28 September 2013

When the Melting Pot Reaches a Boil



As we have seen, some are hoping fervently for a 'post-racial' West in which we all blend to a mocha color and harmony comes at last.  In such a world, so it's thought, we'll see no more prejudice, exclusion, oppression, micro-aggressions, or 'other-ing.'  There isn't a social problem, it appears, that cannot be righted by us all becoming beige.




But where is the evidence that tossing diverse ethnies in a pot leads to a happy racial purée?  To those who insist it is coming, we at Those Who Can See offer three counter-hypotheses:

(1)  No multi-ethnic society will blend smoothly down to one race.

(2)  Multi-ethnic societies will always breed inequality, and the more disparate the groups, the more inequality there will be.

(3)  The resentments that spring from this can only weaken, not strengthen, society.


For these reasons, we propose that the ideal society is not ethnically diverse, but ethnically homogenous.

*     *     *
The prophets of a Beige Future are everywhere.  Being colored is trendy; being white is bland:

'Ours! ... It was our people!  ... Everywhere you saw nothing but this superb brown color that only the loveliest human beings have... [...]  Personally, I don't want to be Western. I don't want to be a white Catholic; I'd rather be a black atheist.'
--French Socialist MP (and white Catholic) Jean-Luc Melenchon, describing a political rally full of immigrants

'Look at all the beautiful colours the women here are wearing. Within ten years this is what it is going to look like all over Europe. Back home it’s so bleak and dreary, the colours are devoid of life. ...' 
--Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, appreciating the aesthetics of Lagos, Nigeria


We see echoes of the 'exoticism' of 18th and 19th century colonialism, where displaying a Chinese painted screen or an Ashanti mask in your drawing room was a sign of status. Today, appropriating not the possessions but the very identity of these 'exotics' has become à la mode.



But let us not be fooled:  The light-skinned elite may preach 'marrying out' to the masses, but they avoid it scrupulously among themselves.  At the same time, it is rare that high-status men of color have children as dark as or darker than themselves.


 Black legends and their wives: Music greats Herbie Hancock and James Brown, sports icons Michael Jordan and Pele, acting legends Sidney Poitier and James Earl Jones (Courtesy of A Field Negro)


Which leads us to the two great color systems the colonial world has known:  The one-drop rule and the pigmentocracy. Is there evidence that either one can lead to post-racial paradise?
 

I.  Reversion to beige: Mission impossible


1) Latin Model : Pigmentocracy


Latins have long been less averse to crossing the color line than Teutonics. As E.B. Reuter put it in 'The Mulatto in the United States' (1918),

Of the white races, the Spanish and the Portuguese have mixed most easily and in largest numbers. They have mixed, moreover, with almost equal readiness with the Malay, the American Indian, and the African Negress ; and with less repugnance than any other people with whom these lower races have come in contact. 

This is visible in their ex-colonies, where the Spanish/Portuguese, native Indians, and Africans have combined to form a 'great brown middle.' A DNA study of Mexican-Americans in the Southwest found:


Our overall estimates of average Native American (39%), European (57%) and African (4%) ancestry in this population from Starr County, Texas are quite similar to what was observed for a sample of Mexicans from Mexico City by Wang et al. (2008), with corresponding proportions of 40, 57 and 3%, respectively.

Because 'one-drop' was not the law of the land, Spanish colonials kept careful track of the different gradations of color. C.B. Davenport (1913) lists them as:

Sambo = mulatto and negro  (3/4 Afro)
Mulatto = negro and white   (1/2 Afro)
Quadroon = mulatto and white   (1/4 Afro)
Octoroon =  quadroon and white  (1/8 Afro)
Mustifee = octoroon and white (1/16 Afro, also called 'hexadecaroon')
Mustifino = mustifee and white (1/32 Afro, also called 'dotriacontaroon')


Mulatto, Quadroon, Octoroon: In the U.S., but not Brazil, all fall on one side of the color line


E.B. Reuter (1918) explained the situation in Brazil thusly:

In social affairs, the color line between the whites and the mixed-blood race is neither hard nor fast. ... Intermarriage is forbidden neither by law nor by custom. ... The aristocracy here, as elsewhere in South America, are pure white... The aspiration of the half-breed is to be like the white man.  He is free to intermarry with the whites and his ambition is to do so. With each such crossing, the offspring approximate more and more to the pure white type.

Indeed, a century later, despite Mexico's or Brazil's P.R. as multiracial paradises with a happy, harmonious great brown middle, little has changed: cream apparently still rises to the top.

We have the evidence in popular culture:


Fresh off the plane from Spain?



More Ben Affleck than Acatec Indian


In the halls of power:






 






Or in the rare air of the super-wealthy:







The bottom of the ladder, however, is differently-hued:



The racial divide is also a spatial divide:



Via a different route, Anglos have arrived at a similar result.  Let us consider their 'one-drop rule.'



2) Teutonic Model: One-drop rule


Teutonics have been much less ready to cross the color line, as seen in their ex-colonies today. E.B. Reuter, on the colonial era:
There is in Spanish and Portuguese countries no such sharp color line as exists where men of Teutonic stock are settled in countries outside of Europe.

In colonial South Africa:
The white inhabitants recognize no difference between the various shades of Negroes, but draw an impassable color line with the whites on one side and all grades of the colored population on the other.

But has the 'one-drop rule' had any real power?  Steve Sailer looks at a study from Mark S. Shriver:
Yet, from another perspective, a sizable degree of racial mixing is highly unusual. There simply aren't many African-Americans or European-Americans who are mostly white but also substantially black. Shriver pointed out, "There is a very small degree of overlap in the population distributions." In America, most of the whites are extremely European and most of the blacks are quite African.
Despite the notorious arbitrariness of the "one drop" rule, the actual American population conforms to its strictures surprisingly closely.

In the U.S., roughly a tenth of the population has always been of African descent. Despite the fact that 'most of the Blacks are quite African,' it is striking to look at the faces of those Afros who have enjoyed the most prestige and influence.  Here, for example, are some famous figures from 'Black' history (elegantly laid out by Karl F. Boetel):

Our first 'black': president, attorney general, secretary of state, female secretary of state, and cabinet member:




The first 'black': Supreme Court justice, elected Congressman, governor; 'black' pioneers Washington and DuBois:




The first 'black': surgeon, cardiologist, man to earn a B.A., man to earn a Ph.D., army general:



Celebrated women--The first 'black' woman: to earn a U.S. patent, earn a B.A., earn a Ph.D., teach at University, fly a plane:




Mr. Boetel has kindly reminded those who may have forgotten what an actual West African looks like:

 Thank you, Mr. Boetel.

Sailer:

According to Shriver, only about 10 percent of African-Americans are over 50 percent white.
This was also true in the 19th century, and it is to this group that W.E.B. DuBois was making a veiled reference when he spoke of the 'talented tenth':

The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men. The problem of education, then, among Negroes must first of all deal with the Talented Tenth; it is the problem of developing the Best of this race that they may guide the Mass away from the contamination and death of the Worst, in their own and other races.
The uncomfortable truth is that the most exceptional Afro-Americans have nearly always come from that part of the race that is of half or more European blood.  Even today, socio-economically, lighter means higher on the ladder:

 https://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/african-ancestry-ses-association1.jpg


(For the clearest argument ever made on the subject, see E.B. Reuter's 1918 'The Mulatto in the United States'.)




II.  Multi-ethnic 'paradise'... and bitter reality


1) Endless inequality

In the absence of a uniformly beige populace, blank-slatists still manage to aggressively promote Perfect Equality among the different hues.  Every field of human endeavor should reflect exactly the ethnic breakdown of the nation.  Yet despite the endless five-year plans, many gaps stubbornly refuse to close. In the U.S., for example, multi-ethnic 'paradise' par excellence:












Contrary to much fanfare and depsite the billions of dollars spent to try to close them, such gaps are persistent, showing no signs of closing any time soon.



2) Jealousy and Resentment

The Less Able resent the More Able:

The result of a prolonged state of inequality between ethnic groups does not need to be guessed at. At the most extreme, we have the violence directed at the Indians in Uganda, the Euros in South Africa, the Chinese in Malaysia, or the Jews all over Europe.






If we can't be you, we will destroy you-- The South African genocide continues: 'John Cross, 78, fought back fiercely against his black killers while they poured boiling water down his throat. They then shot off the top of his skull. His wife Bina, 76, was tortured for five hours with boiling water.'  This is one of the least horrific in the never-ending series of Boer murders.



may13_4







The More Able resent the Less Able:

In countries where the More Able have repented for their superior ability and begun to hand out goodies to the Less Able, an unsurprising turn has come.  Those in the 'oppressor' group who are pushed out of jobs, college spots, or business loans in favor of less-qualified 'oppressees' begin to resent it.

 

In the West, this has led to many social ills: One is taxpayer-funded lawsuits over seemingly simple questions, like 'Should it be the higher scorers or the lower scorers who are let into medical school or promoted fire captain?'  Another, as Thomas Sowell argues, is companies avoiding hiring minorities because they become so difficult to fire.

Outside the West, the consequences have ranged from serious to bloody.  The end of apartheid in South Africa ushered in the 'Black Empowerment' system (strict racial quotas for jobs and colleges) which has led to top schools refusing the best and brightest, the slow disintegration of the Air Force, and a general Euro white flight out of the country. Brain drain has also afflicted Malaysia since it began favoring its indigenous but under-performing Malays against the superior Chinese--the latter are leaving the country in droves.

More grave still, Sowell has ably argued in his Affirmative Action Around the World that resentment against quota policies has led to widespread violence against Sinhalese in Sri Lanka and Dalits in India.

 Dalits in India and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka: Affirmative action's winners or losers?


*     *     *


All of this is not news to those who know even a bit of history, or who pay attention to international affairs.  If there is one constant in the travails of homo sapiens sapiens, it is that he gets on best with his own kind.  Yet to the social engineers who would shepherd us into multicult euphoria, it is as if these millennia of inter-ethnic strife didn't exist.

In today's multi-ethnic states, far from becoming race-free melting pots, we mostly stick with our own.  Our darkest men have a tendency to mejorar la raza when they can, and our elite is invariably light-skinned--even our Afro elite.  Those of the darkest hue are found disproportionately at the bottom of the ladder.

The jealousy, anger, and resentment that fester when unequal groups are forced together and told, 'You are equal!' should give us pause.  Rather than encourage the arrival of ever more alien ethnies into our countries, we should do everything in our power to keep them as ethnically homogenous as possible.  The evidence, in this case, speaks for itself.

33 comments:

Luke Lea said...

You do good work.

Suicmez said...

Miss M.G. can you please answer my question I leave in last post.

Btw what race would I be consider in this "pigmentocracy" (I am iranian, or west asian) ?

Anonymous said...

Superb post as usual. Here's another interesting data set regarding white admixture in black Americans (from this paper). It shows that the more admixed a black is, the higher his or her socioeconomic status is (on the average, of course).

JayMan said...

Great post. Love all the data.

That composite looks like it could be my daughter.

Nelson said...

Interesting.

The genetic breakdown of Mexican-Americans you cite is very similar to that shown in a study I documented in an old post on Hispanic genomic diversity. I suspect the degree of African ancestry among the Hispanic subgroups is directly proportional to (or at least highly correlated with) the varying proportions of African slaves the colonists brought to the Caribbean and the Americas after contact.

Perhaps the best example of this is the island of Quisqueya (a.k.a. Hispaniola); even now, there's an immigration struggle in the Dominican Republic - the latest chapter in the historically contentious relationship between the D.R. and Haiti.

On the other hand, despite the drastic changes in the Caribbean and the Americas brought about by contact, social stratification (at least in some parts) might've started centuries earlier: see my latest HBD post on Puerto Ricans for some evidence.

M.G. said...

LukeLea--

Thank you as always for reading.


Anon--

Here's another interesting data set regarding white admixture in black Americans (from this paper). It shows that the more admixed a black is, the higher his or her socioeconomic status is (on the average, of course).

Very interesting info! I've added it to the original post now. Thank you for the contribution.

M.G. said...

Nelson--

That's an excellent post on the Taino; two things jumped out at me:

As you can see, the controversy here is two-fold. First, the reference to the Taíno as an “extinct ethnicity” despite evidence showing that some of today’s Hispanics have Taíno genetic markers. Second, the Taíno “cultural revival” sparked by this evidence (where many self-identify as Taíno even if their genetic admixtures are predominantly non-Taíno – e.g. European or African).

Again, we see a modern desire to identify with minority ethnies, even if we've got just a dash of that blood. I didn't know this fashion extended into Latin America. In the case of the Taino (as with Americans identifying with Cherokee, etc.), I wonder if it comes from an urge to belong to the land's 'original people'? If you go onto a forum like Eupedia, you can find people arguing about who the 'original' European haplogroup was, and wanting to belong to it.

On the subject of 'extinction,' though, I agree with you--we can't call a people 'exctinct' if their DNA lives on, even in mixed form.


In Puerto Ricans, degree of African/European ancestry (specifically, less of the former and more of the latter) positively correlated with SES.

This is similar to what Anon posted just above about Afros in the U.S. I was looking for which paper it came from, and I couldn't find it in your post...your first link in that post ('A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon an interesting article on Hispanic genomic structure and admixture;') is now dead. Could you say which paper you were talking about?)


see my latest HBD post on Puerto Ricans for some evidence.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this one yet! I will check it out. Your HBD posts on Hispanics are really helpful for those of us who feel in the dark about such a genetically complex group.

M.G. said...

JayMan--

Congratulations again on your bundle of joy. She is going to have a very diverse genetic history, luckily her dad's an expert who'll be able to explain it all!

Nelson said...

M.G.: Thank you for alerting me to the dead link; here's the paper in question:

Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture among Hispanic/Latino populations

(N.B.: While the link takes you to the abstract, full paper is freely available via pdf link; I also updated my post with the corrected link.)

Re: the Taíno: I'd say the desire to reconnect with the pre-contact ancestral culture drives the Taíno identification by some (especially given the means under which they were conquered, subjugated, and slaughtered); other cats in the Latinosphere call this "racist" because they consider it denial (or "downplaying") of the African component.

As for the paper concerning the admixture/SES correlations, it's linked in my post; here it is:

Latino Populations: A Unique Opportunity for the Study of Race, Genetics, and Social Environment in Epidemiological Research

Hope this helps!

Mr. Rational said...

Suicmez, if you want the power of the European people, all you have to do is make European babies.  Purchase ova from European women, purchase sperm from European men, gestate them yourselves.  Heck, European men will be happy to give you their genetic material for free, and maybe even pay YOU.  Just offer comely young things and advertise as a destination for sex tourists.

AmericanGoy said...

The topic of "Jealousy and Resentment" is very close to my heart.

A rather homogenous country with a large native population, and a non-native foreign ruling class/business class/rich elite class at the top (or very close to it; see: Arenda System) has always been the case in history.

The whole history of China is replete with foreign invaders taking over and eventually "chinaizing"; a process which took centuries.

Alexander the Great's Greeks took over many states in the far corners of the world, resulting in some very strange countries, intermixing the classical Greece with the local customs.

The Chinese, in the modern era, circa 1900's to now, took over some territories in the Malaya, under the aegis of British colonialism, and virtually took over whole swathes of business and government positions, including police enforcement.

The British Empire took over the whole known world, playing divide and rule with a laughably small number of actual White, British soldiers stationed worldwide in penny pockets.

The Ancient Romans did not let the barbarian chieftains rule the lands they conquered - rather, they allowed them to civilize, "Romanize", and through a passage of time to allow the barbarians to become Roman.

And of course my favorite topic, the Jewish elite, due to being brilliant business and the power of nepotism (Americans still have not learned how to organize, instead believing in the fiction of "fair play" and "individualism"), taking over the foreign policy of the greatest superpower in existence currently, as well as pushing the mass immigration and "multiculturalism" with as much force as possible.

The foreign elite are always, ALWAYS, the enemy - they have to be hostile until the moment when they cease to be different to the host population and get absorbed into the mass.

But what happens when the elite at the top want to retain their racial, cultural, religious, mores and ethical characteristics that make them (in their minds) superior to the stupid, taken advantage of natives?

AmericanGoy said...

There are two scenarios for a conquering (for that is what placing your own foreign group on the top of a society is; whether it took actual war or swindling is immaterial).

First scenario - The Roman method, "civilize" the natives to become more like us.

Sometimes in history it worked, sometimes (the Portuguese in Africa, The French in the Maghreb) it did not.

The Second scenario is more popular these days. Simply lord it over the natives, like a British "advisor" to the Raj pre WW1.

But soonish, the natives start to resent the elite foreign invaders, and tensions start to develop.

Cue Weimar republic and all that entails.

The solution, of course, if multiculturalism. Destroy a homogenous society and make the bottom feeders fight for scraps with various OTHER foreign invaders...

Simply put, the natives become too busy fighting for scraps, trying to keep that crappy job, trying to feed your family and compete with even more desperate foreign people off the boat.

And the best situation is when this situation is permanent, and even better when there is no more native population to speak of.


Now, the stupid always resent the smart, the poor resent the rich, and everyone resents the ALIEN, the OTHER, despite the official multicultural propaganda.

There are no studies (that I know of) which postulate an "immigrant threshold", which takes into account the racial/ethic/cultural/religious differences between a native and invading group, and the percentage of a people that this foreign group makes up of the total population.

I am not sure that even those at the top desire such a study.

But we all - black, White, Asian, Latin American - know that there is a threshold that when it is reached, this nice exotic kebab guy on the corner stops being a nice Arab guy and becomes a target of resentment and vice versa.

The "Us versus Them".

I do not begrudge africans being resentful to indians taking their jobs.

I do not begrudge Americans (black and White) construction workers being resentful to mexican immigrants taking their jobs.

And so on and so on.

In fact, in America, the "dey took our jerbs!" meme became popular after two jews made it popular on a silly cartoon show, and mentioning this in a discussion will lead to snickering and guffaws, instead of, you know, acknowledgement that yes, they DID take our jobs.

My personal view - summing up...

Immigration is OK, even the arguments about diversity and making a nation less homogenous make sense.

Yes, I said it - bear with me.

A truly homogenous society is perhaps a bad thing, as it DOES lead to stagnation and lack of a fresh viewpoint on everything.

But the threshold should be monitored - and when a society reaches it, a full stop reached.

Of course, a society of natives in full control over itself would choose to import only the best of other peoples - the geniuses, the mathematicians, the inventors, etc.; not the scum of the Third World like Americans and Europeans are forced to intake.

And it would only do so until a threshold (1%? 3%) is reached and no more.


That is why I do not begrudge africans kicking out indians. It is THEIR land, their state, and they are kicking out foreign invading elite.

Would Americans and Europeans be as smart as those africans...

AmericanGoy said...

And oh yeah, lest I forget...

This is the best blog out there, bar none.

Ivan .M said...

"On the subject of 'extinction,' though, I agree with you--we can't call a people 'exctinct' if their DNA lives on, even in mixed form."

Wouldn't Neanderthals be considered extant under this logic?

DNA from the parent groups may survive in a mixed population, but you still end up with a people different from those who sired them. What makes this or that population unique and distinct is not just their genes, but how the genes play out phenotypically.

The Mexicans, while hardly monolithic, are by and large neither Spaniards nor Aztecs.

Hell, Euro-Americans are not Germans.

------------------

Worthy of note is the implicit "pigmentocracy" Afro-Americans entertain among themselves. Bill Duke (my favorite black actor, incidentally) made a documentary relating to it. According to the film's Wikipedia article, Dark Girls "explores the many struggles, including self-esteem issues, which women of darker skin face allowing women of all ages recount 'the damage done to their self-esteem and their constant feeling of being devalued and disregarded."

Another thought that pops in my head is H.P. Lovecraft discussing miscegenation. It's interesting how he would've tolerated limited mixture with most non-Negro peoples and felt viscerally repulsed by Teutonic-Negro couplings, which the Yankee Lovecraft probably lamented as another Southern defect in need of reform.

M.G. said...

American Goy--

Nice to see you again. Good points.

There are two scenarios for a conquering

Don't forget this one: Have a conquering power come in, draw 'national' borders around a bunch of disparate groups, then leave. Whichever group is lucky enough to be in power at that time must keep control with an iron fist--and when that control blows up, watch out (Iraq, Syria, Lybia, pretty much all of black Africa,...). This is a truly a recipe for disaster, and one case where the blame can be squarely placed on European shoulders.

But the [immigration] threshold should be monitored - and when a society reaches it, a full stop reached.

The Japanese example here is instructive. They are quite homogeneous and anti-immigration, but they do let in foreign workers, who are as you say closely monitored and, when their visa's up, unceremoniously booted. It is really not that hard to do.

M.G. said...

Ivan M.--

What makes this or that population unique and distinct is not just their genes, but how the genes play out phenotypically.

True. But I think there's a lot of (reasonable) debate about what makes an ethnic group 'extant' or 'extinct,' and for people who still carry those genes and are aware of or even practice some parts of that group's culture, the verdict of 'extinction' is hard to take.

Worthy of note is the implicit "pigmentocracy" Afro-Americans entertain among themselves.

Yes. Here's a mulatto debate forum arguing about if the brown paper bag test ever really existed. There were for sure some mulatto castes in the old South, especially Louisiana and their gens libres de couleur. It's odd to look around the world and see how many of these castes have existed. Richard Lynn's excellent Pigmentocracy takes on this topic in a Caribbean/Latin American context.

Of course this Afro-American pigmentocracy is hardly known of among Whites, especially SWPL types. They prefer to see Afros as one big loving, oppressed family, instead of the snake-eating-its-tail that it really is.

Dark Girls "explores the many struggles, including self-esteem issues, which women of darker skin face"

Unfortunately, Youtube says this video is blocked in France. I'll try to find another copy of it, I'd like to see it.

Another thought that pops in my head is H.P. Lovecraft discussing miscegenation.

It's unkind of me, but I'm always amused to see Lovecraft fans trying to explain away his views on race, utterly oblivious that they were quite mainstream and non-controversial at the time.

Ivan .M said...

M.G.,

Check out the official Dark Girls website. Hopefully their video will play in your location.

". . . I think there's a lot of (reasonable) debate about what makes an ethnic group 'extant' or 'extinct,' and for people who still carry those genes and are aware of or even practice some parts of that group's culture, the verdict of 'extinction' is hard to take."

I guess what I'm getting at is this: imitation does not constitute the real thing.

A hybrid group might appreciate and/or practice the traditions of their ancestors, but they lack the specific arrangement of cognitive and behavioral traits that brought those traditions about.

Ethnicity is indeed a more sociological concept than race, however. I wouldn't be opposed to revising our understanding of "extinction" from a line to a continuum in this regard (endangered, partially extinct, etc.).

Mr. Rational said...

I have begun a sterilization program in Iran recently.

Have you now?  Where is the news of this program?  It seems like it connects the Islamic revolution to Fascism so tightly that someone would have denounced it by now.

Anonymous said...

Suicmez is an interesting troll... and/or a basket case.

Californian said...

As we have seen, some are hoping fervently for a 'post-racial' West in which we all blend to a mocha color and harmony comes at last. In such a world, so it's thought, we'll see no more prejudice, exclusion, oppression, micro-aggressions, or 'other-ing.' There isn't a social problem, it appears, that cannot be righted by us all becoming beige.

Which brings up a point: whatever happened to the class struggle? Somewhere along the line, the left has dumped the concept of class struggle for one of racial struggle--a concept in which white people are to other races what capitalists were once to the proletariat. This is the reality of what eliminating "white privilege" means: a backhanded admission here that there is a relationship between race and wealth production. i.e., it takes white people to create a modern society with its accoutrements of three meals a day, automobiles, indoor plumbing, hospitals, and cell phones for all. With the corollary (pace the movie "Elysium") that somehow white people are keeping all this from the rest of the world.

The whole thing is odd. Assuming that everyone was one "color" it does not follow that would be an end to race. There would still be inherent genetic factors which would sort out population groups. e.g., the high-IQ/high-impulse-control groups would have the edge over low-IQ/low-impulse-control demographics. And there would still be struggles over such things as religion, politics, the cushy jobs, and access to beachfront property.

What we are really seeing is a utopian ideology playing itself out, per John Lennon's song, "Imagine." Somehow, the world would be one and mankind would live in the promised land. But the reality has been that when white people are removed from the equation you end up with a Zimbabwe or Haiti or a Detroit: squalid places from where beige colored humans do everything in their power to escape. Or countries like Red China in which oligarchies put the boot in to maintain a civilization they could not create on their own but certainly take advantage of.

This gets back to the point I've made on other websites: that modern liberalism is a form of mass delusion, call it magical thinking if you like. It's like unto some medieval mass hysteria. Look at post-colonial Africa. No matter how much the liberal formula of one-man-one-vote-majority-rule-no-more-apartheid is implemented, liberalism still fails. And no matter how much it fails, liberals still insist upon it. The fact that black-majority-rule ends up with benevolent dictatorships at best and human rights debacles as usual goes by the boards.

The dilemma is that liberals are now importing the debacle into the first world via de facto open borders, justified with the ideology of dieversity.

Which is one reason I use the term "multicult" to describe modern liberalism, because it is quasi-religious in nature.

Which suggests that the only way to stop them is via something akin to the Wars of Religion.

M.G. said...

Suicmez is an interesting troll... and/or a basket case.

Agreed, I've deleted his/her last comment. But eugenics/dysgenics is an interesting topic that's definitely worth talking about, in a less inflammatory way if possible.

SpaghettiMeatball said...

Okay, I'll quit the trolling (sorry about that) just to make a clarification:

I was trolling you guys because I am a little upset at the low level of civilization produced in my native iran (I'm a persian jew living in LA) as compared to the Anglo-saxon society. If this is mainly due to some type of genetic refinement accumulated over the past 1,000 years or something, than goddamnit, I want some too.

SpaghettiMeatball said...

Also I am tired of seeing people describing iranians as arabs, we are not arabs, we have much more ancient civilization than arabs.

Btw spaghettiMeatball = suicmez

SpaghettiMeatball said...

Everyone is also saying the Anglo Nordics are the cream of humanity, the most beautiful, the most perfect, the most sexy.

From where came such gifts?

Mr. Rational said...

From where came such gifts?

Thousands of years of living in cold forests with stone- and bronze-age technology.  You should try it.

M.G. said...

Okay, I'll quit the trolling (sorry about that) just to make a clarification:

No need to troll here, there are a lot of interesting commenters who would surely like to engage with you if you have some serious points to make.

Also I am tired of seeing people describing iranians as arabs, we are not arabs, we have much more ancient civilization than arabs.

No disagreement there. I write about Arabs occasionally because (a) it's a group whose family/cultural origins I've studied a fair bit, (b) they're the origin of Islam, a major world religion, and (c) they're currently migrating in large numbers to the West, especially France (where I live as an ex-pat) which is causing big social problems. Persians are a group I've little knowledge about. Do you know of any good English-language blogs about Iran? Are you interested in writing a guest post about the topic here?

I was trolling you guys because I am a little upset at the low level of civilization produced in my native iran (I'm a persian jew living in LA) as compared to the Anglo-saxon society. If this is mainly due to some type of genetic refinement accumulated over the past 1,000 years or something, than goddamnit, I want some too.

I think you might find a lot more to whet your appetite at HBD Chick's blog. She's done extensive research on those questions, with tons of good references. Can't remember if she's specifically looked at Persia, but she's always up for a challenge,...why not head over there and ask her?

... Everyone is also saying the Anglo Nordics are the cream of humanity, the most beautiful, the most perfect, the most sexy. From where came such gifts?

Nobody here is saying those things. (1) This is no white supremacist blog. It's a place to bring forth HBD data on societal questions and think about sensible policy responses, whose readership is probably mostly ethnic NW Euro. (2) This very thread has, among others, a Black blogger and a Hispanic blogger commenting in it. No special reason to think Persians wouldn't be welcome. (3) If there are Anglo/Nordic Americans expressing discontent about their country's situation, one can hardly blame them. Their people founded this nation, and it's currently going to the dogs. Finding constructive solutions is the goal.

Anonymous said...

Japan has a defect too. It had a sizable number of koreans who came to dominate the underworld and gambling industry. A lot of loan sharks also hail from korean-japanese.

Most of them are , I would say , japanified. They hold Japanese passports and Japanese names, and speak very little korean. But something in their behavior shows their true identities and the Japanese who do matter willl avoid them.

M.G. said...

Californian--

This is the reality of what eliminating "white privilege" means: a backhanded admission here that there is a relationship between race and wealth production. i.e., it takes white people to create a modern society with its accoutrements

Perfectly put. It's amazing how seamlessly the 'class struggle' --> 'race struggle' transition has happened.

...modern liberalism is a form of mass delusion, call it magical thinking if you like. It's like unto some medieval mass hysteria.

Yes, this is just the point I was trying to make in 'Heretics, Kulaks, and Witches' and that Radish Mag made in this brilliant article, 'Black Magic'. I grew up in that milieu, too, and I can assure you that everyone in it thinks they're the most enlightened, reasonable, forward-thinking, moral people in the history of humanity. Seriously. And the ultimate paradox, that they spout 'empiricism!' and 'science!' while engaging in the most base, childlike magical thinking imaginable on the subject of race. It truly has to be seen to be believed.

The dilemma is that liberals are now importing the debacle into the first world via de facto open borders, justified with the ideology of dieversity.

Exactly. This religious dogma (that's what it truly is) would be somewhat manageable if it only involved the West's historical populations, but the immigration-palooza of the last forty years cannot just be un-done with an 'oops' and a smile. The UK is just waking up to this, but I fear it's too late for them.

Which suggests that the only way to stop them is via something akin to the Wars of Religion.

Not sure I totally agree. The early Soviet experiment had an awful lot of true believers...Lots of Westerners even ex-patriated to what they were sure was a 'workers' paradise.' But at the end, massive disillusionment helped the whole delusion topple with more of a whimper than a bang. Couldn't something similar happen with the multicult in the West?

M.G. said...

Mr. Rational--

I've no idea why, but your posts are the only non-anonymous ones that turn up every time in the spam folder, from where I must fish them out.

Is there some way to fix that, do you know?

Mr. Rational said...

M.G., I don't have a clue.

Mr. Rational said...

I suggest you put in a complaint to Blogger and ask them to fine-tune the spam-trap rule that's being triggered.

Californian said...

It's amazing how seamlessly the 'class struggle' --> 'race struggle' transition has happened.

"On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks,the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns--after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces--at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia
was an ally."--from Nineteen Eighty-Four


I suppose I could give a technical interpretation: for marxists, the class struggle was always a "tactic;" i.e., a means to an end. Once the class struggle agitprop line had run its course, they switched over to something which seems to be working, i.e., a race-based struggle (in which whites = capitalists and designated victim groups = proletarians). What facilitates this is the doublethink of modern liberalism which simultaneously holds that "race is just a construct" and yet makes race the center of the universe.

And yes, I use a lot of Orwellian references because Orwell was really ahead of the power curve with "Nineteen Eighty-Four." He actually had some real insights into the ways in which the left operates but more critically, their underlying mentality. This is playing out fully with the promotion of multicultism. On one hand we are told that we must be "tolerant," at the same time liberals move to crush anyone who does not genuflect to their orthodoxy.

But this also suggests a vulnerability. The current mass hysteria over "racism" can be switched to other targets--like modern liberalism.

Just a thought...

anyname said...

"But let us not be fooled: The light-skinned elite may preach 'marrying out' to the masses, but they avoid it scrupulously among themselves."

That is the critical point imo and it shows pretty clearly that the hostile elite are engaged in biological warfare.