, and both have been publicly ridiculed and shamed.

      >" The current world wants to destroy the White Race!"

      No it does not.

      >"We are the only ones attacked for this type of belief."

      That is a false statement. As I said, black nationalism is highly stigmatized as well. Asian nationalism has also been ridiculed.

      >"Everyone else is entitled to it but us and that is not right!"

      Actually, as I just said, any racist ideology is socially taboo.

      Delete
  2. They fought and died for us to have a homeland and to keep our heritage, not for our territory to be taken over by foreigners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eh, the Nazis did, yeah. Plenty other wars fought for Europe have just been turf wars though and not racially motivated at all, and plenty of Europeans throughout history valued personal freedom and didn't care about racial purity. To say ALL (or even most) of our European ancestors and ilk were racial nationalists is completely unfounded.

      And even if they all were mouth-breathing racists who lived their life according to which phylogenetic traits they inherited, this proves nothing about the values we should or shouldn't hold today. People don't generally require a dowry from a groom's family anymore, for example, JUST because their ancestors did it.

      Do you have anything at all to say that isn't just melodramatic opinion-spamming? I'm really only interested in facts.

      Delete
    2. I made the point that I was trying to make. You don't have to agree with it.

      Delete
  3. I don't believe race mixing is unnatural because if it were, we shouldn't be able to have romantic feelings toward people of other races. This article however is one giant strawman. White Nationalism is about preserving the white race and their unique culture. Whether race mixing is natural or not doesn't change that.

    Also why do non-whites need to "migrate to a better life" as you put it? Are their people not able to provide decent living standards for them in their own countries? It seems to me that's what you're implying. Racist!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then this post wasn't really directed at people such as yourself. There are many white nationalists however, who make the claim that it IS unnatural and try to use it to support their ideology.

      "Non-whites" migrate for a variety of reasons. Many of them come from countries which do not have a "decent" standard of living though, yes. How is that racist? I never said that low of standards of living are caused by race.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I knew of Chris Noth's wife, Tara Lynn Wilson, pictured above, for several years. I don't know her actual heritage, but the visual evidence is clear that she is a result of quite a bit of "race mixing" herself. Unnatural? LOL. On the contrary, I think it would be unnatural to not find her extremely attractive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't believe in it for the simple reason that there's no way in hell that I'll create offspring with a person's species who's been hell-bent on killing my people since they first saw us. Oh, and Africans (provided that you're not from a mixed background) are the only ones who hasn't got any neanderthal dna in them, so THERE ARE differences between human beings.. But the technical shit isn't really interesting at all, the most important thing is culture & nation building. It's completely normal to look out for your own, so as a black person, I don't give a flying f*ck if a stormfront woman doesn't want to start a family with me. As a matter of fact, I respect that decision. It is more important to learn how to co-exist on this planet without killing each other than diluting ones heritage for the sake of some utopian pipe-dream.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You obviously did not even read the post that you're commenting on.

      First of all, white people are not a different species from you. All humans are the same species.

      Also, white people don't want to kill black people. Humans kill each other whenever one group has an advantage over another group. Inequality causes these conflicts, not race, so your blanket statements do not actually hold any water. You're citing a correlation as a causation. That's a fallacy.

      Also, I literally NEVER SAID that there aren't any differences between human beings. Go back and actually read the post. I said quite the opposite: humans have varying phylogenetic traits. However, race is not a biological reality, it is only a social one.

      I also never said it wasn't normal to look out for your own: all humans are "your own". So any humans you choose to associate with and help out is a behavior of looking out for "your own".

      Also, race-mixing is not "diluting ones heritage". It's actually two humans who have varying phylogenetic traits combining their DNA. Offspring gets 1/2 of their DNA from the male, and 1/2 of their DNA from the female. The word "dilute" would not be used to describe this process by any field of science, because it does not apply.

      It's ironic you talk about co-existing, because it's people like you and stormfronters/nationalists, and anybody who clings to fundamentalist ideologies instead of facts, who actually make co-existing impossible. People like you want people to be isolated and separated from each other, based on what phylogenetic traits they have and what continent they originate from, despite the fact that humans have been constantly migrating around the planet ever since we've been here. You would rather control peoples' freedom than see them potentially make life choices which might make you uncomfortable. That's the difference between people like you and people like me: I want people to have the CHOICE of where to live, who to associate with, and what to believe. You don't.

      Delete
  7. Caribou, please overlook Richard, he's simply proof that we Black people have our share of idiots also.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is natural, because they are both consenting humans. It's okay to not be attracted to certain people, but it's NOT okay to dictate who other people can be attracted to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rad post. I was worried I'd have to stop listening to Wardruna too. This quote from the founder/main guy helps: "The image of the Runes has been tarnished by some right wing racist idiots who have no business using them and only did so for their own gain." http://www.ghostcultmag.com/return-to-yggdrasil-an-interview-with-wardruna/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I saw that interview. Also, on their official site, they talk about the instruments they use and admit that they use indigenous instruments from all over the world (including Africa). I think they also said something about spirituality being universal and their music being universal. I don't think they're a racist band.

      Delete
  10. Love your site! I am a recent Wardruna fan, a devoted student of world mythologies (Norse being a favorite) and I'm Jewish by birth, though not by belief. So you can well imagine that I've been wrestling with many of the same concerns you mention. Sadly my research on Norse myth has given me ample opportunity to see how narrow-minded idiots can twist ancient traditions to serve modern political ideologies.

    I appreciate your use of science and examples from nature to show the huge gaping holes in these hateful revisionist notions. There is an excellent cultural/historical argument as well. The very Vikings that today's Nordic nationalists so revere were not only warriors, they were relentless explorers, traders and settlers who engaged in peaceful commerce that ranged as far as the Middle East, and - YES - intermarried and mixed with the peoples they encountered leaving genetic heritage over a remarkably wide geographic area, including places like Sicily where the population was far from homogeneous. So clearly these Vikings felt none of the insular notions of racial purity that these nationalists cling so tightly to.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!

      I do have a post planned called "were our ancestors nationalists?" and plan to address Vikings in it.

      Delete
  11. Meh, I like race-mixing. Opposites attract. Most white women prefer black men; this is proven, most women like exotic, different men.
    Just look at Heidi Klum, Elin Nordegren, Kim Kardashian, Cheryl Cole, Probably Karen Gillan, the list goes on and on.

    The bottom line is this: Opposites attract.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Well...I welcome your support, but I don't believe that black people and white people are "opposites" to each other. As I explained in the post, race is not a biological reality. There are no opposites.

      Delete
  12. Man, you have way to much time on your hands. Let me guess. You receive snap benefits and you have an EBT government card.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, you have way too much time on your hands. Let me guess: you don't agree with or don't understand the topics and arguments presented in the post, and you cannot articulate this so you just settle for assuming things about me.

      Now that you can see how comments such as that are irrational, you can try again.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't see why they care about race-mixing anyway.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2739797/The-colour-skin-no-concern-Jonah-healthy-happy-baby-matters-Million-one-white-baby-born-surprised-black-mother.html

    Look at that! An interracial couple with a white kid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way racists talk about "mixing" is usually focused on women, and is rather possessive. They think white women BELONG to them. This can be seen in countless stormfront posts. "OUR white women".

      I also notice they are extremely fixated on black men, judging by these comments. "The black men are taking OUR women".

      So yeah...I figure most of them are just insecure and sexually frustrated.

      Here's a black couple who had a white baby:

      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html

      I find the interracial couple with the white baby to be very interesting too because I once had an "argument" (if indeed you can argue with a brick wall) with a WN, where I showed them the black couple with the white baby, to help explain how genetics work and that race is not biological, and the WN insisted that the mother must have cheated with a white man in order to give birth to a white baby.

      I tried to explain that even with an interracial couple, it would be very unlikely for the baby to have these traits. Usually traits meet somewhere in between the two parents. If only this interracial couple had been in the news back then, lol. I suppose it wouldn't have made a difference with this particular WN, but it still would've been nice to have an example to show them along with my explanations.

      Delete
    2. It's bizzare they say that, I actually checked. Most white women prefer white men, and white men are the most sought-after men for all women except black women. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2511049/Online-dating-app-reveals-race-matters-romance.html

      And that paranoia is not exclusive to men. I have read multiple stormfront posts by white women about how Asian women are taking "their" men away.:P One of them even said that she believes Asian women are plotting to take all the white men away. Seriously, I am not making this up.

      Delete
    3. Yeah I've seen that study. Also even though interracial couples are at an all-time high in the US, they're still a minority. WNs like to just blame other people for their problems. If they can't get laid, it's because some black man (or Asian woman) took away their prospects. Not surprised about the women on stormfront. Everything posted there is paranoid gibberish.

      Delete
    4. P.S. If you wanted what I was talking about regarding Asian women at stormfront:https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t871879/

      Yeah, WNs usually don't get relationships. Neither do I, but that is probably because I spend most of my time locked in my room playing Pokemon and/or Minecraft.:P(I need to get a life)

      Delete
    5. Very ironic. This person's experiences with racist Asians are exactly what many racial minorities put up with in the United States (and Europe too). Native Americans and black people often get the worst of it: they're told they're stupid, they have no culture, their culture is inferior, their women are loud/rude, their men are violent, all kinds of stuff like that.

      I feel bad for anyone who deals with such experiences, but this is a perfect example of how minority people are just not listened to or cared about. Often, when nonwhite people speak out about being targets of racism, they're told to suck it up and stop complaining and told they deserve it. This can be seen especially clearly in the aftermath and reporting of innocent black people being shot by police (Trayvon and the recent shooting in Ferguson). White racists however are enough of a majority that politicians cater to them (Republicans being anti-immigration, for example, and a few years ago Missouri tried to ban interracial marriage).

      For anybody who experiences racism (no matter what color), ideally the response should not be fuel for more racism, but fuel for empathy and education. This person on stormfront now understands on a firsthand level how racism hurts people. Ironically all they're doing is creating more racism. Funny how they think that's a valid solution.

      Aggression I suppose is always the easiest route for people.

      No shame in Pokemon and Minecraft. Just do your own thing. Don't let anybody (or society) convince you that you don't have a life or you "need" a relationship. You know what's best for you.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. So you would be a racist if you were against massive immigration and cultural/demographic displacement?

      Another thing I find irritation with is the fact that 'racial minorities have organizations promoting whatever interest those communities have. Sometimes for example these organizations impose themselves on eduction, immigration politics etc.... They are not a conflict of interest? Now Caribou I pretty much figuoure you out by now with this last post here.

      I thought you were apolitical and now I know you really are not. How convincing. Usually the same people who claim everything is a social construct are the same people to say shit similar to this.... ''Very ironic. This person's experiences with racist Asians are exactly what many racial minorities put up with in the United States (and Europe too). Native Americans and black people often get the worst of it: they're told they're stupid, they have no culture, their culture is inferior, their women are loud/rude, their men are violent, all kinds of stuff like that.

      I feel bad for anyone who deals with such experiences, but this is a perfect example of how minority people are just not listened to or cared about. Often, when nonwhite people speak out about being targets of racism, they're told to suck it up and stop complaining and told they deserve it. This can be seen especially clearly in the aftermath and reporting of innocent black people being shot by police (Trayvon and the recent shooting in Ferguson). White racists however are enough of a majority that politicians cater to them (Republicans being anti-immigration, for example, and a few years ago Missouri tried to ban interracial marriage).

      For anybody who experiences racism (no matter what color), ideally the response should not be fuel for more racism, but fuel for empathy and education. This person on stormfront now understands on a firsthand level how racism hurts people. Ironically all they're doing is creating more racism. Funny how they think that's a valid solution.

      Aggression I suppose is always the easiest route for people.

      No shame in Pokemon and Minecraft. Just do your own thing. Don't let anybody (or society) convince you that you don't have a life or you "need" a relationship. You know what's best for you.''

      Great job on exposing what you believe in! I dont believe in being racist or anything but you identify that race isnt a social construct when we talk about 'minorities' or various other groups yet turn around and use the term with idnetifying a specific group. Not only that the worst part is you think its 'racist' to be against our ethnocide [not the same as genocide since we are all social constructs].

      Furthermore you seem totally fine with the idea of massive immigration from anywhere [shouldnt matter where they come from!].

      I mean that right there tells me you are another Stephen J. Gould.

      Delete
    8. >"I thought you were apolitical and now I know you really are not."

      I don't know why you would think such a strange thing. I never claimed to be an apolitical person. Literally everybody (except people like monks who go out of their way to never deal with political ideology) has some kind of political ideology. Science is not an inherently political field, and when people are reporting on science, there should be no political bias, so yes, I try to keep ideology separate from the bulk of the posts I make.

      However if somebody comments and wants to talk to me about something political, there's nothing ethically barring me from responding to them.

      >"How convincing. Usually the same people who claim everything is a social construct are the same people to say shit similar to this.... [quote]...Great job on exposing what you believe in!"

      Uh...thanks?

      >"I dont believe in being racist or anything"

      You've said this like three times in three separate comments. You doth protest too much.

      >"but you identify that race isnt a social construct when we talk about 'minorities' or various other groups yet turn around and use the term with idnetifying a specific group."

      Uh...check your reading comprehension. I DO identify that race IS a social construct. It IS a social construct, NOT a biological one. So yeah, when I refer to different "races", it is in a social context.

      >"Not only that the worst part is you think its 'racist' to be against our ethnocide [not the same as genocide since we are all social constructs]. "

      Uh, the word "genocide" covers ethnocide, so...you can use either term.... And I literally never said it was racist to be against genocide. What the fuck is wrong with you? If you're seeing me say "it's racist to be against genocide" you need to get your eyes checked.

      >"Furthermore you seem totally fine with the idea of massive immigration from anywhere [shouldnt matter where they come from!]."

      Why the fuck do you care what I think? Are you going to like, have a point or anything? Are you going to provide any kind of argument whatsoever? Or are you just going to sit here and repeat my words back to me?

      >"I mean that right there tells me you are another Stephen J. Gould."

      Uh, okay. I'm so tired of you people, seriously. This is all you do when you come over here and comment, and despite apparently reading my other transactions, you guys always make the same exact types of mistakes when you comment.

      You tell me I'm wrong, then you make a bunch of counter claims but don't provide ANY objective evidence to support it. Also, you ALL without exception, have HORRIBLE reading comprehension. Every single one of you guys comes here and says outrageous shit like "omg, you said it's racist to be in same-race relationships" or "omg, you said race isn't a social construct but then you still refer to them as social constructs" when I LITERALLY never said that shit.

      Then you call me names like "Stephen J Gould" or "Jared Diamond" or "Jew", like that's your big ace in the hole. Wow. You sure showed me. News flash: comparing me to somebody else doesn't prove SHIT. FACTS prove shit.

      NONE of you show even a basic understanding of science or biology (as evidenced by your calling Homo neanderthalensis "not a different species" from Homo sapiens, when the taxonomics and cladistics clearly shows otherwise). But you throw around biology and science terms as if you think you're experts or something.

      So, your move. If you have some OBJECTIVE fucking FACTS to show me, please proceed. However if you're going to just keep rambling on about how you disagree with me, and how I remind you of other "famous" scientists, I have no interest in talking to you. I'm not interested in what you think of me, who I remind you of, or your opinions.

      Delete
    9. Just die you ugly kike. No one wants your filthy mud race world. You kikes are hellbent on destroying the white race but it ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

      Delete
  15. Wow, I wish more people were as motivated as you are. The is a terrific article you did and I'm sure it's thanks to people like you that some racists open their eyes and see the idicoy they've been in for too much time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I hope so. Although I wish I were more motivated, I haven't written any new posts for quite some time now. Life has just gotten in the way. I sure hope to get back to it soon though. Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
    2. You are AWESOME! I absolutely love the way you completely OWN those racist assholes with proven scientific facts about phylogenetic traits. Magnificent!

      Delete
    3. You are AWESOME! I absolutely love the way you completely OWN those racist assholes with proven scientific facts about phylogenetic traits. Magnificent!

      Delete
    4. You are AWESOME! I absolutely love the way you completely OWN those racist assholes with proven scientific facts about phylogenetic traits. Magnificent!

      Delete
    5. The only issue with his 'facts' is that there are flaws in them. Its out dated information.

      Delete
    6. Further more I do not believe in white supremacy or anything but he is wrong as they are.

      Gould is a famous scientist and along with two other scientists came up with the idea or belief that races were insignificant to use in science which isnt really true. The science of equality is not reality and white supremacy isnt a reality either.

      Human races does not mean different species. I will dare say Neanderthals were not a different species even or other archaic hominids like homo-heidelbergensis [actually one of our earliest ancestors]. They have found numerous dead ice people who had like 10% neanderthal genomes...this still wouldnt even be necessairly race mixing in the sense of two different species mixing...but race mixing in two different populations mixing that may have had some differences in terms of genes. But they wouldnt have been different species.

      We can accept that different races exist without political ideology being fused with it.

      Delete
    7. Author Darrell King: thanks for your comment.

      Guess Who: thanks as well for your comment, but you haven't debunked anything.

      >"Gould is a famous scientist and along with two other scientists came up with the idea or belief that races were insignificant to use in science which isnt really true."

      No, that's not how science works. There is no objective evidence supporting a biological definition for race, that's why biologists do not claim that race is biological. Science is not a democracy. If you do not have objective evidence to support the existence of race, you cannot claim it exists. It has nothing to do with Gould or his fame, it has to do with a lack of evidence.

      >"Human races does not mean different species."

      Right, but it would mean different SUBspecies...as I explained in the above article. Different subspecies (like Raingifer tarandus caribou and Rangifer tarandus peary) may be referred to as different "races" of caribou.

      >"I will dare say Neanderthals were not a different species"

      Incorrect. Homo neanderthalensis (as the name indicates) was a different species from Homo sapiens.

      >"even or other archaic hominids like homo-heidelbergensis"

      This too was a different species.

      >"They have found numerous dead ice people who had like 10% neanderthal genomes...this still wouldnt even be necessairly race mixing in the sense of two different species mixing"

      Uh, yes it would. It is literally two different species.

      >"...but race mixing in two different populations mixing that may have had some differences in terms of genes. But they wouldnt have been different species."

      Read up on cladistics and taxonomics. If two species have the same genus name (like Homo) but different species names (like sapiens and neanderthalensis), that means they are NOT the same species.

      >"We can accept that different races exist without political ideology being fused with it."

      We cannot accept that different races exist until objective evidence is provided.

      Delete
  16. "Furthermore, more diversity is present within populations than between them."
    I find it interesting that someone who claims to love biology is spouting a phrase that has been disproved but continued to be spewed so often that it's a fallacy at this point.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
    "This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings."

    Sure your statement is technically true... if you merely look at one loci. To state this anyways despite it having been ridiculed and dismantled thoroughly over 30 years ago is, as you so often accuse the "racist" scientists of being in the same post, very intellectually dishonest of you. I honestly can't imagine why I would take anything else you have to say seriously. Like Gould (another famous "anti-racist" scientist) are you lying or outright falsifying/disregarding data you don't like? Or perhaps like Jared Diamond, of the hilarious (for any real historian) Guns Germs and Steel fame, maybe you simply don't include as well any dissenting information and facts?

    "Genetic variation and differences among us are too small and inconsistent."
    We share over 90% of our dna with apes. The differences are also far from inconsistent. You can, with 100% accuracy, determine someone's race by examining their DNA. It is a biological reality, not a myth. Like yourself, Lewontin merely looked at the surface to find answers that supported his ideology, and disregarded what was at the core of his own field of science because he didn't like the answers he found.

    I was browsing your blog hoping to find some information that would disprove my belief in the apparent facts of racial differences, instead I find more of the same, disproved arguments I have seen on nearly every single anti-racist and racial egalitarian blog and website I have visited.

    How utterly disappointing as a fact finder, and absolutely disgusting as a fellow biology lover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. But the problem lies in using science to disenfranchise other 'races'. I agree with you race isnt a social construct or could be simply described as that or even using just biology.

      I dont believe any races could be possiby better than the others simply due to the fact they are more adapted to specific places or environments. This is something 'racists' do not understand. They might for example say 'dah purple man be da masta race'....yet when the purple man enters the jungle and swamp lands he encounters malaria and dies.... yet the yellow man he was after was resistant to it.

      It would make the purple man look stupid. Stupid scenario but maybe you get what I mean. I do agree with you entirely though. Racial variations are a reality and many people are waking up to that reality. Its popular science that does not want to because those people grew up in the era where we had racial segregation and issues.... they are too passionate about that and will do everything to ensure those issues never come back. I think they are doing a horrible job as we see racial issues still and now are facing another issue, massive immigration. I dont believe in white supremacy but I do not believe that I need to colonized our lands with people from around the world to prove I am not a racist.


      I think that makes me a reasonable person not a racist/white supremacist or a fruitcake batshit liberal.

      Delete
  17. Hey there!

    I found your blog via some other anthropology blogs and I found it interesting how you deal with these questions, esp. with extremists. I wouldn't have the patience to deal with Stormfront-type antisemites and white supremacists, so you definitely earn my respect for that.

    I often have the impression that a lot of the confusion in the public's mind arises out of the ambiguity of the term 'race' itself. As you described, there is popular conflation of 'race' as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, differing significantly in its genome (which is certainly not true), and 'race' as a certain set of realised external morphological features (skin colour &c.) broadly linked to some ancestral geographic region. Here I would argue that 'race' indeed exists in some way, as you can easily categorise most people you encounter into one of a handful of large groups. Of course, there has been and still is significant overlap between these groups, but I would say they are still accurate enough in 90% of the cases to uphold the groups as a whole as valid, although their boundaries are fuzzy. (Whether you call that 'race' or whatever doesn't matter so much to me, but 'race' is shorter and handier for me than something like 'phenotypical macro-group' &c.) These external differences are determined only by a tiny, recently developed part of the genome. I wouldn't deem it impossible that these large 'racial' groups are also associated with other genetic traits, but all of these differences should be really minor.
    Sorry, if I may pointing out some common-sense knowledge here, but I had a lot of tedious discussions where people were altogether denying or advocating race as a concept without really realising what they wanted to talk about.

    So what's it all about then for me?
    I've been thinking for a long time now about whether there's a possibility for racial identity without supremacy, which is a tricky question esp. for whites, of course. For me, racial features (in the sense above) are certainly an important part of my ethnic identity. I like the way "my" people looks. Being around them is part of feeling "at home". (I should maybe add that I grew up in a racially very homogeneous rural region of Europe and that I moved into a racially much more diverse metropolitan area for university.)
    But nevertheless, I know that this regional arrangement of facial and other features does not imply any kind of superior intelligence, creativity, physique, let alone 'supremacy' in general. I try to be always aware of this fact when dealing with non-white people around me.

    Now, the point is: If I care about race being a part of my identity, then of course I have an interest in its future development. And here it gets all rather bleak for me. You linked an article about the number of Whites in the U.S. actually increasing, although their share is decreasing. That's certainly true for America, but in Europe the fertility rates (esp. among the 'natives') are at rock-bottom and I don't see any change in this coming any time soon. To be clear: it's not genocide, as you rightly pointed out. But the demographic data are appalling for me.
    That's why I'm uneasy about recent immigration trends. Sure, migration has always been a factor in human societies, but I'm quite certain that Europe hasn't witnessed non-European immigration on this scale since prehistory, esp. in times of demographic contraction (with immigrants making up a much larger share of the young) and esp. on such a global scale (when non-European immigration before came mostly from regions immediately bordering in the East and South). I know well that most of these immigrants work hard and are only humans looking for a better life. They are not more or less criminal, lazy or stupid than the average native.

    ReplyDelete
  18. [Continuing my last post]

    That's also why I'm uneasy when I see interracial couples. Here again, I know perfectly well that they only a loving couple like any other and I would publicly shame them. But I can't help it, for me they're an embodiment of a slow, inevitable miscegenation that is making European peculiarities more and more rare, and this makes me sad.
    At root of it, for me, is the fact that racial identity remains something special, because it cannot be acquired. You can learn a language and teach it to your children. You can convert to a religion together with your family. You can naturalise into another country. But you cannot change your racial identity at will (not really within one generation, at least). I suspect that's one reason why people are sensitive about racio-demographic changes.

    Maybe some of these problems are more specific to Europe, I don't know. U.S. racial discourse accepts 'race' much more so than it is the case in Europe. Also, U.S. racial discourse works in another environment, as the U.S. has always been to a larger or lesser degree multiracial and whites are also just immigrants, whereas in Europe whites are indigenous and have not seen much non-white immigration at all before the 20th century. Add to this the horrible insanity of Nazi antisemitic and anti-Slavic 'racism', and you have in many European countries a discourse where racial differences/features are not a legitimate object of discussion and/or race doesn't exist at all (again, I think, thanks to the confusion pointed out at the beginning of my post).
    For me, this is a saddening and dangerous tendency, because I hope for healthy, non-supremacist racial identity to be possible - for whites ('Indigenous Europeans') as well for others. That's also one of the reasons why I recognise the value of whiteness studies: Because it also turns the attention of white people towards the fact that they are an ethno-racial group like any other (while they otherwise mostly think of themselves as a kind of 'default' ethnic group, here in Europe even more so than in the U.S., where you at least have a long history of interracial discourse and identity-shaping). I think we can benefit from this in the long run.

    I haven't talked to many people about my views on these matters, because either you get the smirking racist who will maybe share your worries but propose violence and discrimination as the answer, or you get the vehement anti-racist who will shame you for even voicing your worries and deepening racial divisions. I don't feel at home with either of them.

    I wrote more than I originally wanted to. I hope you don't mind. If you want to comment on it, I'm looking forward to your thoughts on these matters, whatever it may be.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Being a huge fan of your blog posts and logical, scientific treatises on race(which as you've shown an proven to the point of ad nauseum does not scientifically exist), I eagerly look forward to reading anything else that you have written so far. My son has been studying the works of J.A. Rogers such as "Sex and Race, Volumes 1through 3, as well as " Nature Knows No Color~Line". Also little known fact is that black men(slaves) and white women (maidservants) often married, cohabitated and produced children quite often during the pre~civil war South without much adversity coming their way as a result. Only after the American Civil War or reconstruction did the relationship between black men and white women deteriorate and become prohibited. I will also leave my source of info on same in my following post. Continue doing what your doing!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Black men and white women: Illicit sex during the nineteenth century south" is the name of the book... I've posted an excerpt from a review here...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hodes's monograph is a valuable contribution to the growing scholarship that challenges static and rigid assumptions about race. Illicit sex between white women and black men, she argues, produced mob violence and vigilante justice only in the decades after emancipation, when free black male sexuality, conflated with political power, symbolically threatened white male political supremacy. Court records and newspapers from the century before emancipation reveal little evidence of communal rage targeting black men in these liaisons. Although never condoned, sexual relationships between white women and black men under slavery entered the legal record only when children of questionable color and status issued. Family and neighbors usually blamed a lower-class white woman, because slave men were valuable investments protected by the patriarchal slave system. In chapters on interracial marriage, bastardy, adultery, and disputed ancestry, Hodes constructs interesting narratives compiled from scanty records to illustrate the problems of sex, color, and freedom. Three chapters devoted to the war and later decades explain the politicization of interracial sex (the term miscegenation dates from 1864) and the rise of lynching as a response. A detailed bibliography and notes on sources are especially valuable to researchers. General readers; upper-division undergraduates and above. K. Gedge West Chester University of Pennsylvania

    ReplyDelete
  22. Even Bill Nye "The Science Guy" destroys the WN warped viewpoints on varying phytogenetic traits with this statement which clearly echoes your own.."If a Papua New Guinean hooks up with a Swedish person all you get is a human.  There’s no new thing you’re going to get. You just get a human. Japanese woman jumping the African guy, all you get is a human. They’re all humans. So this is a lesson to be learned. There really is, for humankind there’s really no such thing as race. There’s different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idiot. Bill Nye isn't a scientist, nor a geneticist or biology. He has no monopoly on Race and offspring. Animals can interbreed and they create disgusting offspring. Races should NOT mix.

      Delete
  23. White Nationalists, Black Supremists, and anyone else who dislike, discriminate against and\or hate other members of the human family simply due to mere varying phytogenetic traits are idiotic at best and clearly dangerous at worst. Thankfully for the rest of us these morons exist as a small minority on the fringes of our society. And as future generations come into their own replacing older generations, we will have to deal with less and less of this stupidity as a society. Once again Caribou AKA "Genocidal Race Traitor" I appreciate everything you've done and are doing to oppose intolerance, racism and scientific\biological ignorance. TWO THUMBS WAY UP!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just kill yourself you filthy half breed. Race mixing is DISGUSTING and invented by Jews to destroy the white race. FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What a pathetic website. Obviously the owner is a cuckold faggot, or a Jew. Why don't you just do the world a favour and kill yourself? Now one wants your mutant mutt mixed ass on the planet LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Caribou: Contrary to most or all of the other posters, let me say this: good work, and keep it up. You display critical thinking and reason way beyond the emotionally laden fears of all these racist morons. For that, I salute you.

    I shall quote a placard I recently saw at an AntiFa-Demonstration here in Germany:
    "Wir fordern mehr Bildung für Nazis!" (We demand better education for Nazis)

    You are attempting to provide just that, and you are using science, reason and logic. For that, you have my respect and admiration.

    And, whenever you look at the comment sections and get the feeling that you are talking against a wall, or that the majority of people in this world appear to be racist, white-supremacist idiots, remember this: generally, only people who are scared or have extremist views spam the comment sections. Most normal people don't generally have the urge or need to spew their filth all over the internet ;-)

    Good work and good luck, my friend. Keep it up!

    Greetings from Freiburg, Germany

    --Ufthak--

    ReplyDelete
  27. Caribou again thank you! Ufthak, your replies are spot~on and refreshing. SaveWhiteBeauty...well your just the perky little racist aren't you?! ☺ **Newsflash** interracial sex has been around for thousands of years douchbag just try to take your fricken head out of your ads in order to actually read some history. There's this search engine called 'Google' you should use it some times inbetween zieg hieling, or whatever... Anyways ancient civilations never classified individuals via race, because the whole racial construct thing didn't emerge until the early 18th century. Early medieval European family crests proudly bore the images of black men, in pre~colonial Africa, whites, blacks and Arabs bred with frequency, the song 'Yellow Rose of Texas' is reportedly about a lovely biracial/mixed young lady. The list just is far too exhaustive to log them all. My point? You guys, racists of every creed and color...all o' you'se... stop... just stop already. Because your never, ever gonna prevent so~called(in your terminology anyways) "race~mixing" seriously like never. It's been around far longer than any of you guys have been alive & it's gonna be around long after your former physical remains have been reduced to dust. Hell probably some of your very own relatives yet unborn will be enjoying themselves sexually
    within blissful interracial relationships. Don't worry though, you'll be long dead so it won't annoy you any. It will actually benefit both parties because none of you will be there to harrass them, or their kids about it. Humanity will have gone on to face other challenges to their evolution on this planet, and racism along with all other types of 20th century attitudes and practices will have gone the way of the Salem Witch trials of early Massachusetts. So pick up your Donald Trump placard and go home boi.
    #BYEFELICIA

    ReplyDelete
  28. Caribou again thank you! Ufthak, your replies are spot~on and refreshing. SaveWhiteBeauty...well your just the perky little racist aren't you?! ☺ **Newsflash** interracial sex has been around for thousands of years douchbag just try to take your fricken head out of your ads in order to actually read some history. There's this search engine called 'Google' you should use it some times inbetween zieg hieling, or whatever... Anyways ancient civilations never classified individuals via race, because the whole racial construct thing didn't emerge until the early 18th century. Early medieval European family crests proudly bore the images of black men, in pre~colonial Africa, whites, blacks and Arabs bred with frequency, the song 'Yellow Rose of Texas' is reportedly about a lovely biracial/mixed young lady. The list just is far too exhaustive to log them all. My point? You guys, racists of every creed and color...all o' you'se... stop... just stop already. Because your never, ever gonna prevent so~called(in your terminology anyways) "race~mixing" seriously like never. It's been around far longer than any of you guys have been alive & it's gonna be around long after your former physical remains have been reduced to dust. Hell probably some of your very own relatives yet unborn will be enjoying themselves sexually
    within blissful interracial relationships. Don't worry though, you'll be long dead so it won't annoy you any. It will actually benefit both parties because none of you will be there to harrass them, or their kids about it. Humanity will have gone on to face other challenges to their evolution on this planet, and racism along with all other types of 20th century attitudes and practices will have gone the way of the Salem Witch trials of early Massachusetts. So pick up your Donald Trump placard and go home boi.
    #BYEFELICIA

    ReplyDelete
  29. You may have a point about white nationalists taking a wrong tactic to push the "Its not natural" argument as it pertains to race mixing "Caribou" as AIDS, cancer, ebola, swine flu, etc are all natural too but NOBODY thinks those things are good and infact just about EVERYBODY wants to see those things eradicated.

    Natural does not mean "good", "beneficial" or even "preservational" it just means what happens in nature.

    For example Jews are nation wrecking white hating parasites by nature who eat away the foundations of their host societies (usually white built and created) like termites.

    Blacks by nature are violent savages trained like monkeys by the Jew mass media to blame white people for all their problems (even though it was Jews that owned all the slave ships and were the primary enslavers of African blacks during slavery).

    Mexicans by nature are...well just see the first half of my description for blacks...you get the point I'm sure...you being one of these clever little Jew boys and all.

    Anyway since so called "science" has been so heavily politicized in the name of Jewish political correctness issues surrounding race and biology can't necessarily be trusted anyway coming from (((mainstream))) ie Jew'd sources.

    If we were under a white racially aware Jew wise controlled government for example instead of it's exact opposite that government's operating scientific political mythos as opposed to our current "scientific Jew message mythos" might be that sure races can create offspring with different races but a white woman say growing a black baby in her womb? Thats just an STD. Natural to contract of course but not at all something you want to keep living inside your body.

    No with STD's you want to eradicate them hence mixed mongrel mutts would be aborted in a white racialist run society...well under the hypothetical condition that somehow a Jew air dropped a black rapist into said society and that black would then go around doing what blacks do best next to murder which is of course rape that would then create the necessary conditions in a healthy white racialist society to engage in abortion of a black bastard's STD bastard product.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You sir are a glorious fool. This is why no one takes you guys{white nationalists) seriously. You act on emotions and lack facts or logic. Besides how's that whole race war thing coming along for you? Lol what a joke. Get a life.

    ReplyDelete