Some time ago, I read Steve Sailer’s theory concerning the disparity in rates of interracial marriage, i.e. why more black men marry white women than white men marry black women, and why more white men marry Asian women than Asian men marry white women. Sailer puts it down to biology, and, using his statistical expertise demonstrates that body fat percentages form a continuum from least in blacks to middle in whites, and then most in Asians. As in many of Sailer’s explanations, the numbers work out very well. However, I think there is something else going on that influences interracial marriage rates more than the simple matter of physique and body composition.
Although there are definitely physiological differences between the races, social differences have the most weight in matters such as marriage, divorce, family creation and lifestyle. In no race is there as sharp a divide between the genders in terms of educational achievement as there is between black women and black men. Among whites, the achievement gap has been growing for some time but is still significantly lower than it is in blacks, and in Asians the genders are nearly even.
Furthermore, we see that black men fare poorly compared to black women on a number of other indices, such as life expectancy, where black women outlive black men by seven years, while white women outlive white men by only five, and incarceration rates, where black men are imprisoned at six times the rate white men are, while black women are only 3.5 times more likely to be in custody than white females.
Divorce rates are also different by race, being highest among blacks, followed by whites and finally Asians, who have the lowest rate. In fact, black men have largely given up on the idea of marrying black women at all, it being such a risky proposition.
So if we look at the big picture, black men have it hardest compared to their women, while Asian men enjoy something closer to gender equality in terms of quality of life and opportunity. Whites, where women clearly have it better than their men, but not to the same degree as black women, are once again in the middle.
When one considers long-term interracial partnerships, there must be something more than simple physical attraction keeping people together. I would argue that for men, a woman from a culture or social class in which men are treated better than in their own has inherently attractive qualities. Black men who prefer white women will often say that they like the more feminine, less challenging attitude of white women (certainly this is changing rapidly). White men will say that they appreciate the fact that Asian women will often behave more like a traditional wife. Both black and white women deride their men when they make these choices, but it would be disingenuous to claim that they are acting irrationally.
On the other hand, women may appreciate being in a relationship with a man whose social class gives them a greater status and degree of authority than they would have in their own. The Asian wife of a white man may find herself enjoying the fact that her husband does not take her efforts for granted, and gives her a wider, more authoritative role in the family. The white woman with a black man, for her part, may revel in the unprecedented power she has over the family, which is characteristic of a woman’s place in black families, which have become so dominated by women that fathers are often absent, marginalized creatures, hounded by the law and driven out of the home.
So I would argue that in interracial marriages, people are behaving rationally according to their self-interest. This is really what skews the rates in favor of black men marrying white women and white men marrying Asian women. In each scenario, individuals of both genders are making choices that they perceive as enhancing their quality of life. Although it may not be great consolation for the black women and Asian men who have difficulty finding partners, they can at least be thankful that their status in their own particular social class is higher than it is for those of the same gender in others.
In any event, society is changing rapidly, as usual, and it is likely that the behavior of different racial groups will change in ways that create new norms, shattering the current trend.
42 responses so far ↓
1 novaseeker // Aug 18, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It’s interesting. Certainly the “winners” in interracial dating are white and asian women and black men, the middling party is white men, and the “losers” are asian men and black women.
I think it certainly has to do with what you have said here, in terms of the social status and power relationships being perceived, at least, to be preferable in certain interracial pairings and not others. And it’s also the case that this creates much bitterness — I have heard many white women denigrate white men who have asian wives as having an “asian fetish” and as “only wanting submissive wifey women” — which is funny, because Asian women in my experience are not terribly submissive, but are quite more feminine, on average, than the typical white American woman.
I also think it has to do with the cultural preferences of our age. Women are preferring, these days, *very* high testosterone men, displayed skillfully. Black men simply win in this category, as compared with white men and Asian men. White men have the redeeming quality that they are attractive to Asian women, who often do not select on the basis of testosterone as most black and white women do today, but on the basis of being a better husband than an Asian guy might be in terms of treating her well. Asian women have the redeeming quality of seeming to be effortlessly comfortable with being feminine, as compared with the typical white American woman who is, at best, deeply conflicted about femininity. So Asian women are attractive overall. And white women are preferable to at least some black men because they are incrementally less bossy and pushy than black women are. Black women, being the most bossy and pushy and the least feminine are the least favored, together with Asian men who have the combo of not displaying high testosterone like black men do, but also having a rep for not treating women as well as white men do.
In any free market there are winners and losers, and it’s no less the case in the interracial dating free market.
2 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 18, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Wrong, trying to find a “scientific” reason why blacks marry white women more? They have no self-control.
As a race generally, they have very little self-control. European women are trophies for them. They’re prettier. Moreover, wasn’t the Black Panthers pushed black men to screw European women in order show whose boss? And European American Men don’t stop it like they did in the South.
The following is an excerpt from an Australian who served in the Boer War and this his observation in South Africa:
“”As the coloured population in South Africa runs into many millions, the
native question will always remain a big item in South African politics.
Until polygamy and other privileges he now enjoys under tribal rights and
customs are abolished the Kaffir will never become a good worker. At
present he is allowed to have as many wives as he wishes; it is not “as
many as he can afford to keep,” for they are practically his slaves, and
do the work to keep him, while he idles about the kraal smoking and
drinking “joualla” or Kaffir beer.”"
They are natural polygamists. He mentions earlier that the women did all the work in that society. It is no wonder that the African woman is quite surly to their racial opposites.
Massive miscegenation is going on. It is the Brazilinization of America. Where I live it seems that every African man has a white wife, a white mistress or a white girlfriend. Desegregation by the liberals has increased this.
The only thing is that the European Man is facing genocide by miscegenation and the Christian Church, especially the Catholic Church, assists in it. Everybody notices—nobody does nothing about it.
3 Derek // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:19 pm
WLindsayWheeler,
Your probably racist, but I have to say if you believe what you say then it’s white women you should be pissed at, not black men. Women always choose, men seldom are allowed to.
4 Derek // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The black guys I have seen hooked up with Asian women are generally very betaish . Most the Asian girls I have known are scared of black men.
A black friend of mine can’t stand Asians of any type, but he can’t explain why.
5 n/a // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“Sailer puts it down to biology, and, using his statistical expertise demonstrates that body fat percentages form a continuum”
Sailer doesn’t cite any body fat data. He cites “goals” from Covert Bailey.
“Women are preferring, these days, *very* high testosterone men, displayed skillfully. Black men simply win in this category, as compared with white men and Asian men.”
No and no.
6 novaseeker // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Yeah it seems to go:
Black men with white women
White men with Asian women
Those seem to be the most popular pairings by far. The reverse ones (black women with white men and white women with asian men) are very rare, and the cross-check of black men with Asian women is virtually non-existent.
7 Welmer // Aug 18, 2009 at 5:56 pm
True, thank you for the correction.
I think the physiological explanation (i.e. white and Asian men are less “manly”) is incorrect.
I’m actually pretty sure it is a social construct, and that’s the point of my post.
8 RW // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm
If the social construct theory is true, then why do we not see more pairings of black men and asian women. In your formulation, an Asian woman would enjoy even higher status paired with a black man (due to the aforementioned high-status of black women in black households). The black man would enjoy a less bossy and more feminine woman than a typical white woman. I agree that social dynamics are important, but cannot explain the almost complete lack of Asian women/Black male pairings as you’ve currently formulated it.
9 novaseeker // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:07 pm
No and no.
Oh? Why not?
10 Savvy // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Being the rat fink to the women I have heard talk, I will tell you what they ACTUALLY SAY:
Once you go black, you never go back–this white woman has also been cheated on and twice divorced, but says black men know how to talk to a girl and are better in bed. I think this trend has to do with the media. My first brush with interacial marriage gave me my first best friend–her black father beat the shit out of her white mother with regularity then a severity that landed her in the hospital. I saw the photos of it and it was horrendous. He cracked her skull. PASS.
The Asian female roommate I had was the most manipulative b*tch I ever roomed with. Publicly polite, as soon as the doors closed, her violent temper was exposed. It came out over time that all of her roommates prior to me had hidden from her and avoided her.
However, the other Asian female I roomed with was a kind, sweet “Chinese southern belle”.
The black female roommates I had were the absolute most inconsiderate I have ever had. They left their dishes all over the place and then expected ME to clean it up because apparently they had agreed that I should though I hadn’t cooked a damn thing there. They would have 10 people over at once. Then the roommate almost got kicked out of school for beating the crap out of another girl who had put the moves on her man.
I’m actually Spanish and I still just have thing for white guys–especially the nerdy Christian ones.
11 Savvy // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Ive had bitchy white roommates too, don’t get me wrong.
12 Welmer // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Maybe it’s where I live, RW, but black male/Asian female pairings aren’t all that rare. In Tacoma, near Fort Lewis, they are actually pretty common. Same goes for Hawaii, from what I’ve heard.
Whatever the case, as Derek pointed out, there exists a fair amount of residual hostility between Asians and blacks. While marrying a white man may not be considered proper to many Asians, marrying a black man is a much larger step for an Asian woman. In the former case, her family may disapprove, but ultimately they will accept the situation; in the latter, it is often a dealbreaker that gets her effectively ejected from the family.
13 n/a // Aug 18, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Bill,
Yes, I understood that, and the criticism wasn’t directed at you.
I do, however, disagree with you that people who marry members of other races “are behaving rationally according to their self-interest”. You may be correct that they “are making choices that they perceive as enhancing their quality of life”, but the purpose of marriage is to produce and rear offspring (ultimately, to pass along one’s genes), not to enhance one’s quality of life. Children of many interracial unions will be genetically less-similar to their parents than their parents are to random members of their respective ethnic groups. I’d count that as failure at a rather fundamental level (certainly enough to cancel out any perceived or real gains in “quality of life”).
Overall, I think it’s a mistake to get too hung up on male-female competition. People might legitimatelty puruse their interests at various levels (the level of the individual, the family, the local breeding unity, the ethny, the race, or so on), but the idea that (all) men share common interests against (all) women makes no more sense to me than feminism. Perhaps a “men’s movement” used instrumentally as a counterbalance to feminism is justifiable, but one shouldn’t lose sight of the bigger picture.
RW,
“why do we not see more pairings of black men and asian women”
Adjusting for relative population size, black men are much more likely to marry Asian women than white women (and, incidentally, white women are more likely to marry Asian men than black men) [1].
[1] Fryer. Guess Who’s Been Coming to Dinner? Trends in Interracial Marriage over the 20th Century. Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 2—Spring 2007—Pages 71–90
novaseeker,
- White women prefer white men.
- Black men don’t have markedly higher testosterone levels than white men.
- I know of no evidence women’s preferences in men have radically changed recently. There’s some evidence women prefer more masculine men for short term relationships; if this is true, the arguments of the evolutionary psychologists responsible for this line of research suggest this has always been true. (“More masculine” does not, by the way, necessarily translate as “*very* high testosterone”.) But contra the whining of self-perceived “betas” on the internet, most women are not suddenly racking up huge numbers of (“alpha”) sex partners. Most women still want long term relationships and ultimately marriage.
14 Lukobe // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I’m the son of a white man and an Asian woman. Am I really a genetic failure, n/a? I don’t think so, and not just for egotistical reasons. You seem to be thinking natural selection operates on a racial or ethnic level, and that simply isn’t the case. Now, their respective communities might consider their pairing a failure, but from the genetic point of view that feeling is irrelevant.
Welmer, what are your thoughts on whom mixed-race kids such as myself go on to marry?
Oh, and speaking of black men and Asian women, I had dinner with just such a couple the other day. But perhaps that is because of our geographical location.
15 roissy // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:16 pm
n/a:
“Black men don’t have markedly higher testosterone levels than white men.”
maybe true, but serum test doesn’t tell the whole story. black men have more androgen receptors and more sensitive anndrogen receptors:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/9/1937?ijkey=bd15c629504d26ddeb8eb07e0a9cbc0a522df8ee&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
“But contra the whining of self-perceived “betas” on the internet, most women are not suddenly racking up huge numbers of (”alpha”) sex partners.”
number of sex partners isn’t the only metric by which to measure women’s changing sexual preferences. a woman can keep her partner count low while choosing to be the second or third tier woman to an alpha’s de facto harem.
“Most women still want long term relationships and ultimately marriage.”
single motherhood and age of first marriage is up across the board.
16 Ovid // Aug 19, 2009 at 12:24 am
“Where I live it seems that every African man has a white wife, a white mistress or a white girlfriend. Desegregation by the liberals has increased this.”
Where do you live WLindsayWheeler?
17 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 19, 2009 at 2:12 am
All I am going to say, Michigan. Yankee country of course.
Miscegenation is a sign of a spiritual degeneracy in a nation, there is nothing “scientific” about evil. Human beings are subject to original sin and the default is dysfunctionality. No science. Human beings being quasi divine and material, embodied with soul and body, are under Philosophy. It is philosophy, with the tools of the physical sciences and theology that judges these things. Here is Thomas Jefferson:
“”They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.”’
Black culture is about sex. It is all about sex. Sex, Sex, Sex. And because it is so, the African’s basic job is chasing women, all day, everyday. That is all he has on his mind. It has nothing to do with science but everything to do with “Soul” of the sons of Ham.
And on miscegenation Thomas Jefferson had this to say:
“”Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”"
It is the study and observation of Nature. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and as a farmer, his powers of observation are sharpened. He lived with them and knows them and their character. Character is not the object of science. Plain observation is.
Even Dr. Yeagley, an American Indian, (Comanche) observes:
“”
White women are destroying America. “White trash” women are polluting America with interracial sex of every grade, producing children with impossible identities and crippled self-esteem, and these women are doing it all in the name of charity, equality, or survival.
On FrontPageMagazine.com, I published an article on May 18, 2001 entitled “What’s Up with White Women?” It proved to be my most quoted article, beginning with authors like Pat Buchanan, Robert Spencer, and a host of bloggers. That article called attention to the fact that many American white women have lost respect and confidence in the country. I quoted the Cheyenne proverb, “A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.”
But I didn’t take it far enough. The proclivity of white women for interracial marriage in this country is worse than most people realize. Never mind the forced images of white women with black men in the media. What’s happening in the street?”"
(In his article “White women down” July 31, 2008)
It is plain that the European women, socially conditioned by Marxist sociology of Political Correctness to miscegenate and second have no value in their own race. Minorities are exalted and the Europeans are denigrated. And desegregation has allowed easy access of the African to silly stupid European women.
18 Chuck // Aug 19, 2009 at 3:36 am
whites are more skewed towards asians in the realms of status and values. at least, i personally view asians and whites as much more similar than blacks and whites.
blacks and whites have “shared” a country for a longer period of time, so this may explain the point i’m about to make.
we need to find numbers on the ratio of each pairing. if we find that black male/white female pairings occur at a higher per capita rate (compared to the number of blacks) compared to white male/ asian female pairings, there is still another variable at play. since whites are seemingly in the middle, and closer to asians in most aspects, that would imply that there would be greater numbers of white male/asian female pairings than black male/white female.
there is a certain amount of attraction at play here whether anyone wants to admit it or not. i’d say that of any of the interracial pairings, white women’s choice of black men is most driven by physical attraction than any other.
on a similar note, the gentrification of the Asian male is a fast-moving phenomenon. They are dumbing themselves down in large numbers, listening to rap, joining gangs, and carrying guns. it’s interesting, because i think that blacks went through that process as a response to economic factors whereas Asians have gone through it because they believe their women are being stolen by other races. In my town (Wichita, KS) club-goers are much more aware of roving bands of young Asian men than blacks.
19 n/a // Aug 19, 2009 at 5:28 am
Lukobe,
I certainly consider your father a genetic failure (assuming he forewent having a family with a woman of similar stock to mate with your mother, and/or expended resources supporting you that could have been used to subsidize the reproduction of people more genetically similar to himself, and especially if he did this in territory belonging to his own ethny — it would be different if, for example, he had knocked up your mother as a member of an occupying army in her homeland and you/she had remained there).
roissy,
“black men have more androgen receptors”
No they don’t (at least, your link doesn’t support that assertion, nor do I know of any other evidence supporting the notion).
The CAG repeat on the AR gene is merely one genetic polymorphism out of uncounted multitudes that could potentially affect “masculinization”. Considered alone, it can say little about racial differences. This isn’t merely theoretical:
Among whites, a lower number of CAG repeats is associated with higher sperm concentrations. Blacks average fewer repeats than whites. But white men have larger testes and higher sperm counts than black men.
“a woman can keep her partner count low while choosing to be the second or third tier woman to an alpha’s de facto harem.”
Do you have any evidence this is actually happening? Does survey data indicate variability in the number of sexual partners is increasing for men relative to women? From personal observation, very few “alphas” have the time or inclination to collect harems. Men who are more attractive to women typically capitalize by getting more attractive women, not by trying to maximize their number of concurrent sexual partners. Couples assort according to their mate value, and very few people are genuinely shut out of the mate market. Whiskey-style derangement results from a mismatch between the deranged man’s value and the value the deranged man feels he’s entitled to.
“single motherhood and age of first marriage is up across the board.”
Says little about what women want. Obviously, men can decide not to marry a woman they get pregnant, or to marry late.
Incidentally:
A major role in the increase in out-of-wedlock births has been played by the declining practice of “shotgun marriage.” Until the early 1970s it was the norm in premarital sexual relations that the partners would marry in the event of pregnancy. The disap- pearance of this custom has been a major contributor to the in- crease in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio for both whites and blacks. In fact, about three-fourths of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth ratio, and about three-fifths of the black increase, between 1965-1969 and 1985-1989 are explicable by the decrease in the fraction of premaritally conceived first births that are resolved in marriage. [Akerlof et al. An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2 (May, 1996), pp. 277-317]
20 emarel // Aug 19, 2009 at 8:02 am
As I view the masses of middle class white men like myself, what I generally see are emasculated, deracinated, meek geldings. I marvel that their ancestors had the might and will borne of racial consciousness and a masculine Christianity to conquer much of the world and carve out the civilization that the rest of the world is now scrambling to enter. Given this state, it’s no wonder that white women seek out both black and white men who exhibit more masculine traits.
A woman I knew once told me that black men know how to tell a white woman what she wants to hear (i.e., that she is beautiful, that she’s all he needs, etc.) and will lavish all manner of attention on her, but are unable to deliver, whereas white men can deliver, but are often unwilling (due to perceptions of power politics) to “schmooze” white women with that agressiveness characteristic of black men.
I also think, like a commenter above, that the mass of young white women are naive idiots, and destructive both to themselves and their civilization.
21 Derek // Aug 19, 2009 at 11:26 am
“Black culture is about sex. It is all about sex. Sex, Sex, Sex. And because it is so, the African’s basic job is chasing women, all day, everyday. That is all he has on his mind. It has nothing to do with science but everything to do with “Soul” of the sons of Ham.”
My culture (white middle class) is all about Sex, Sex, Sex. I think about it every 5 minutes or so. I was just raised that the proper way to acquire it was to get a good job and make a good living. This has not worked out well. I don’t get laid nearly as much as I want(Women don’t give a fuck about a good job these days).
Turns out my culture was wrong and I should be chasing women all day long to get the level of sex I want. Not working hard. So frankly, if that’s how blacks are, they have the right idea.
Again it’s an issue with what women want, not how men are chasing it. If women wanted hard working guys making a decent living both blacks and whites would spend a lot more time doing that.
22 n/a // Aug 19, 2009 at 2:56 pm
roissy,
“black men have more androgen receptors”
No they don’t (at least, your link doesn’t support that assertion, nor do I know of any other evidence supporting the notion).
The CAG repeat on the AR gene is merely one genetic polymorphism out of uncounted multitudes that could potentially affect “masculinization”. Considered alone, it can say little about racial differences. This isn’t merely theoretical:
Among whites, a lower number of CAG repeats is associated with higher sperm concentrations. Blacks average fewer repeats than whites. But white men have larger testes and higher sperm counts than black men.
“a woman can keep her partner count low while choosing to be the second or third tier woman to an alpha’s de facto harem.”
Do you have any evidence this is actually happening? Does survey data indicate variability in the number of sexual partners is increasing for men relative to women? From personal observation, very few “alphas” have the time or inclination to collect harems. Men who are more attractive to women typically capitalize by getting more attractive women, not by trying to maximize their number of concurrent sexual partners. Couples assort according to their mate value, and very few people are genuinely shut out of the mate market. Whiskey-style derangement results from a mismatch between the deranged man’s value and the value the deranged man feels he’s entitled to.
“single motherhood and age of first marriage is up across the board.”
Says little about what women want. Obviously, men can decide not to marry a woman they get pregnant, or to marry late.
Incidentally:
A major role in the increase in out-of-wedlock births has been played by the declining practice of “shotgun marriage.” Until the early 1970s it was the norm in premarital sexual relations that the partners would marry in the event of pregnancy. The disap- pearance of this custom has been a major contributor to the in- crease in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio for both whites and blacks. In fact, about three-fourths of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth ratio, and about three-fifths of the black increase, between 1965-1969 and 1985-1989 are explicable by the decrease in the fraction of premaritally conceived first births that are resolved in marriage. [Akerlof et al. An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2 (May, 1996), pp. 277-317]
23 Justin // Aug 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm
n/a, thank you for cutting through all the crappy anecdotal derangement with some facts. It is about time people started seeing through some of these ridiculous racial and sexual mythologies.
24 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 19, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“”"So I would argue that in interracial marriages, people are behaving rationally according to their self-interest. This is really what skews the rates in favor of black men marrying white women and white men marrying Asian women. In each scenario, individuals of both genders are making choices that they perceive as enhancing their quality of life.”"”
First off, it is NOT that people are acting “rationally” is that they are being socially conditioned to act that way.
There is a phrase missing from the OP–and that is Political Correctness. The term was coined in the Soviet Union for the mission of International Socialism. Why is it named “International”? Because it is about ending the nation-state–it is about ending races. International Socialism, and its Anglo-sphere counterpart, Fabian Socialism is about bringing about the New World Order of Globalization. And in the work of Antonio Gramsci, International Socialists have discovered that the way to bring about the desired politics is to change the Culture. Gramsci’s inherent dictum: “Culture defines politics”.
Political Correctness is about changing the culture to bring about globalization. Political correctness is about de-racination.
What does Political Correctness attack? Racial prejudice and volkenhass–on purpose. All ethnic groups have some sort of volkenhass. All animals have that to some degree.
Volkenhass serves a purpose in the Natural Order. It is part of the Natural Law. It is there to keep ethnic cohesion and solidarity.
Political Correctness is about destroying volkenhass for the sake of cultural cosmpolitianism necessary for Global Government.
Why are people intermarrying more?
Because of the Soviet/Communist ideology of political correctness. This is NOT a matter of biology–this is social engineering being done by the communist Marxist academia, media, think tanks, and philanthropies/foundations.
It is remarked that “society is changing rapidly,” Duh, because like Pavlov’s dogs, Americans are being de-racinated, and being stripped of their volkenhass. America is a Marxist country. The ethics running this country is Cultural Marxism.
25 Lukobe // Aug 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm
The last time all Americans were of anything like “pure” genetic stock, WLW, was sometime in the 1500s. I don’t even know what to say to someone like you.
26 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 20, 2009 at 7:14 am
Well, then, Lukobe, I suggest you read “Nihilism, The Root of Revolution in the Modern Age” by Fr. Seraphim Rose. Nihilism is the total destruction of the Old Order. The Old Order is what God created races, tribes and ethnicities. God destroyed the Tower of Babel and called it evil.
Freemasonry, International Socialism, Fabian socialism, Democratic Socialism is all about re-building the Tower of Babel, i.e. this Multiculturalism which is cosmopolitanism. America being the product of Freemasonry is on this mission. It is this that is the agenda of the global elite. And it is Satanic. Furthermore, it is about Destroying the European races in order to destroy traditional orthodox apostolic Christianity.
Political Correctness is nihilism–it is about destroying the Old Order. I’m a conservative–I conserve the Old Order and my loyalty and my duty is to “God and Country”–not to some socialist masonic wet dream.
If you want to live a lie and live death, go ahead. The whole of modern society is nihilism and nihilism only produces death. Is that not what Welmer is doing in all his posts–noticing the death of culture, of Western culture, the demasculinization of men; the rise of Matriarchy, the minoritizing of the Europeans and their coming subjugation?
——————-
European culture is inherently Masculine. It is very different from the East. The ancient Greeks noticed that and they were at the forefront in the battle against the effeminizing East.
The Frankfurt School has done a lot to transform America into a Marxist country. One of its goals was to bring about Matriarchy into being in America. Well, look at the fruits. European daughters are now the playthings of Africans and are the breeders for them. European young men have become africanized. Our country is being Brazilinized. Families are falling apart. Young men are, as said earlier in this thread, emasculated geldings; they’re effeminized. The populace has become vulgar and puerile. Vanity is now the new cultural norm. Just like fish can live outside of their watery environment, European man can not live outside of a European culture. What we are witnessing is the destruction of culture that is killing European society and hence the European. He is taking on “a slave mentality”.
27 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 20, 2009 at 11:56 am
The Two pillars of Western Culture and Civilization is Divine Revelation and the Natural Law.
The Bible in many instances, many, condemns miscegenation.
The Natural Law condemns miscegenation. You don’t see animals and insects commiting miscegenation do you? How is the natural order then maintained? (And exceptions to the rule, do not nullify the law.)
The two authorities agree.
The question is do you follow and uphold Western Culture and Civilization—or do you follow your Marxist overlords in promoting and advancing Multi-culturalism, Political correctness, and the Novus Ordo Secularum? Where is your loyalty to?
28 Lukobe // Aug 20, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I think you’ve got Welmer wrong, WLW.
Also, believe me, I am no fan of political correctness, but I have to defend my own existence as a mixed-race kid. There’s a difference between race and culture, you know — and of course I follow and uphold Western culture and civilization — though how we define that may differ. I, for example, don’t look to the Bible to tell me what is and isn’t right.
And it’s true — you don’t (generally) have interspecies mating in the animal kingdom (though you have heard of mules, haven’t you)? But the different races are not different species. So there goes your analogy.
29 Lukobe // Aug 20, 2009 at 1:52 pm
http://www.amazon.com/Nihilism-Root-Revolution-Modern-Age/dp/1887904069 — hmm.
“Indeed, the Christian is–in an ultimate sense–a “Nihilist”; to him, in the end, the world is nothing, and God is all. On the one hand, the true Nihilist places his faith in things that pass away and end in nothing. On the other hand, the Christian, renouncing such vanity, places his faith in the one thing that will not pass away, the Kingdom of God.”
30 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I know about mules–and they are also infertile due to the miscegenation.
And I think there Fr. Seraphim is being a little bit too much melodramatic there.
———————–
Marriage is not about two individuals. I find it disturbing that marriage and its consquences are all watered down to two things materialism, its just biology and the narcissism involved.
The complexities of marriage is not “just biology”. There is the matter of soul, second, it includes psychology, duty, responsibility, sociology, culture, religion. Marriage is very complex dealing with lots of issues. I have already demonstrated religious and the natural law impact. There is much more.
Modern Culture is based on the Enlightenment which created the spirit of “individualism” and the idea that everybody is just a “man”. Joseph de Maistre said this: “The Constitution of 1795, just like its predecessors, was made for man. But there is no such thing as man in the world. In the course of my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians etc.; I know, too, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never met him in my life; if he exists, he is unknown to me.”
We are not just a bunch of individuals going around fulfilling our selfish needs. Our responsibility and our duty is to our tribe. Duty. Marriage is about procreating the group; it is about furthering and helping in the tribe, nation, ethnicity. Marriage is NOT a selfish act of narcissism! Which this post seems to take. Marriage is not just about procreating oneself, but also one’s nation. Marriage is part Duty. One marrys to create one’s future generations of ones kind. Marriage is not a selfish act of the will. One is not free to do as one wills.
Look at Obama’s supposed father, Obama Sr. He had to go back to Africa and marry a girl of his own tribe. That was in the 60′s! That is normal behavior. What is going on is ABnormal. Modern culture is about doing what is Weird. Weird is the norm now.
Second, what about the children? Does anybody notice them? Or the effects of miscegenation on them? Their dual loyalty? What side is a mixed race kid on? What kind of psychological damage is done? Do you even care?
In 1903, Du Bois, the first African-American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard University, a pioneer in sociology and one of the founders of the NAACP, wrote about what it meant to be of mixed lineage:
“One ever feels his twoness … two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body …,”
What kind of damage is being done?
Now psychology originally meant “study of the soul”, not the mind. What operates on the soul is Loyalty. How does miscegenation destroy loyalty necessary for the operation of any society? What about the inner conflicts upon the soul of a mixed race person?
Third, How many of you are farmers? Ever work on a farm? Or all of you desk jockeys?
Ever here of the term heterosis? Every farmer does. And the implications of that is why a farmer breeds for purity. First generation Half breeds have a spurt and are generally superior in production than the parents whether it be plant or animal, but second, third generation mixing, results drop precipitously in production of whatever product.
What kind of physical damage are we doing? What kind of mental damage? What kind of spiritual damage? What kind of psychological damage? are we doing.
Someone hasn’t done their homework. And to advance race-mixing, as “its just biology and its rational” is foolhardy and deadly.
Marriage is about the future. It is not about the selfish narcissitic puerile wants of a puerile generation.
31 Bradley B. // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:00 pm
WLindsayWheeler,
No offense, but I don’t think you have a good grasp of science and genetics to do justice to this topic. I think that’s partly why you’re appealing to various spiritual and quasi-religious justifications, which are important in themselves but distract from some of the scientific issues at hand. I don’t necessarily disagree with your basic conclusions nor do I claim expertise myself in science and genetics, but I think a more knowledgeable commenter like n/a would give a better presentation of views sympathetic to your own.
As far as mixed race individuals go, it seems to be a function of population. At low levels, they’re either absorbed into one population or other, or otherwise killed off. If the population of a particular cross becomes large enough and there is sufficient group consciousness within that cross group, it seems that in effect a new race or ethny is formed.
One issue related to this topic that perhaps other readers could offer some perspective on is the future of biological reproductive technology. If cloning and genetic engineering become viable technologies, what are the implications of this for reproduction and for EGI (ethnic genetic interests)? In pursuing EGI, would the optimal strategy be cloning each individual of the race or ethny for each successive generation? Or identifying genes unique to the particular race/ethny, or genes that have been in the ancestral line for a long period of time, and ensuring that these genes get passed on every successive generation? It seems that most discussions of genetic engineering presently involve this idea that parents will somehow “choose” from a large palette of various genes the ones that will make their children the “best” but how would this serve EGI if say choosing the “smart” gene or the “attractiveness” gene entails choosing genes that aren’t present in the parents’ ancestral lines?
32 Lukobe // Aug 21, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Second, what about the children?
You mean me.
Does anybody notice them? Or the effects of miscegenation on them? Their dual loyalty? What side is a mixed race kid on? What kind of psychological damage is done? Do you even care?
Well, yes, I have to, because you’re describing me here. Dual loyalty? Sides? Doesn’t apply in my case. There isn’t going to be a Korean vs. Jewish race war. My loyalty is to the country of my birth, the United States of America, not to the white race or the Asian race.
“One ever feels his twoness … two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body …,”
Perhaps it’s different for white/black children, but if he were describing me, I’d say he was overdoing it.
How does miscegenation destroy loyalty necessary for the operation of any society? What about the inner conflicts upon the soul of a mixed race person?
In my case, it doesn’t. What inner conflicts do you think seethe within me?
33 jimmy // Aug 22, 2009 at 12:27 am
“Well, yes, I have to, because you’re describing me here. Dual loyalty? Sides? Doesn’t apply in my case. There isn’t going to be a Korean vs. Jewish race war. My loyalty is to the country of my birth, the United States of America, not to the white race or the Asian race.”
Marcus Epstein, is that you?
34 Savvy // Aug 22, 2009 at 2:57 am
Lukobe–My best friend from childhood has had some problems being mixed race. And when I was in South Carolina I was supposed to agree with every nasty thing a white person said about them. Or every nasty thing said to black people about me. It’s not like I could wear on my sleeve a banner that said, “Hey I’m cool, my first best friend was black.”
Wait–you’re Korean and Jewish? Oy vey, what a combo! The only inner conflict that I could see is overachieving on the Lorena side and feeling horribly guilty and ungrateful on the Jewish side. Bulgogi and ox tail soup just ain’t kosher!!
35 Savvy // Aug 22, 2009 at 2:58 am
Lorena was supposed to be Korean. I can’t type.
36 Welmer // Aug 22, 2009 at 6:57 am
LOL!
No, he doesn’t even look anything like Epstein.
37 Lukobe // Aug 22, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I looked more like Epstein when I was a kid, but I look more Jewish now. Anyway, that’s pretty funny.
Hey — what’s so unkosher about bulgogi and oxtail soup? Not that I keep kosher, but if the meat’s kosher… it’s not like there’s any dairy in those dishes.
38 Welmer // Aug 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I think you look like a Tatar, Lukobe. You wouldn’t stand out anywhere from Novosibirsk to the Crimea.
39 Lukobe // Aug 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Yep, here I am!
http://www.kommiekomiks.com/Chirayliq/2.jpg
40 Welmer // Aug 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Or maybe here:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qG6uIwNCCGA/SO-ikaX3STI/AAAAAAAAAY0/o4mBhOgfjDw/s400/surikov-v-i_minusin-tatar1909.JPG
41 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Lukobe, I was not talking to you nor when I wrote that last post had you in mind. Not at all. I was talking in generalities.
Western Culture from the Ancient Greeks thru to the French Revolution and its materialistic outlook, considered that Man is both Soul and body. What deals with Man since he is of dual nature is Philosophy. Life in essence is Metaphysical, NOT material! Pick up any biology book and there is NO definition of life; they write of the “characteristics of Life” but no definition. Plato defined all things that have self-movement as having Soul. The Soul is metaphysical. The only thing that studies Soul/Life and Humans in particular is Philosophy. The Physical Sciences tells us of facts but it doesn’t and can not tell us values and how that fits in to the big picture. My concern is the Metaphysical side of life. Genetics is the “how does”. Philosphy is the why, and whattofor.
Life is not a just a matter of physical science, by of Philosophy which is the Queen of Sciences.
42 Coppa // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:28 am
Yeah, not so much because they’re dominated by black women that
“fathers are often absent, marginalized creatures, hounded by the law and driven out of the home.”
Let’s not beat around the bush. It’s because many of them are plain lazy and irresponsible, that’s why they are often marginalized creatures and hounded by the law. Out of all races, black men have the most testosterone levels, so helpless they are not. By using your quote, you’ve shown that many black men are all about the show but no substance.
Leave a Comment