The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Curb Your Intraracial Enthusiasm
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows enthusiasm* for the potential of having a close relative marry a white person, a black person, a Hispanic person, and an Asian person. Responses, by race of the respondents, are shown along the horizontal axis. The marital enthusiasm they have for a close relative marrying a person of each race is displayed along the vertical axis. Thus “among whites” shows how whites feel about a close relative marrying a white (87.1), a black (20.0), a Hispanic (33.5), etc. For contemporary relevance, responses are taken exclusively from The Great Awokening (2012 onward):

That each group exhibits the most enthusiasm for intraracial marriage is a satisfying thumb in the eye of our cultural overlords.

That the in-house preference gap is largest among whites jams that thumb in another inch. Despite the ubiquitous portrayals of interracial couplings in the corporate media, most people want sons and daughters and nieces and nephews who look like they do.

Blacks are, relative to others, quite enthusiastic for close relatives marrying in general. With an out-of-wedlock rate of 70%, marriage to anyone at all means you’ve beaten the odds–and your auntie is so proud you did! Asian enthusiasm is correspondingly curbed–of course you’re going to marry someone, and it better be someone we approve of!

Though it will upset Wokians, notice that after enthusiasm for intraracial marriage, each non-white group prefers close relatives marry whites over marrying from another group in the coalition that is not their own. It is going to take a lot of work to extirpate the legacy of white supremacy from the multiracial paradise of the future.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), MARWHT, MARBLK, MARHISP, MARASIAN, YEAR(2012-2018)

* Calculated as (2*[strongly approve])+[approve]-[disapprove]-(2*[strongly disapprove]) from a series of questions asking respondents about how they would feel if “a close relative” married a member of each of the four major racial/ethnic groups under consideration.

 
Hide 251 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Though it will upset Wokians…

    almost all of whom marry within their race, or perhaps others with nearly matching skin color and IQ…

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    No, really nobody among non-whites prefers their IQ/skin color "close cousins". They all prefer whites. W-H-I-T-E-S.
    , @Altai
    The number of them who you look up having biographies of 'rebelling against religion' but marrying somebody they met from Hillel are, interesting for 3rd to 5th generation 'Americans'.
  2. Blacks are enthusiastic about marriage in general, but have lower rates and higher incidence of divorce.

    Somewhere the IFS is scheming to hoodwink people into POConservatism with this narrative.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    Blacks are "enthusiastic in general" about marriage, but marry less frequently and divorce more frequently when they do marry?

    I'm thinking you mean something other than the expected when you say "blacks are enthusiastic about marriage".
  3. I don’t know. Almost 20% of new babies born are interracial (note that this chart was for 2010-15, so the current numbers are 3-4% higher), and 89% of those fit the description of ‘white + non-white’.

    ‘Lower Enthusiasm’ is not the exact antithesis of ‘vehemently oppose’, plus the trend is indisputably rising.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you've got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally "white". They themselves will most likely marry white people, and within one or two more generations their descendants will be phenotypically white as well. White people absorb and assimilate Asians and Hispanics quite readily.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it's closer to 10%.

    It is definitely on the rise. We did a post here a few months ago showing that it is especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.
    , @Aft
    Whites marrying Hispanics who are often 40-80% European, white men marrying Asian women, and the fattest and least educated white women boiling off into the mixed population is not exactly a sign of enthusiasm for more aggressive forms of racial intermarriage.
  4. I suspect there is a sizable variation in those numbers based on SES, especially for whites. There is also the fact that these are stated preferences. Actual marriages show the revealed preferences.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    And as is frequently the case in the GSS, the question leaves a lot up to the imagination of the respondent. Are we talking about square one or are we talking about someone the relative has been with for five years? I'm not sure exactly how I'd answer, but it'd be more intraracial in the case of the former assumption than of the latter.
  5. Plus, there is considerable data to prove that among 2nd gen Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, intermarriage rates exceed 30% (and over 90% of those are with whites).

    • Replies: @216
    There's a tendency of Hispanics to identify as "multiracial", and a tendency of people to overrepresent Native American ancestry.

    The above GSS data:

    Is it all age ranges. The data for under 40 is more powerful, the date for those above the normal age of marriage less so.
    , @S. M. Coulton
    Over 90%? No way man, Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially "other". I'm actually not even sure they're less popular than whites, they certainly are not relative to census figures. "Other" is the most popular category relative to population size.


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbFsV1vVMAA6Nze.jpg

    , @ariel
    over a third of births to asian women in the USA have a non - asian father ( mostly white) , since asian have the lowest fertility rate ,without immigration their population would decline
  6. @Thomm
    Plus, there is considerable data to prove that among 2nd gen Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, intermarriage rates exceed 30% (and over 90% of those are with whites).

    There’s a tendency of Hispanics to identify as “multiracial”, and a tendency of people to overrepresent Native American ancestry.

    The above GSS data:

    Is it all age ranges. The data for under 40 is more powerful, the date for those above the normal age of marriage less so.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    There’s a tendency of Hispanics to identify as “multiracial”, and a tendency of people to overrepresent Native American ancestry.
     
    We have to assume the polls adjust for that, since the percent of 'multiracial' adults is far too few to account for a majority of Hispanics.

    Is it all age ranges. The data for under 40 is more powerful, the date for those above the normal age of marriage less so.
     
    Of course. Only people young enough to marry matter. This data is skewed by older people.

    The fact remains that about 20% of babies born are multi-racial. 2nd-gen Asian-Americans intermarry at a rate of over 30%. Twinkie is the one who has more data about this, though.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The American Indian inflation must be a big part of the explanation for Oklahoma. It's otherwise inexplicable, isn't it?
  7. @216
    There's a tendency of Hispanics to identify as "multiracial", and a tendency of people to overrepresent Native American ancestry.

    The above GSS data:

    Is it all age ranges. The data for under 40 is more powerful, the date for those above the normal age of marriage less so.

    There’s a tendency of Hispanics to identify as “multiracial”, and a tendency of people to overrepresent Native American ancestry.

    We have to assume the polls adjust for that, since the percent of ‘multiracial’ adults is far too few to account for a majority of Hispanics.

    Is it all age ranges. The data for under 40 is more powerful, the date for those above the normal age of marriage less so.

    Of course. Only people young enough to marry matter. This data is skewed by older people.

    The fact remains that about 20% of babies born are multi-racial. 2nd-gen Asian-Americans intermarry at a rate of over 30%. Twinkie is the one who has more data about this, though.

  8. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:

    Blacks are, relative to others, quite enthusiastic for close relatives marrying in general. With an out-of-wedlock rate of 70%, marriage to anyone at all means you’ve beaten the odds–and your auntie is so proud you did!

    Or maybe blacks are just more tolerant than other groups?

    I don’t see any conclusion from this except that whites, as a group, are every bit as close minded as the left makes them out to be, despite white protests to the contrary. Also that whites are everyone else’s second choice and blacks are everyone else’s last choice.

  9. Though it will upset Wokians, notice that after enthusiasm for intraracial marriage, each non-white group prefers close relatives marry whites over marrying from another group in the coalition that is not their own. It is going to take a lot of work to extirpate the legacy of white supremacy from the multiracial paradise of the future.

    This is a very positive thing. This is what you want to see in any nation. That the newcomers, and their descendants want to marry *toward* the core, or at least have somewhat positiev feelings about their relatives doing it.

    Note that along with the above skew toward whites, there is a corresponding skew away from blacks. They are at the bottom of the “not-my-own” groups for all other groups.

    If there’s something perplexing it’s why all the intra-race numbers aren’t basically 99%. Ok, i can come up with some plausible reasons for the Hispanic and Asian numbers–basically marrying toward the core, and in the Asian case, “Asian” doesn’t necessary mean “your group”. But what the heck is wrong with whites?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Wanting to marry into a nation's dominant racial group is a reasonable proxy for the desire to assimilate. Desire to maintain a distance--in this case genetically--is conversely a reasonable proxy for the opposite, what Derb calls "absimilation".
  10. @Thomm
    Plus, there is considerable data to prove that among 2nd gen Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, intermarriage rates exceed 30% (and over 90% of those are with whites).

    Over 90%? No way man, Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially “other”. I’m actually not even sure they’re less popular than whites, they certainly are not relative to census figures. “Other” is the most popular category relative to population size.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    My chart in Comment #3 proves otherwise. 89% of all interracial marriage contains one white spouse. Only 11% are those where neither spouse is white.
    , @Aft

    Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially “other"
     
    "a ton" meaning well below 5%
  11. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    This might be valid for blacks and whites, but probably much less so for Hispanics and Asians.

    “Hispanic” includes a large variety of people. Mexican mestizos generally don’t identify with say Puerto Rican mulattoes or black Dominicans and aren’t going to prefer their relatives marry them over non-Hispanics just because they’re Hispanic.

    “Asian” includes South and East Asians, and various ethnic groups within these categories. An Indian may prefer their relatives marry Indians, and a Chinese may prefer relatives to marry Chinese, but I’ve never heard of an Indian preferring their relatives marry Chinese because they’re “Asian”, or a Chinese preferring their relatives marry Indians because they’re “Asian”. Same goes for intra-East Asian or intra-South Asian groups. A Chinese may prefer their relatives marry Chinese, but generally they don’t prefer them marrying say Japanese just because they’re “Asian”.

    Blacks and whites in the US are so mixed up that they don’t have ethnic identities. But Hispanics, Asians and other still have them. So the groups aren’t really comparable. If Hispanics and Asians were mixed thoroughly into single populations, they’d be comparable. But that hasn’t happened yet.

  12. This correlates pretty closely with what you see for dating preferences on Tinder, basically AA’s are hitting on anything that moves, but nobody is hitting on them in return

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    It's almost like they realize they possess the lowest SMV.
    , @LondonBob
    Blacks should be excluded from dating apps, wastes a lot of time swiping left on them.
  13. I’m not sure that the graph actually means anything. For starters there’s no such race as Hispanic.

    And what does Asian mean? It’s too broad to mean anything at all. I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.
     
    Cuck.
    , @Oleaginous Outrager

    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.
     
    Would they? That's a very doubtful assumption.
    , @Thomm

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.
     
    Totally. In terms of genetic distance, both Ron Unz and Razib Khan proved that the real gap is between blacks and non-blacks.

    Now, there is a separate issue of tremendous variation within the white race, but that is a topic for another thread.
  14. @Thomm
    I don't know. Almost 20% of new babies born are interracial (note that this chart was for 2010-15, so the current numbers are 3-4% higher), and 89% of those fit the description of 'white + non-white'.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FT_17.06.01_multiracialBabies_map.png

    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/15153113/PST_2017.05.15.intermarriage-00-00.png

    'Lower Enthusiasm' is not the exact antithesis of 'vehemently oppose', plus the trend is indisputably rising.

    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you’ve got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”. They themselves will most likely marry white people, and within one or two more generations their descendants will be phenotypically white as well. White people absorb and assimilate Asians and Hispanics quite readily.

    • Replies: @iffen
    (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”.

    And what % of these will do an Obama?
    , @Thomm

    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you’ve got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”.
     
    Of course. I have been one of the primary observers of this trend here.

    For all the whining about Asian-Americans becoming an unassimilated 'cultural elite', or the myth that 2nd and even 3rd gen Hispanics don't speak English or aspire to some 'reconquista', neither is remotely true given the high rate of disappearance into the white population.

    Here in California, I know a couple of 60 year old white guys with Japanese last names. Their paternal grandfathers were Japanese. A completely white person with a Hispanic last name is very common, on account of some Mexican grandfather.

    , @nymom
    I find it to be just the opposite.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic...

    I only know one asian and black couple and they too are raising the kids as black, even though they look Japanese (like their father) to me...

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical...with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.

    Look at Obama, he threw his grandparents under the bus (who raised him from the age of 5 years old) even before he became President. He didn't even bother attending his grandmother's funeral when she passed away.

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don't know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood...

    There are numerous other examples but I think you get the point...
  15. Regarding confounding due to socioeconomic status, I had the same thought that such was possible. But then I noted that White distaste for Hispanics and for Asians for family marriage was equivalent. Wouldn’t the Asian engineer rank higher due to his SES? Perhaps the Asian engineer would have been rated as more distasteful than the Hispanic DMV clerk, but his SES pulled him up.

    In any case, all of this reminds me of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, in which Spencer Tracey tries to reconcile his prejudices when his daughter brings home a successful, nice, handsome Black physician (Poitier). This must happen all the time now in my California…”Mom, Dad, this is Jenny NotWhite, my decent, smart, pleasant, industrious, beautiful, lean, compassionate, supportive, fair-minded girlfriend; Jen, meet Skip (“the surfing golferdude”) Smith, and his wife, Betty-Jo.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're forgetting that the majority of White Americans are non-SWPL. That is to say, they are not UC or UMC. Not even MMC.

    About 59% of White Americans are proles. Meaning, they are LC or LMC. Only 41% of us are MMC, UMC, or UC.

    Among LC and LMC Whites, your cousin marrying a Hispanic is greatly preferable to him marrying an Asian. Most LC and LMC Whites don't hate Asians, they just think that they are weird. Whereas prole Whites have a lot more interaction with Hispanics, and thus don't think they are as weird.

    Among MMC, UMC, and UC Whites, your cousin marrying an Asian or Jew is greatly preferable to him marrying a Hispanic. Hispanics are perceived the same way as Blacks and prole Whites. Whereas Jews and Asians are seen as socially, economically, and educationally "in the same ballpark" as SWPLs.
    , @Twodees Partain
    "”Mom, Dad, this is Jenny NotWhite, my decent, smart, pleasant, industrious, beautiful, lean, compassionate, supportive, fair-minded girlfriend; Jen, meet Skip (“the surfing golferdude”) Smith, and his wife, Betty-Jo.”"

    Dad: "But she has small tits, son. Where did I go wrong?"
  16. @dfordoom
    I'm not sure that the graph actually means anything. For starters there's no such race as Hispanic.

    And what does Asian mean? It's too broad to mean anything at all. I'm guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it's also a social construct.

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.

    Cuck.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    I hope that was sarc, Rosie. He's actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.
    , @Anonymous
    It's equally biological and social.

    Only an American would call someone who is 1/16th black and 15/16ths white a "black person".

    The one drop rule is an American invention. I don't know of any other cultures that practice hypodescent.

    Also, using the term "white" as a "race" instead of "Caucasoid". White is not a biological race. Caucasoid is. But Caucasoids also include white Hispanics, Romani people, the Ashkenazim, Middle Easterners, and Subcons. And white Americans be having none of that.

    White is a social group. Caucasoid is a biological race. If you are a Caucasoid, you are in the same macro gene cluster as Jews, Gypsies, and white Hispanics.
    , @Talha
    He's right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    https://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/mma/players/full/2611557.png

    Here's another guy - same area, Daghestan:
    https://statics.sportskeeda.com/editor/2019/09/0cfc2-15684595089430-800.jpg

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

  17. Funny thing is that the inter-racial couplings one sees on TV or in the movies seem far more numerous, involve better looking people, and have almost the opposite sex-pairings compared to inter-racial couplings one encounters in real life.

    • Replies: @Aft
    It wouldn't be effective propaganda if it remotely matched reality.
  18. @Rosie

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.
     
    Cuck.

    I hope that was sarc, Rosie. He’s actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    He’s actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.
     
    First of all, I disagree. Second of all, even if true, that doesn't change the fact that he is a cuck on race. He has said in so many words that he doesn't really care about the survival of the White race.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.
  19. This is surprising given that blacks otherwise seem to have the most ethnocentric attitudes and whites the least

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Well, black enthusiasm for relatives marrying other blacks is the highest of all, so there's that.
  20. @Intelligent Dasein
    I hope that was sarc, Rosie. He's actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.

    He’s actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.

    First of all, I disagree. Second of all, even if true, that doesn’t change the fact that he is a cuck on race. He has said in so many words that he doesn’t really care about the survival of the White race.

    • Replies: @iffen
    he doesn’t really care about the survival of the White race

    Strawman. Straw idea?

    The white race is not disappearing.

    First of all, I disagree.

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That's a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.

  21. Can you break down data for Latinos into White and Non-White?

    For all groups male/female.

    Blacks and “marriage” is an oxymoron. Blacks are into breeding, not “marriage.”

    • Replies: @95Theses
    Slightly OT, but on the Wall Street Journal Report morning radio program (Salem Radio between 5:00–6:00AM) there is commercial for AdoptUSKids which irritates the həck out of me. And it plays three times in every last half hour of the program.

    The feature is entitled, Adopting a Teenager: Learning the Lingo. The intro voiceover is performed by a child, which then proceeds directly to a lesson in talking “teen language” where parents are given instructions by ... a Black male.

    Well isn’t that just peachy-keen. Oh yeah, Black males – real experts on childrearing, they.

    Whenever I hear it coming I have to switch the radio off it is just that stomach-churning in its gall.

    Add that to the list of Black cultural oxymorons.

  22. @dfordoom
    I'm not sure that the graph actually means anything. For starters there's no such race as Hispanic.

    And what does Asian mean? It's too broad to mean anything at all. I'm guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it's also a social construct.

    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

     

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.
     
    You think so?

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That's undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it's true.

    I think it's fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians. So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists. And I'm guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW. All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    In the real world religion and culture (and even political ideology) often trumps race.
  23. @Rosie

    He’s actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.
     
    First of all, I disagree. Second of all, even if true, that doesn't change the fact that he is a cuck on race. He has said in so many words that he doesn't really care about the survival of the White race.

    he doesn’t really care about the survival of the White race

    Strawman. Straw idea?

    The white race is not disappearing.

    First of all, I disagree.

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.
     
    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this? It's not as though I just picked my opinions at random from a basket. I hold the opinions I hold because I have evaluated the evidence and applied the rules of logic to arrive at what I believe to be sound conclusions.

    Take the fact that men are better at math than women. I don't particularly like this fact, but I acknowledge it nonetheless. Relatively few around here are as intellectually honest as that. They cherry pick evidence, hold double standards, and refuse to own up to the logical implications of their premises.

    The white race is not disappearing.
     


    You only say that because you're not projecting trends into the future. There are no Whites in India, few in North Africa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

  24. @Intelligent Dasein
    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you've got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally "white". They themselves will most likely marry white people, and within one or two more generations their descendants will be phenotypically white as well. White people absorb and assimilate Asians and Hispanics quite readily.

    (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”.

    And what % of these will do an Obama?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    All of them would be wise to. You play the hand your dealt.

    An idea I've bandied about here that I'd like to investigate in more detail is to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.
  25. @indocon
    This correlates pretty closely with what you see for dating preferences on Tinder, basically AA's are hitting on anything that moves, but nobody is hitting on them in return

    It’s almost like they realize they possess the lowest SMV.

  26. @Intelligent Dasein
    I hope that was sarc, Rosie. He's actually one of the most astute commentators on this site.

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.

    • Agree: Steve in Greensboro
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.
     
    I believe that race is both biologically and socially constructed. There's a world of difference between believing that and believing (as liberals do) that race is purely a social construct.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it's real. I have no idea why.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It is a social construct but it also has a firm basis in biological reality.

    A "hill" is a social construct, too (at what point does a mound become a hill and a hill become a mountain?)--but it has a very real and very meaningful basis in geological reality.

    Hell, the idea of "family" is a social construct (do third-cousins count?)--but it obviously has a firm basis in biological reality, too.

  27. I’m not clear on how to read this graph.

    Am I to understand that, say, in the “Among Whites” category that Blacks are 20% while Asians are almost 35% in their enthusiasm that Whites are marrying within their own race? And so forth.

    Oh, and cluster graphs? Forget it. Wikipedia is no help there, either.

    I’m a fairly intelligent guy, but never had much of an interest in statistics (aside from citing them ツ), so I readily admit my ignorance here.

    Help!

    • Replies: @RSDB
    From the graph title it sounds as though the question actually asked was "How enthusiastic are you about having a close relative marry a Y?", Y being "white", "Hispanic", "black", and "Asian" successively.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The four bars above "among whites" shows how white respondents feel about their relatives marrying whites, marrying blacks, marrying Hispanics, and marrying Asians.

    The GSS asks if respondents would be "in favor", which is unfortunate phrasing. I think "would you support your relative marrying an X" would be a better way to do it but we work with what we have. That's how most people are answering, because they couldn't simultaneously favor a relative marrying a partner of all four races simultaneously, yet for every single possible pairing, there is more "favor" responses then "not favor" (which is why all the bars are positive).

  28. @Oleaginous Outrager

    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.
     
    Would they? That's a very doubtful assumption.

    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.

    You think so?

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That’s undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it’s true.

    I think it’s fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians. So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists. And I’m guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW. All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    In the real world religion and culture (and even political ideology) often trumps race.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is true. Many of the most dedicated white Christians would rather their son marry a black Christian than a white Satanist.
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That’s undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it’s true... they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists
     
    (X) Doubt

    People want their grandchildren to resemble them in exactly the way that motto means, what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild? In the real world religion and culture almost never trump race, given that culture is so tightly bound to race as to make the distinction nearly meaningless. White Christians and Black Christians don't have the same culture anywhere, it's almost a stretch to say they practice the same religion. Your counterfactuals are absurd as a predictor for accelerating miscegenation if only for the fact that even if there were culturally palatable inter-racial partners available in great supply (there aren't, regardless of the combination you come up with), there's already a large supply of partners with the same preferable culture who are also of the same race.

    If you think religion or political ideology trump race, then why is the party of the ideologically unfocused and religious-minded black race also the rabidly anti-christian party? Could it be that those things aren't even a blip on the radar compared to their ethnic identity?
    , @Oleaginous Outrager

    I think it’s fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians.
     
    So what? Even if this is true, it reveals little about racial preferences, unless one assumes it's always an either/or proposition, as you posit below.

    So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists.
     
    Or might well not. Just assumptions, which AE's chart suggest are not so.

    And I’m guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW.
     
    Again, "guessing", and my guess is "Pakistanis" are far less forgiving of marrying outside their tribe, irrespective of religion, than many other groups.

    All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.
     
    Which actually says nothing about their preferences for marriage.
    , @Talha

    I’m guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW
     
    Darn right! Marrying a Pakistani atheist is a no-go - completely haram, you might as well try to marry your cat or your truck. Genetics is completely irrelevant in this case.

    Peace.
  29. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.

    I believe that race is both biologically and socially constructed. There’s a world of difference between believing that and believing (as liberals do) that race is purely a social construct.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.

    • Agree: iffen, Twinkie, res
    • Replies: @HallParvey

    But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.
     
    Brainwashing. It's not the things you don't know that hurts you. It's the things you know that are wrong.
    , @red6020

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.
     
    Alberto Fujimori, Juan Castro, George Lopez, Nicolas Maduro, Papa Bergoglio, Ted Cruz and Jorge Ramos all qualify as Hispanics. Considering them and counting them statistically as a single race is purely a social construct. I don't see why that's controversial.
    , @Twodees Partain
    "Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why."

    Hispanic is an ethnicity in my view. The race is indigenous Americas, commonly referred to as American Indian, which includes indigenous peoples of the two American continents. Making Hispanic a race involves accepting only mestizos.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    The word Hispanic is a shoddy term used to classify a group of people based upon shared language. African Cubans share no racial relation to Aztec descended Mexicans, but both speak a form of Spanish.

    You're changing the original meaning of "race is a social construct" in order to prove.. what exactly? Even without human categorization, Africans, Asians, and Europeans would still be different races. Referring to that fact as a social construct is nonsense.
  30. @iffen
    he doesn’t really care about the survival of the White race

    Strawman. Straw idea?

    The white race is not disappearing.

    First of all, I disagree.

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That's a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.

    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this? It’s not as though I just picked my opinions at random from a basket. I hold the opinions I hold because I have evaluated the evidence and applied the rules of logic to arrive at what I believe to be sound conclusions.

    Take the fact that men are better at math than women. I don’t particularly like this fact, but I acknowledge it nonetheless. Relatively few around here are as intellectually honest as that. They cherry pick evidence, hold double standards, and refuse to own up to the logical implications of their premises.

    The white race is not disappearing.

    You only say that because you’re not projecting trends into the future. There are no Whites in India, few in North Africa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    • Replies: @Anon

    The extent to which [a person] agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.
     
    OK, who left the Scotch out?
    , @iffen
    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this?

    Right, I do the same, more or less. That's why I said that it was valid for you, but it doesn't scale up into the larger intellectual arena. It is the same with Twinkie. His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.

    , @Twinkie

    but why would I not assume this?
     
    Lack of self-awareness.
    , @Truth

    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.
     
    ...Well isn't that special.
  31. @AmRusDebate
    Can you break down data for Latinos into White and Non-White?

    For all groups male/female.

    Blacks and "marriage" is an oxymoron. Blacks are into breeding, not "marriage."

    Slightly OT, but on the Wall Street Journal Report morning radio program (Salem Radio between 5:00–6:00AM) there is commercial for AdoptUSKids which irritates the həck out of me. And it plays three times in every last half hour of the program.

    The feature is entitled, Adopting a Teenager: Learning the Lingo. The intro voiceover is performed by a child, which then proceeds directly to a lesson in talking “teen language” where parents are given instructions by … a Black male.

    Well isn’t that just peachy-keen. Oh yeah, Black males – real experts on childrearing, they.

    Whenever I hear it coming I have to switch the radio off it is just that stomach-churning in its gall.

    Add that to the list of Black cultural oxymorons.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    A helluva lot of radio ads lecture to listeners in a wise, Morgan Freemanesque black voice
  32. @Reg Cæsar

    Though it will upset Wokians...
     
    almost all of whom marry within their race, or perhaps others with nearly matching skin color and IQ...

    No, really nobody among non-whites prefers their IQ/skin color “close cousins”. They all prefer whites. W-H-I-T-E-S.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I was talking about whites. Read more carefully. Some SJWs-- a subset of whites-- will marry a light-skinned Asian or Hispanic with a similar degree. They're practically "honorary whites", as the South Africans classified Japanese visitors.
    , @Anonymous
    The genetic distance between blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites, and Asians and whites is actually smaller than the genetic distances among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.
    , @brandybranch
    and for good reason
  33. Interesting that while each group of course prefers their relatives marry within their own group (imagine that) but I noticed that every group’s second choice is whites, and every group’s last choice is blacks. Seems like racism by the Asians and Hispanics at least. How can this be since per the media whites are all terrible people and blacks are world renowned for their intelligence, hard work and loyalty to spouses? Can’t the racists be arrested or something?

    • Replies: @95Theses
    Oh, good catch! I spent so much time trying to puzzle out how to read the graph that I missed that.
    , @Truth
    Money?
  34. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.
     
    Cuck.

    It’s equally biological and social.

    Only an American would call someone who is 1/16th black and 15/16ths white a “black person”.

    The one drop rule is an American invention. I don’t know of any other cultures that practice hypodescent.

    Also, using the term “white” as a “race” instead of “Caucasoid”. White is not a biological race. Caucasoid is. But Caucasoids also include white Hispanics, Romani people, the Ashkenazim, Middle Easterners, and Subcons. And white Americans be having none of that.

    White is a social group. Caucasoid is a biological race. If you are a Caucasoid, you are in the same macro gene cluster as Jews, Gypsies, and white Hispanics.

  35. @dfordoom


    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

     

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.
     
    You think so?

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That's undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it's true.

    I think it's fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians. So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists. And I'm guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW. All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    In the real world religion and culture (and even political ideology) often trumps race.

    This is true. Many of the most dedicated white Christians would rather their son marry a black Christian than a white Satanist.

  36. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @SafeNow
    Regarding confounding due to socioeconomic status, I had the same thought that such was possible. But then I noted that White distaste for Hispanics and for Asians for family marriage was equivalent. Wouldn’t the Asian engineer rank higher due to his SES? Perhaps the Asian engineer would have been rated as more distasteful than the Hispanic DMV clerk, but his SES pulled him up.

    In any case, all of this reminds me of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, in which Spencer Tracey tries to reconcile his prejudices when his daughter brings home a successful, nice, handsome Black physician (Poitier). This must happen all the time now in my California...”Mom, Dad, this is Jenny NotWhite, my decent, smart, pleasant, industrious, beautiful, lean, compassionate, supportive, fair-minded girlfriend; Jen, meet Skip (“the surfing golferdude”) Smith, and his wife, Betty-Jo.”

    You’re forgetting that the majority of White Americans are non-SWPL. That is to say, they are not UC or UMC. Not even MMC.

    About 59% of White Americans are proles. Meaning, they are LC or LMC. Only 41% of us are MMC, UMC, or UC.

    Among LC and LMC Whites, your cousin marrying a Hispanic is greatly preferable to him marrying an Asian. Most LC and LMC Whites don’t hate Asians, they just think that they are weird. Whereas prole Whites have a lot more interaction with Hispanics, and thus don’t think they are as weird.

    Among MMC, UMC, and UC Whites, your cousin marrying an Asian or Jew is greatly preferable to him marrying a Hispanic. Hispanics are perceived the same way as Blacks and prole Whites. Whereas Jews and Asians are seen as socially, economically, and educationally “in the same ballpark” as SWPLs.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The class angle is very interesting. I'm going to do additional posts looking at it in more detail.
  37. @Rosie

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.
     
    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this? It's not as though I just picked my opinions at random from a basket. I hold the opinions I hold because I have evaluated the evidence and applied the rules of logic to arrive at what I believe to be sound conclusions.

    Take the fact that men are better at math than women. I don't particularly like this fact, but I acknowledge it nonetheless. Relatively few around here are as intellectually honest as that. They cherry pick evidence, hold double standards, and refuse to own up to the logical implications of their premises.

    The white race is not disappearing.
     


    You only say that because you're not projecting trends into the future. There are no Whites in India, few in North Africa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    The extent to which [a person] agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    OK, who left the Scotch out?

  38. @95Theses
    I’m not clear on how to read this graph.

    Am I to understand that, say, in the “Among Whites” category that Blacks are 20% while Asians are almost 35% in their enthusiasm that Whites are marrying within their own race? And so forth.

    Oh, and cluster graphs? Forget it. Wikipedia is no help there, either.

    I’m a fairly intelligent guy, but never had much of an interest in statistics (aside from citing them ツ), so I readily admit my ignorance here.

    Help!

    From the graph title it sounds as though the question actually asked was “How enthusiastic are you about having a close relative marry a Y?”, Y being “white”, “Hispanic”, “black”, and “Asian” successively.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    More relevant paragraph from original post:

    Calculated as (2*[strongly approve])+[approve]-[disapprove]-(2*[strongly disapprove]) from a series of questions asking respondents about how they would feel if “a close relative” married a member of each of the four major racial/ethnic groups under consideration
     
    , @95Theses
    Okay. That and indocon's Tinder comment is helping make sense of this. Thanks.
  39. @RSDB
    From the graph title it sounds as though the question actually asked was "How enthusiastic are you about having a close relative marry a Y?", Y being "white", "Hispanic", "black", and "Asian" successively.

    More relevant paragraph from original post:

    Calculated as (2*[strongly approve])+[approve]-[disapprove]-(2*[strongly disapprove]) from a series of questions asking respondents about how they would feel if “a close relative” married a member of each of the four major racial/ethnic groups under consideration

  40. @RSDB
    From the graph title it sounds as though the question actually asked was "How enthusiastic are you about having a close relative marry a Y?", Y being "white", "Hispanic", "black", and "Asian" successively.

    Okay. That and indocon’s Tinder comment is helping make sense of this. Thanks.

  41. @Rosie

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.
     
    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this? It's not as though I just picked my opinions at random from a basket. I hold the opinions I hold because I have evaluated the evidence and applied the rules of logic to arrive at what I believe to be sound conclusions.

    Take the fact that men are better at math than women. I don't particularly like this fact, but I acknowledge it nonetheless. Relatively few around here are as intellectually honest as that. They cherry pick evidence, hold double standards, and refuse to own up to the logical implications of their premises.

    The white race is not disappearing.
     


    You only say that because you're not projecting trends into the future. There are no Whites in India, few in North Africa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this?

    Right, I do the same, more or less. That’s why I said that it was valid for you, but it doesn’t scale up into the larger intellectual arena. It is the same with Twinkie. His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.
     
    The Twinkie solution, as such, has a very good track record among non-Twinkies.
  42. I would think these marriage preferences might provide some ideas about possible political coalitions. For example, Asians would want to marry a white at double the rate they would want to marry a black. When they currently go into a voting booth, though, they’ll vote for the Democrat party that most blacks vote for rather than the Republican party that most whites vote for. It might be possible for Republicans to emphasize or deemphasize certain issues that would attract Asians. Repealing affirmative action that benefits blacks but hurt Asians is one thing I can think of immediately. Black criminals like to target Asians (and also Hispanics) but the Democrat party is soft on black crime so a law and order Republican could pick up Asian (and some Hispanic) voters along with white voters. There are other issues like that. Whites may have a shrinking majority of the population but they can exploit the fact that other racial groups dislike each other more than they dislike whites. Even in places where they are the minority, whites could be the compromise candidate that is acceptable to all the other racial groups and still get elected that way.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I've heard some people say that the reason Asians vote Dem is that they are urban and Dems dominate urban politics now. So, you basically don't have a real election, at best, you have a primary.

    Afraid I don't really believe that is the reason though. For one thing, there are striking contrasts in Eastern vs. Western story-telling that probably signal innate psychological differences.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women. Trump tried to make the Democrat party the party of non-Americans, but blacks spit in his face for it. That approach is an electoral dead end.
    , @Feryl
    You're not going to convince a lot of people to vote Republican until the GOP 86's the Boomer culture war crapola that solidifies the votes of 60 year olds in the rural Midwest. Right now the GOP can count on Leftist culture war over-reach to make themselves seem saner, but only for so long*.

    Both parties need to jettison the culture war crap and restore New Deal economic and political norms. But, and this is key, the Republican flavor** of the culture war has almost no appeal to people under 40, whereas SJW stuff is very appealing to non-whites and well-educated younger whites.

    *What is the GOP doing to rein in campus propaganda excess, and civil rights violations? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. The GOP has known since the 70's that colleges have increasingly favored activism over education, yet the GOP does nothing. Just like how the modern GOP, in spite of being in the White House longer than the Dems since 1968, never seems to shut down gay bars, repeal affirmative action, ban dangerous forms of pornography, restrict venues for gambling, and so forth. The GOP are con artists, pure and simple. When Democrats had more power in the 1930's-1960's, that's precisely when our culture was more wholesome. As soon as we became more individualistic around 1970, and began voting more for the GOP, that's exactly when we began sliding down the path of decadence, which the GOP than glibly blames on "Leftists". And there's no greater betrayal than immigration and the borders. Reagan had a looser border policy than JKF and LBJ did. GW Bush had a looser border policy than Bill Clinton did. Papa Bush signed the 1990 immigration act, one of the worst pieces of legislation in US history (the Visa lottery, expanded chain migration, etc.) that drastically increased 3rd world immigration. Trump's border policy has been worse than the one we had in Obama's first term.

    **I'm talking about what the GOP donor class has allowed, since the 80's, not what some on the Right have been hallucinating as to the GOP's actual policies. The GOP is not "the white party", and is certainly not the working class party on most issues. It's only the excesses of the Woke era that allow the GOP to posture as the populist party (wake up: Tucker Carlson represents ideal New Deal norms, not the actual norms that the GOP establishment has created over the last 50 years) or the nominal pro-white party.

  43. Though it will upset Wokians, notice that after enthusiasm for intraracial marriage, each non-white group prefers close relatives marry whites over marrying from another group in the coalition that is not their own. It is going to take a lot of work to extirpate the legacy of white supremacy from the multiracial paradise of the future.

    The Anglo-Celts in the South should get out of their corrupt bargain marriage to the Republican Party.

    It’s time for Southern Nationalists to get a Las Vegas type divorce from the evil nation-wreckers who own and control the globalizer Republican Party.

    All the non-Whites want to get down and party and marry Whites because Whites are the best looking and most intelligent of all the other races on the globe. It’s not even close!

    Whites have all kinds of different eye colors and hair colors and they seem to be the most evolved of all the races. Asians and Blacks and Mestizos and Amerindians and all the others are aesthetically displeasing to a very high extent. Some horrible wags would say that they were genetically beaten by a graphite fishing pole called the Ugly Stick.

    Now back to those Peckerwood Anglo-Celts who need to divorce themselves from the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire and the ruling class of the Republican Party. It ain’t no secret to the high IQ Unz Review commenters that the South was bought off something fierce by the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire with big fat delicious piles of military Keynesianism.

    What I’m saying is that like a broad who might stick around with her husband because she really likes the loot that that husband has, the Southern states stick with the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire because of all that conjured up cash coming from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

    What the Southern Nationalists need to do is get their own central bank ready to go to electronically conjure up the cash to keep all the government loot pouring into the Southern states.

    The Southern Nationalists should make sure they have a nuclear deterrent to keep the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire behaving in a decent manner.

    Southern Nationalists should take the oil in Texas and New Mexico and make a deal with the Krauts in North Dakota on oil command and control.

    The only thing holding the United States of America together is electronically conjured up cash from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

    White Core American Patriots Must Immediately Divorce The Nation-Wreckers In The JEW/WASP Ruling Class Of The American Empire.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    So intelligent and good looking that they're embarrassed by what they think and who they are?
  44. I don’t believe Asians are more enthusiastic about marrying blacks than whites are

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    That all depends on what “Asians” means. The various ethnic groups under that nebulous heading have divergent patterns.
  45. @Mark G.
    I would think these marriage preferences might provide some ideas about possible political coalitions. For example, Asians would want to marry a white at double the rate they would want to marry a black. When they currently go into a voting booth, though, they'll vote for the Democrat party that most blacks vote for rather than the Republican party that most whites vote for. It might be possible for Republicans to emphasize or deemphasize certain issues that would attract Asians. Repealing affirmative action that benefits blacks but hurt Asians is one thing I can think of immediately. Black criminals like to target Asians (and also Hispanics) but the Democrat party is soft on black crime so a law and order Republican could pick up Asian (and some Hispanic) voters along with white voters. There are other issues like that. Whites may have a shrinking majority of the population but they can exploit the fact that other racial groups dislike each other more than they dislike whites. Even in places where they are the minority, whites could be the compromise candidate that is acceptable to all the other racial groups and still get elected that way.

    I’ve heard some people say that the reason Asians vote Dem is that they are urban and Dems dominate urban politics now. So, you basically don’t have a real election, at best, you have a primary.

    Afraid I don’t really believe that is the reason though. For one thing, there are striking contrasts in Eastern vs. Western story-telling that probably signal innate psychological differences.

    • Agree: Rosie
  46. @dfordoom

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.
     
    I believe that race is both biologically and socially constructed. There's a world of difference between believing that and believing (as liberals do) that race is purely a social construct.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it's real. I have no idea why.

    But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.

    Brainwashing. It’s not the things you don’t know that hurts you. It’s the things you know that are wrong.

  47. @Intelligent Dasein
    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you've got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally "white". They themselves will most likely marry white people, and within one or two more generations their descendants will be phenotypically white as well. White people absorb and assimilate Asians and Hispanics quite readily.

    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you’ve got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”.

    Of course. I have been one of the primary observers of this trend here.

    For all the whining about Asian-Americans becoming an unassimilated ‘cultural elite’, or the myth that 2nd and even 3rd gen Hispanics don’t speak English or aspire to some ‘reconquista’, neither is remotely true given the high rate of disappearance into the white population.

    Here in California, I know a couple of 60 year old white guys with Japanese last names. Their paternal grandfathers were Japanese. A completely white person with a Hispanic last name is very common, on account of some Mexican grandfather.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That happens in conjunction with a white super majority. The story isn't going to be the same two more generations down the line, especially not in California.
  48. @dfordoom

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.
     
    I believe that race is both biologically and socially constructed. There's a world of difference between believing that and believing (as liberals do) that race is purely a social construct.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it's real. I have no idea why.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.

    Alberto Fujimori, Juan Castro, George Lopez, Nicolas Maduro, Papa Bergoglio, Ted Cruz and Jorge Ramos all qualify as Hispanics. Considering them and counting them statistically as a single race is purely a social construct. I don’t see why that’s controversial.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's a bad proxy for Amerindian.
  49. @SafeNow
    Regarding confounding due to socioeconomic status, I had the same thought that such was possible. But then I noted that White distaste for Hispanics and for Asians for family marriage was equivalent. Wouldn’t the Asian engineer rank higher due to his SES? Perhaps the Asian engineer would have been rated as more distasteful than the Hispanic DMV clerk, but his SES pulled him up.

    In any case, all of this reminds me of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, in which Spencer Tracey tries to reconcile his prejudices when his daughter brings home a successful, nice, handsome Black physician (Poitier). This must happen all the time now in my California...”Mom, Dad, this is Jenny NotWhite, my decent, smart, pleasant, industrious, beautiful, lean, compassionate, supportive, fair-minded girlfriend; Jen, meet Skip (“the surfing golferdude”) Smith, and his wife, Betty-Jo.”

    “”Mom, Dad, this is Jenny NotWhite, my decent, smart, pleasant, industrious, beautiful, lean, compassionate, supportive, fair-minded girlfriend; Jen, meet Skip (“the surfing golferdude”) Smith, and his wife, Betty-Jo.””

    Dad: “But she has small tits, son. Where did I go wrong?”

    • LOL: iffen
  50. @dfordoom
    I'm not sure that the graph actually means anything. For starters there's no such race as Hispanic.

    And what does Asian mean? It's too broad to mean anything at all. I'm guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it's also a social construct.

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.

    Totally. In terms of genetic distance, both Ron Unz and Razib Khan proved that the real gap is between blacks and non-blacks.

    Now, there is a separate issue of tremendous variation within the white race, but that is a topic for another thread.

  51. @dfordoom

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.
     
    I believe that race is both biologically and socially constructed. There's a world of difference between believing that and believing (as liberals do) that race is purely a social construct.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it's real. I have no idea why.

    “Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.”

    Hispanic is an ethnicity in my view. The race is indigenous Americas, commonly referred to as American Indian, which includes indigenous peoples of the two American continents. Making Hispanic a race involves accepting only mestizos.

  52. @Rosie

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.
     
    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this? It's not as though I just picked my opinions at random from a basket. I hold the opinions I hold because I have evaluated the evidence and applied the rules of logic to arrive at what I believe to be sound conclusions.

    Take the fact that men are better at math than women. I don't particularly like this fact, but I acknowledge it nonetheless. Relatively few around here are as intellectually honest as that. They cherry pick evidence, hold double standards, and refuse to own up to the logical implications of their premises.

    The white race is not disappearing.
     


    You only say that because you're not projecting trends into the future. There are no Whites in India, few in North Africa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    but why would I not assume this?

    Lack of self-awareness.

    • Replies: @Oceanside
    Really? So your seemingly endless comments on almost every post aren't based on your assumption that they're correct and logically derived? Doom later clarified his initial statement, but I initially thought it sounded cuck-like too.
  53. @iffen
    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this?

    Right, I do the same, more or less. That's why I said that it was valid for you, but it doesn't scale up into the larger intellectual arena. It is the same with Twinkie. His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.

    His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.

    The Twinkie solution, as such, has a very good track record among non-Twinkies.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    You could write a book called "The Twinkie Solution" but people might think it's a new diet book offering a new way to lose weight by eating large numbers of cream filled snack cakes.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    The Twinkie Solution:

    Be Asian, marry a white broad, live in an upper class white neighborhood, then lecture everybody else about how great Asians are.
  54. @Gman
    I don’t believe Asians are more enthusiastic about marrying blacks than whites are

    That all depends on what “Asians” means. The various ethnic groups under that nebulous heading have divergent patterns.

  55. @Bardon Kaldian
    No, really nobody among non-whites prefers their IQ/skin color "close cousins". They all prefer whites. W-H-I-T-E-S.

    I was talking about whites. Read more carefully. Some SJWs– a subset of whites– will marry a light-skinned Asian or Hispanic with a similar degree. They’re practically “honorary whites”, as the South Africans classified Japanese visitors.

  56. @Twinkie

    His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.
     
    The Twinkie solution, as such, has a very good track record among non-Twinkies.

    You could write a book called “The Twinkie Solution” but people might think it’s a new diet book offering a new way to lose weight by eating large numbers of cream filled snack cakes.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    That would sell! Anytime you offer self-indulgence to solve problems, you make money in this country.
  57. @indocon
    This correlates pretty closely with what you see for dating preferences on Tinder, basically AA's are hitting on anything that moves, but nobody is hitting on them in return

    Blacks should be excluded from dating apps, wastes a lot of time swiping left on them.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Don't these things offer filters? Like for race or age or weight or height or distance and a whole bunch of other things somebody may want to exclude?

    If they don't, they seems like pretty useless apps to be honest, surprised they are popular.

    Peace.
  58. @Mark G.
    You could write a book called "The Twinkie Solution" but people might think it's a new diet book offering a new way to lose weight by eating large numbers of cream filled snack cakes.

    That would sell! Anytime you offer self-indulgence to solve problems, you make money in this country.

    • Agree: 216
  59. @LondonBob
    Blacks should be excluded from dating apps, wastes a lot of time swiping left on them.

    Don’t these things offer filters? Like for race or age or weight or height or distance and a whole bunch of other things somebody may want to exclude?

    If they don’t, they seems like pretty useless apps to be honest, surprised they are popular.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Christian Mingle, and even Catholic Mingle, were forced to include gays. Obviously that is completely ridiculous. Even if someone was pro-gay, what is the point of stealing time from people to click on some filter? All these fractions of a minute can add up to hours or even days of people's lives.

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.
  60. @Rosie

    And while race may well be real in a biological sense, it’s also a social construct.
     
    Cuck.

    He’s right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    Here’s another guy – same area, Daghestan:
    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?
     
    Yes, he's white. He's also assimilated into another culture.
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    110% Huwhite, Arean muster race. Seriously, I may be misremembering, but aren't Chechens and Dagestanis uncommonly distant genetically as compared to other white ethnicities? i.e. the genetic difference between the Rus and Dagestani >> The German and French. To me the Dagis definitely seem distinct from russians even at a glance, perhaps it's just the ubiquity of Dagestani bowl cuts?

    But regarding your other statement, race is a biological reality moderated by ethno-religio-linguistic constructs. In a broad sense the racial groups are purely genetic; White vs Black, Asiatic vs Australoid, etc. But it's also correct to say there is a scottish "race" as distinct from the English "race" (part of the problem is that race can be used both broadly and narrowly, and yet 'ethnicity' still seems insufficient to produce clarity). This distinction is primarily social and historical since the genetic distance between the two is negligible. But there's also the issue of direct descent; is the issue of Clan Macduff vs say Clan Macdonald genetic, or social? Genetically the distance would be basically nil, and yet it is indisputable that each clan has discreet differences in their descent from the original Macduffs and Macdonalds that each other lacks, so it's not nothing to do with genetics either. This example is of direct analogue to other European ethnic identities, the main difference between them is historical/religious/linguistic, but in any case there's no way to call them "arbitrary" (the go-to slur of progressives toward racialism).

    But thinking about it this way actually cures the quagmire of "assimilation" for nationalists (given the large scale interbreeding of different euro ethnicities in places like America); another white ethnic's children can assimilate into another white nation through interbreeding because they already possess the broad prerequisites (genetic similarity) while acquiring the specific requirements through breeding and culture (the identity of historical descent, language, religion). For these same reasons it's completely coherent to exclude other broad racial groups from (near-term) assimilation since they lack the prerequisite of similar genetics.
    , @Twinkie
    Caucasians - by that, I mean the actual people from the Caucasus - are highly overrepresented in combat sports, including Judo and wrestling. Khabib Nurmagomedov did both Sambo and Judo growing up.
    , @Twodees Partain
    If he's caucasian, he's white in the case that the term is being used for the race of people collectively referred to as white people. Of course, Caucasian is an ethnicity, as well, since the Caucasus is a geographical area. Good thing you posted pics. That makes it easier.
    , @OscarWildeLoveChild
    ASA:

    I would consider both to be Caucasian, obviously Khabib is a cross between European, Turkic and Asian (by our traditional classifications). Given that his ancestors precede all those classifications, the bottom line is, just as with many pure Persians and Arabs, they are the original whites (Syrians).

    What was interesting with the whole Conor-Khabib thing is, because Conor basically clowned black opponents (and everyone know he would have murdered Mayweather in an actual fight, i.e. the Octogon), Khabib became the defacto "non white" to black fans--who basically acted like he was some minority beating up an ultra White guy in Conor (who is clearly a mix of Celt and Viking). It was interesting to see how Khabib was caste as the righteous and noble fighter by American blacks, despite being from the original white people !

    By the way, Khabib is the greatest MMA fighter of all time P4P and a great example for all Muslims.
  61. What about just fornication, shacking up and breeding?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Who pays to raise and provide for the kids?

    Peace.
  62. @Talha
    He's right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    https://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/mma/players/full/2611557.png

    Here's another guy - same area, Daghestan:
    https://statics.sportskeeda.com/editor/2019/09/0cfc2-15684595089430-800.jpg

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Yes, he’s white. He’s also assimilated into another culture.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well, depends. Many people of the Caucasus went straight from paganism/animism into Islam directly without Christianity intervening in between. That has been their culture - for centuries.

    But it's good you consider him White; which lends credence to your take on race being a biological reality. There are many here on UNZ who do not; which basically means it is social construct.

    Still looking for consensus on the issue...

    Peace.
  63. @Jim bob Lassiter
    What about just fornication, shacking up and breeding?

    Who pays to raise and provide for the kids?

    Peace.

  64. @Talha
    Don't these things offer filters? Like for race or age or weight or height or distance and a whole bunch of other things somebody may want to exclude?

    If they don't, they seems like pretty useless apps to be honest, surprised they are popular.

    Peace.

    Christian Mingle, and even Catholic Mingle, were forced to include gays. Obviously that is completely ridiculous. Even if someone was pro-gay, what is the point of stealing time from people to click on some filter? All these fractions of a minute can add up to hours or even days of people’s lives.

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.

    • Replies: @Talha

    forced to include gays
     
    That's just stupid. Why didn't Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.
     
    I agree. And I would agree that an app called "White Singles" or "Whinder" or whatever, that claims to be a place to find White dating/hookup matches should exclude Blacks and everyone else to meet the expectations of their clients. Maybe they can have an invitation-only model or you have to send in a photo and it needs to be approved for your account to be verified.

    Again, I could make the same argument for why really fat people should be excluded so somebody doesn't have to spend time clicking on a filter for "less than 200lbs".

    I don't think the intention of Tinder or any of these other apps was to exclude anyone from the online meat market.

    Peace.

    , @95Theses
    Amen! to this.

    Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act gave the federal government the power to violate one of the most basic human rights, the right to choose whom we associate with. It was a revolutionary and tyrannical act from its outset. With its various statutory and regulatory excrescences since then, ranging from quotas and “disparate impact” to sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and now “transgender” discrimination, it has become vastly worse. It cannot be fixed. There is only one way out of this horror, and that is go to the root and repeal Title VII. Any conservative who accepts Title VII, let alone celebrates it, as all “conservatives” do, is a part of the liberal tyranny under which we now live.

    — Lawrence Auster

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/022280.html
     
  65. @Rosie

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?
     
    Yes, he's white. He's also assimilated into another culture.

    Well, depends. Many people of the Caucasus went straight from paganism/animism into Islam directly without Christianity intervening in between. That has been their culture – for centuries.

    But it’s good you consider him White; which lends credence to your take on race being a biological reality. There are many here on UNZ who do not; which basically means it is social construct.

    Still looking for consensus on the issue…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    But it’s good you consider him White
     
    A fun question for Rosie and her ilk: would you like to raise your children in Chechnya with their fellow white people or in, say, Singapore?
  66. @Bardon Kaldian
    No, really nobody among non-whites prefers their IQ/skin color "close cousins". They all prefer whites. W-H-I-T-E-S.

    The genetic distance between blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites, and Asians and whites is actually smaller than the genetic distances among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

  67. @Reg Cæsar

    Though it will upset Wokians...
     
    almost all of whom marry within their race, or perhaps others with nearly matching skin color and IQ...

    The number of them who you look up having biographies of ‘rebelling against religion’ but marrying somebody they met from Hillel are, interesting for 3rd to 5th generation ‘Americans’.

  68. I wonder if there is any data to support my observations that black male/white female couples are more downscale than the reverse? (which is more rare).

    For Hispanics I would suspect generation plays a huge role, especially the language aspect. Spanish speaking Hispanics who know little or no English obviously would stick with other Hispanics. For the opposite extreme, 2nd or 3rd gen Hispanics who only speak English intermarriage would be more common.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I wonder if there is any data to support my observations that black male/white female couples are more downscale than the reverse? (which is more rare).

    The chart in this post shows that white-black pairings are actually rather unusual, but I live in a more prole-ish suburban part of the Twin Cities metro area, which is now about 60-70% white (back in the late 90's it was more like 85% white) and I'm seeing way more white female/black male pairings these days than I ever did in the pre-Obama era. I have a hunch, though, that the upper tier neighborhoods are still largely full of white couples, albeit with a growing number of Asians and talented 10th NAMs.

    I heard a liberal (but not SJW) podcaster acknowledge that black-white pairings are much more common among downscale Americans, whites included. He said that white liberals tend often to live in more affluent (e.g., white) enclaves, and generally marry other whites.

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90's or 2000's. It does seem like the 1980's was the last decade where 95% of whites refused to have long-term relationships with non-whites, and blacks in particular.
  69. • Replies: @Rosie
    216, you were asking me the other day how we appeal to young women? Well, here ya go!
  70. @songbird
    Christian Mingle, and even Catholic Mingle, were forced to include gays. Obviously that is completely ridiculous. Even if someone was pro-gay, what is the point of stealing time from people to click on some filter? All these fractions of a minute can add up to hours or even days of people's lives.

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.

    forced to include gays

    That’s just stupid. Why didn’t Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.

    I agree. And I would agree that an app called “White Singles” or “Whinder” or whatever, that claims to be a place to find White dating/hookup matches should exclude Blacks and everyone else to meet the expectations of their clients. Maybe they can have an invitation-only model or you have to send in a photo and it needs to be approved for your account to be verified.

    Again, I could make the same argument for why really fat people should be excluded so somebody doesn’t have to spend time clicking on a filter for “less than 200lbs”.

    I don’t think the intention of Tinder or any of these other apps was to exclude anyone from the online meat market.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @songbird

    Why didn’t Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?
     
    Well, in this case, it is the CA court system, so I guess there is a political element to it, but in a certain sense that makes it a harder target.

    Honestly, Christians don't seem to be very good at organizing anymore. Some blame the destruction of Christian ethnic communities in urban areas due to forced desegregation, like busing - destroyed the heart of the organization. I don't know if it is that simple though.

    On a related note, I'm surprised about the access Hollywood seems to enjoy in Muslim countries. Even though, overall, Muslims seem to be better at organizing. But maybe, I don't really understand the issue, and it isn't as I think it seems. And they are different versions of the films or something.
    , @95Theses
    Here ya go:
    https://www.whitedate.net/ref/wolff/
    https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitedatenet/

    Although I'm not so keen on some of the characters with whom the site associates:
    https://www.whitedate.net/dating-site-for-white-people-who-is-pro-white/
    , @RSDB

    Why didn’t ... Catholics boycott on a massive scale?
     
    I've only heard of "Catholic Match" and I don't know too much about it in depth.

    I don't know if they do gay dates or not; here's an article from their website though: https://www.catholicmatch.com/about/you-cant-fool-mother-nature

    They have a reputation for having a slightly "trad" orientation, I think, but online dating is still online dating. Here's a joke article about them:
    http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/04/02/chuck-50012-still-desperately-awaiting-response-from-kristin-51053-on-catholic-match/

    A lot of heretical Christians in the US are more or less okay with gay marriage/gay non-marriage/other cohabitation, and I think they should have sites to cater to them if they really want to, though it's unfair to try to legally pressure the owners of existing sites who may have different ideas; at least one site (eharmony, I think?) was sued into allowing gay dating.
  71. @Priss Factor
    The logic of Diversity

    https://summit.news/2019/09/16/ban-on-eating-dogs-cats-blocked-in-the-uk-because-it-might-offend-east-asians/

    216, you were asking me the other day how we appeal to young women? Well, here ya go!

  72. @Thomm
    I don't know. Almost 20% of new babies born are interracial (note that this chart was for 2010-15, so the current numbers are 3-4% higher), and 89% of those fit the description of 'white + non-white'.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FT_17.06.01_multiracialBabies_map.png

    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/15153113/PST_2017.05.15.intermarriage-00-00.png

    'Lower Enthusiasm' is not the exact antithesis of 'vehemently oppose', plus the trend is indisputably rising.

    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it’s closer to 10%.

    It is definitely on the rise. We did a post here a few months ago showing that it is especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    It is really just a question of familiarity. If a white person saw a certain type of non-whites in their class throughout K-12, the thought of marrying them does not seem alien.

    Since this was not a significant phenomenon in the upbringing of today's young adults until recently, we are only seeing this trend accelerate now.

    The historical baggage associated with black-white relationships (not to mention the huge economic disparities) does not apply to Hispanics and Asians.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    I've got a cousin who got impregnated by a black man as to destroy any chance the kid becomes Republican voting after evil orange man won. She wasn't the only one in her circle
    , @216

    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it’s closer to 10%.
     
    Does online dating "nudge" in one way or the other?

    If increase, then Tinder becomes a mandatory part of the social credit system

    If decrease, SJW will align with Incel and demand either the revision or ban of online dating.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/cumming-apart/

    especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.
     
    16% is the highest recorded, but we also see higher rates of LGBT in this same group.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/gen-z-is-pretty-lgaybtq/

    If we consider that Asian outmarriage is around 40%, white liberals are actually showing a disparate impact, indeed one should expect a higher rate of nearly 75% given how much white liberals are outgroup-favoring.
  73. @Twinkie
    I suspect there is a sizable variation in those numbers based on SES, especially for whites. There is also the fact that these are stated preferences. Actual marriages show the revealed preferences.

    And as is frequently the case in the GSS, the question leaves a lot up to the imagination of the respondent. Are we talking about square one or are we talking about someone the relative has been with for five years? I’m not sure exactly how I’d answer, but it’d be more intraracial in the case of the former assumption than of the latter.

  74. @216
    There's a tendency of Hispanics to identify as "multiracial", and a tendency of people to overrepresent Native American ancestry.

    The above GSS data:

    Is it all age ranges. The data for under 40 is more powerful, the date for those above the normal age of marriage less so.

    The American Indian inflation must be a big part of the explanation for Oklahoma. It’s otherwise inexplicable, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Thomm

    The American Indian inflation must be a big part of the explanation for Oklahoma. It’s otherwise inexplicable, isn’t it?
     
    I was wondering the same thing.

    Every other state correlates exactly to cumulative percentage + duration of Asian and/or Hispanic presence there (i.e. are there 2nd gen adults there as of yet), and hence no number is a surprise except OK.

    Black-white is unlikely to ever become a large fraction of interracial reproduction. Blacks have been here since the beginning, and are numerous, yet are just 11% of interracial marriages.

  75. @Kent Nationalist
    This is surprising given that blacks otherwise seem to have the most ethnocentric attitudes and whites the least

    Well, black enthusiasm for relatives marrying other blacks is the highest of all, so there’s that.

  76. Even though blacks might publicly express a preference for close relatives marrying other blacks I have no doubt that they themselves would, by a wide margin, prefer a White partner.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  77. @iffen
    (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”.

    And what % of these will do an Obama?

    All of them would be wise to. You play the hand your dealt.

    An idea I’ve bandied about here that I’d like to investigate in more detail is to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    • Replies: @iffen
    to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.
    , @Anonymous
    As a member of the group you are talking about, I'll explain.

    This only applies if you are MMC, UMC, or UC, and your IQ is 115+, and you have a bachelor's degree or higher. I don't know or care what the proles are thinking.

    Interracial marriage is beneficial IF it's a chance to "marry up" or if it's your only chance of marriage at all.

    For instance, there's a lot of White husband - Jewish wife couples among people in my parents and grandparents generations. I went to school with a ton of kids who have a Jewish mother or grandmother, but not the other way around. Why? Because the average White woman demands more alphaness from her husband than the average White man possesses. The average White woman wants a 6 while the average White man is a 5. In the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, it was common for nerdy White men to marry Jewish women - better choice than not marrying at all and being an incel. The average Jewish young woman wants a husband who is slightly more beta than what the average White woman wants. I don't know why this lopsided marriage ratio between Whites and Jews suddenly became even in the 90s.

    So looking at White millennials, if you are a beta young man or an ugly or average looking young woman, you are better off marrying a Jew or Asian IF that person is higher IQ, more educated, and richer than what you could have gotten from a white person.

    Obviously, an ugly but high IQ White girl would rather marry a high IQ Asian doctor than some IQ 87 West Virginia meth addict.
  78. @216
    Blacks are enthusiastic about marriage in general, but have lower rates and higher incidence of divorce.

    Somewhere the IFS is scheming to hoodwink people into POConservatism with this narrative.

    Blacks are “enthusiastic in general” about marriage, but marry less frequently and divorce more frequently when they do marry?

    I’m thinking you mean something other than the expected when you say “blacks are enthusiastic about marriage”.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    Oops. AE explained this in the body. Tried to delete this comment, but apparently it did not take.
  79. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.

    It is a social construct but it also has a firm basis in biological reality.

    A “hill” is a social construct, too (at what point does a mound become a hill and a hill become a mountain?)–but it has a very real and very meaningful basis in geological reality.

    Hell, the idea of “family” is a social construct (do third-cousins count?)–but it obviously has a firm basis in biological reality, too.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    No.

    The term "race is a social construct" was originally used as a rebuke of obvious biological differences between races, namely intelligence. It was used in support of the blank slate belief. You're changing its original intent for reasons unclear to me.

    Categorization is a social construct, or a human construct, take you pick. The things being categorized already were what they were, before categorization.

    Differences in races exist whether or not we come up with names for them.
  80. It is thimple – biological beings do understand genetic facts, to some extent, intuitively – though social factors [status] will influence the results. Thus, Whites and Asians having the most to lose, they are the most hesitant to throw their genetic advantage away, which seems biologically reasonable.
    While Hispanics are somewhat frustrated (they have better status more to the South) and Blacks obviously have the most to gain. It takes about 30 seconds to take this away from the graphs, and it covers with what an averagely educated person knows about all the things ant-racism tries so damn hard to deny since decades.

  81. @95Theses
    I’m not clear on how to read this graph.

    Am I to understand that, say, in the “Among Whites” category that Blacks are 20% while Asians are almost 35% in their enthusiasm that Whites are marrying within their own race? And so forth.

    Oh, and cluster graphs? Forget it. Wikipedia is no help there, either.

    I’m a fairly intelligent guy, but never had much of an interest in statistics (aside from citing them ツ), so I readily admit my ignorance here.

    Help!

    The four bars above “among whites” shows how white respondents feel about their relatives marrying whites, marrying blacks, marrying Hispanics, and marrying Asians.

    The GSS asks if respondents would be “in favor”, which is unfortunate phrasing. I think “would you support your relative marrying an X” would be a better way to do it but we work with what we have. That’s how most people are answering, because they couldn’t simultaneously favor a relative marrying a partner of all four races simultaneously, yet for every single possible pairing, there is more “favor” responses then “not favor” (which is why all the bars are positive).

    • Replies: @95Theses
    I apologize for both my tardy reply and the length of my follow-up questions, but apparently I still need some clarity.

    1) When you write that “in favor” could have been better said, “would you support your relative marrying an X”, am I to understand this to mean that the respondent’s selection is their first choice or the next best thing after their first choice? And if the latter case, does this assume that marrying someone of their own race is a given preference?

    2) When you say that, “they couldn’t simultaneously favor a relative marrying a partner of all four races simultaneously”, do I understand “simultaneously favor” to mean that their second (and so on) preferences are equal, and race makes no difference in any case?

    3) Could not a category for “least favor” or something similar have been added to the survey? What I mean is, if all the bars are positive is this because this kind of graph makes it impossible to represent a negative response?

    Again, I never took a course in statistics in college – though now it looks like should have. So, lastly, can you recommend a book for tyros like me?

  82. @Talha

    forced to include gays
     
    That's just stupid. Why didn't Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.
     
    I agree. And I would agree that an app called "White Singles" or "Whinder" or whatever, that claims to be a place to find White dating/hookup matches should exclude Blacks and everyone else to meet the expectations of their clients. Maybe they can have an invitation-only model or you have to send in a photo and it needs to be approved for your account to be verified.

    Again, I could make the same argument for why really fat people should be excluded so somebody doesn't have to spend time clicking on a filter for "less than 200lbs".

    I don't think the intention of Tinder or any of these other apps was to exclude anyone from the online meat market.

    Peace.

    Why didn’t Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    Well, in this case, it is the CA court system, so I guess there is a political element to it, but in a certain sense that makes it a harder target.

    Honestly, Christians don’t seem to be very good at organizing anymore. Some blame the destruction of Christian ethnic communities in urban areas due to forced desegregation, like busing – destroyed the heart of the organization. I don’t know if it is that simple though.

    On a related note, I’m surprised about the access Hollywood seems to enjoy in Muslim countries. Even though, overall, Muslims seem to be better at organizing. But maybe, I don’t really understand the issue, and it isn’t as I think it seems. And they are different versions of the films or something.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I’m surprised about the access Hollywood seems to enjoy in Muslim countries.
     
    Same here, but the internet is something very difficult to control. I don't know how it works exactly on all levels, but I believe they do have different offerings in different countries - for instance the version of Netflix in Pakistan as opposed to the US.

    But then there are ways around these things for those who really want it:
    https://www.techjunkie.com/watch-american-netflix-pakistan/

    Peace.
    , @Talha

    Christians don’t seem to be very good at organizing anymore.
     
    Except when it comes to Israel.

    Peace.
  83. @Audacious Epigone
    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it's closer to 10%.

    It is definitely on the rise. We did a post here a few months ago showing that it is especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.

    It is really just a question of familiarity. If a white person saw a certain type of non-whites in their class throughout K-12, the thought of marrying them does not seem alien.

    Since this was not a significant phenomenon in the upbringing of today’s young adults until recently, we are only seeing this trend accelerate now.

    The historical baggage associated with black-white relationships (not to mention the huge economic disparities) does not apply to Hispanics and Asians.

  84. Of course, each race is most enthusiastic about marriage within their own race. That’s only natural.

    If you eliminate the intraracial enthusiasm indices and add up the other three (e.g. enthusiasm for a white marriage among only blacks, Hispanics and Asians, excluding white enthusiasm for white marriage), you get what I think are interesting values.

    Other races strongly prefer their own to marry whites (192.4), next Asians (159.6) and next Hispanics (142.7). The extra-racial enthusiasm index for blacks drops off sharply at 89.7.

    I will leave it to the reader as an exercise to explain why generally interracial marriage is accepted, except when the spouse is black.

  85. @Steve in Greensboro
    Blacks are "enthusiastic in general" about marriage, but marry less frequently and divorce more frequently when they do marry?

    I'm thinking you mean something other than the expected when you say "blacks are enthusiastic about marriage".

    Oops. AE explained this in the body. Tried to delete this comment, but apparently it did not take.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's okay, my explanation is just speculative.
  86. @songbird

    Why didn’t Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?
     
    Well, in this case, it is the CA court system, so I guess there is a political element to it, but in a certain sense that makes it a harder target.

    Honestly, Christians don't seem to be very good at organizing anymore. Some blame the destruction of Christian ethnic communities in urban areas due to forced desegregation, like busing - destroyed the heart of the organization. I don't know if it is that simple though.

    On a related note, I'm surprised about the access Hollywood seems to enjoy in Muslim countries. Even though, overall, Muslims seem to be better at organizing. But maybe, I don't really understand the issue, and it isn't as I think it seems. And they are different versions of the films or something.

    I’m surprised about the access Hollywood seems to enjoy in Muslim countries.

    Same here, but the internet is something very difficult to control. I don’t know how it works exactly on all levels, but I believe they do have different offerings in different countries – for instance the version of Netflix in Pakistan as opposed to the US.

    But then there are ways around these things for those who really want it:
    https://www.techjunkie.com/watch-american-netflix-pakistan/

    Peace.

  87. @songbird

    Why didn’t Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?
     
    Well, in this case, it is the CA court system, so I guess there is a political element to it, but in a certain sense that makes it a harder target.

    Honestly, Christians don't seem to be very good at organizing anymore. Some blame the destruction of Christian ethnic communities in urban areas due to forced desegregation, like busing - destroyed the heart of the organization. I don't know if it is that simple though.

    On a related note, I'm surprised about the access Hollywood seems to enjoy in Muslim countries. Even though, overall, Muslims seem to be better at organizing. But maybe, I don't really understand the issue, and it isn't as I think it seems. And they are different versions of the films or something.

    Christians don’t seem to be very good at organizing anymore.

    Except when it comes to Israel.

    Peace.

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    And that is the sound of the mic hitting the floor.
  88. @Talha
    He's right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    https://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/mma/players/full/2611557.png

    Here's another guy - same area, Daghestan:
    https://statics.sportskeeda.com/editor/2019/09/0cfc2-15684595089430-800.jpg

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

    110% Huwhite, Arean muster race. Seriously, I may be misremembering, but aren’t Chechens and Dagestanis uncommonly distant genetically as compared to other white ethnicities? i.e. the genetic difference between the Rus and Dagestani >> The German and French. To me the Dagis definitely seem distinct from russians even at a glance, perhaps it’s just the ubiquity of Dagestani bowl cuts?

    But regarding your other statement, race is a biological reality moderated by ethno-religio-linguistic constructs. In a broad sense the racial groups are purely genetic; White vs Black, Asiatic vs Australoid, etc. But it’s also correct to say there is a scottish “race” as distinct from the English “race” (part of the problem is that race can be used both broadly and narrowly, and yet ‘ethnicity’ still seems insufficient to produce clarity). This distinction is primarily social and historical since the genetic distance between the two is negligible. But there’s also the issue of direct descent; is the issue of Clan Macduff vs say Clan Macdonald genetic, or social? Genetically the distance would be basically nil, and yet it is indisputable that each clan has discreet differences in their descent from the original Macduffs and Macdonalds that each other lacks, so it’s not nothing to do with genetics either. This example is of direct analogue to other European ethnic identities, the main difference between them is historical/religious/linguistic, but in any case there’s no way to call them “arbitrary” (the go-to slur of progressives toward racialism).

    But thinking about it this way actually cures the quagmire of “assimilation” for nationalists (given the large scale interbreeding of different euro ethnicities in places like America); another white ethnic’s children can assimilate into another white nation through interbreeding because they already possess the broad prerequisites (genetic similarity) while acquiring the specific requirements through breeding and culture (the identity of historical descent, language, religion). For these same reasons it’s completely coherent to exclude other broad racial groups from (near-term) assimilation since they lack the prerequisite of similar genetics.

    • Replies: @Talha

    aren’t Chechens and Dagestanis uncommonly distant genetically as compared to other white ethnicities?
     
    Yes - and that is largely due to the isolation of the mountainous region that they have traditionally lived in.

    Daghestanis, Chechens, Avars, Laks, etc. are all distinct from other Whites and even each other to a degree.

    part of the problem is that race can be used both broadly and narrowly, and yet ‘ethnicity’ still seems insufficient to produce clarity
     
    That's the problem - there seems to be a lack of clarity in usage.

    each clan has discreet differences in their descent from the original Macduffs and Macdonalds that each other lacks, so it’s not nothing to do with genetics either
     
    Agreed. And those Caucasian people are also highly into clans and such (generational blood feuds being a real problem to this day).

    For these same reasons it’s completely coherent to exclude other broad racial groups from (near-term) assimilation since they lack the prerequisite of similar genetics.
     
    Sure, if you believe genetics is key and everything is downhill from it - totally coherent.

    Peace.
  89. @Audacious Epigone
    All of them would be wise to. You play the hand your dealt.

    An idea I've bandied about here that I'd like to investigate in more detail is to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.
     
    A terrifying possibility that nevertheless cannot be ignored.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Subconsciously, yes, I suspect some do--and more will.
  90. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    110% Huwhite, Arean muster race. Seriously, I may be misremembering, but aren't Chechens and Dagestanis uncommonly distant genetically as compared to other white ethnicities? i.e. the genetic difference between the Rus and Dagestani >> The German and French. To me the Dagis definitely seem distinct from russians even at a glance, perhaps it's just the ubiquity of Dagestani bowl cuts?

    But regarding your other statement, race is a biological reality moderated by ethno-religio-linguistic constructs. In a broad sense the racial groups are purely genetic; White vs Black, Asiatic vs Australoid, etc. But it's also correct to say there is a scottish "race" as distinct from the English "race" (part of the problem is that race can be used both broadly and narrowly, and yet 'ethnicity' still seems insufficient to produce clarity). This distinction is primarily social and historical since the genetic distance between the two is negligible. But there's also the issue of direct descent; is the issue of Clan Macduff vs say Clan Macdonald genetic, or social? Genetically the distance would be basically nil, and yet it is indisputable that each clan has discreet differences in their descent from the original Macduffs and Macdonalds that each other lacks, so it's not nothing to do with genetics either. This example is of direct analogue to other European ethnic identities, the main difference between them is historical/religious/linguistic, but in any case there's no way to call them "arbitrary" (the go-to slur of progressives toward racialism).

    But thinking about it this way actually cures the quagmire of "assimilation" for nationalists (given the large scale interbreeding of different euro ethnicities in places like America); another white ethnic's children can assimilate into another white nation through interbreeding because they already possess the broad prerequisites (genetic similarity) while acquiring the specific requirements through breeding and culture (the identity of historical descent, language, religion). For these same reasons it's completely coherent to exclude other broad racial groups from (near-term) assimilation since they lack the prerequisite of similar genetics.

    aren’t Chechens and Dagestanis uncommonly distant genetically as compared to other white ethnicities?

    Yes – and that is largely due to the isolation of the mountainous region that they have traditionally lived in.

    Daghestanis, Chechens, Avars, Laks, etc. are all distinct from other Whites and even each other to a degree.

    part of the problem is that race can be used both broadly and narrowly, and yet ‘ethnicity’ still seems insufficient to produce clarity

    That’s the problem – there seems to be a lack of clarity in usage.

    each clan has discreet differences in their descent from the original Macduffs and Macdonalds that each other lacks, so it’s not nothing to do with genetics either

    Agreed. And those Caucasian people are also highly into clans and such (generational blood feuds being a real problem to this day).

    For these same reasons it’s completely coherent to exclude other broad racial groups from (near-term) assimilation since they lack the prerequisite of similar genetics.

    Sure, if you believe genetics is key and everything is downhill from it – totally coherent.

    Peace.

  91. @95Theses
    Slightly OT, but on the Wall Street Journal Report morning radio program (Salem Radio between 5:00–6:00AM) there is commercial for AdoptUSKids which irritates the həck out of me. And it plays three times in every last half hour of the program.

    The feature is entitled, Adopting a Teenager: Learning the Lingo. The intro voiceover is performed by a child, which then proceeds directly to a lesson in talking “teen language” where parents are given instructions by ... a Black male.

    Well isn’t that just peachy-keen. Oh yeah, Black males – real experts on childrearing, they.

    Whenever I hear it coming I have to switch the radio off it is just that stomach-churning in its gall.

    Add that to the list of Black cultural oxymorons.

    A helluva lot of radio ads lecture to listeners in a wise, Morgan Freemanesque black voice

    • Replies: @95Theses
    How could I forget – Morgan Freeman ... another Hollywood-touted fiction of intellect and wisdom.

    When I watched Lucy for the first time on DVD I should've predicted that the world's foremost authority on brain research was going to be either Morgan or Denzel.

  92. @dfordoom


    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

     

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.
     
    You think so?

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That's undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it's true.

    I think it's fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians. So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists. And I'm guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW. All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    In the real world religion and culture (and even political ideology) often trumps race.

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That’s undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it’s true… they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists

    (X) Doubt

    People want their grandchildren to resemble them in exactly the way that motto means, what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild? In the real world religion and culture almost never trump race, given that culture is so tightly bound to race as to make the distinction nearly meaningless. White Christians and Black Christians don’t have the same culture anywhere, it’s almost a stretch to say they practice the same religion. Your counterfactuals are absurd as a predictor for accelerating miscegenation if only for the fact that even if there were culturally palatable inter-racial partners available in great supply (there aren’t, regardless of the combination you come up with), there’s already a large supply of partners with the same preferable culture who are also of the same race.

    If you think religion or political ideology trump race, then why is the party of the ideologically unfocused and religious-minded black race also the rabidly anti-christian party? Could it be that those things aren’t even a blip on the radar compared to their ethnic identity?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild?
     
    Liberals. Ask a liberal how he or she feels about their grandson who has just announced that he's voting for Trump in 2020. Ask a liberal Londoner how she feels about her granddaughter who's just admitted to being a Brexit supporter. Ask liberals how they'd feel if their grandkid announced at Thanksgiving dinner that he thought climate change was a hoax. Or that immigration should be halted.
  93. The commenters that point out the divergence between stated and revealed preference have a good point. Also, the difference between “marriage” and babies on the ground is significant. For those of you who don’t shop at Walmart and get a chance to see the chunky working class white women with 5 kids, one of which is a mulatto, will not share my skepticism that the “statistics” on mixed race children are off. And for you WNs, do you really think that those 4 white kids are going to grow up and not consider their mulatto sister as a sister?

    • Replies: @Talha

    4 white kids are going to grow up and not consider their mulatto sister as a sister?
     
    Highly doubtful - they are after all related by blood which is a bout as genetic as you get.

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.

    Time to rethink cousin-marriage and revive clans...?

    Peace.
  94. @songbird
    Christian Mingle, and even Catholic Mingle, were forced to include gays. Obviously that is completely ridiculous. Even if someone was pro-gay, what is the point of stealing time from people to click on some filter? All these fractions of a minute can add up to hours or even days of people's lives.

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.

    Amen! to this.

    Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act gave the federal government the power to violate one of the most basic human rights, the right to choose whom we associate with. It was a revolutionary and tyrannical act from its outset. With its various statutory and regulatory excrescences since then, ranging from quotas and “disparate impact” to sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and now “transgender” discrimination, it has become vastly worse. It cannot be fixed. There is only one way out of this horror, and that is go to the root and repeal Title VII. Any conservative who accepts Title VII, let alone celebrates it, as all “conservatives” do, is a part of the liberal tyranny under which we now live.

    — Lawrence Auster

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/022280.html

    • Replies: @Truth
    The 1964 civil rights act offered every American the chance to live anywhere he can affiord... and no American the opportunity to tell any other American that he cannot live anywhere that he can afford.

    So what's wrong with that?
  95. @Talha

    forced to include gays
     
    That's just stupid. Why didn't Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.
     
    I agree. And I would agree that an app called "White Singles" or "Whinder" or whatever, that claims to be a place to find White dating/hookup matches should exclude Blacks and everyone else to meet the expectations of their clients. Maybe they can have an invitation-only model or you have to send in a photo and it needs to be approved for your account to be verified.

    Again, I could make the same argument for why really fat people should be excluded so somebody doesn't have to spend time clicking on a filter for "less than 200lbs".

    I don't think the intention of Tinder or any of these other apps was to exclude anyone from the online meat market.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    There you go. Now here I would expect them to restrict it to Whites only and specifically European-descent (as they claim) and keep people like me out. Just like if I go to https://www.halfourdeen.com/ (which was started by an old friend of mine), I expect it to have only Muslims.

    Peace.
  96. @95Theses
    Here ya go:
    https://www.whitedate.net/ref/wolff/
    https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitedatenet/

    Although I'm not so keen on some of the characters with whom the site associates:
    https://www.whitedate.net/dating-site-for-white-people-who-is-pro-white/

    There you go. Now here I would expect them to restrict it to Whites only and specifically European-descent (as they claim) and keep people like me out. Just like if I go to https://www.halfourdeen.com/ (which was started by an old friend of mine), I expect it to have only Muslims.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Why half? Is that a reference to something?
  97. @iffen
    to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.

    A terrifying possibility that nevertheless cannot be ignored.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    I can 100% say this is happening. Not just with one of my cousins and her communist posse, but also with my ex roommate who did the same with her "Mexican" kid

    The kid by all accounts looks like a blonde haired blue eyed German like his mother, speaks no Spanish, has no Spanish friends and yet his mother insistently has him down as Mexican and routinely teaches him to burn the American flag/revolt. The kid is 7. The kid already has rainbow colour hair and wants to vote Democrat

    At this point i believe the way left online circles are going choosing to marry a white person is paramount will be seen as betraying the movement no matter who you are.
  98. @iffen
    The commenters that point out the divergence between stated and revealed preference have a good point. Also, the difference between "marriage" and babies on the ground is significant. For those of you who don't shop at Walmart and get a chance to see the chunky working class white women with 5 kids, one of which is a mulatto, will not share my skepticism that the "statistics" on mixed race children are off. And for you WNs, do you really think that those 4 white kids are going to grow up and not consider their mulatto sister as a sister?

    4 white kids are going to grow up and not consider their mulatto sister as a sister?

    Highly doubtful – they are after all related by blood which is a bout as genetic as you get.

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.

    Time to rethink cousin-marriage and revive clans…?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    As for your fears, ?
    , @Feryl

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.
     
    Telling women to put off the securing of a male protector, and go to college alone for the sake of "building a career" tells you all you need to know. Do modern Westerners ever care to consider why women end up being raped, or addicted to drugs, or turning to prostitution (on camera or off)?

    Sadly, atomized Westerners care more about status than they do over-all cultural and mental well-being. Padding your resume, and focusing on "competition", is more important than looking out for the long-term survival of your genetics.

    It's safe to say that Western European individualism had it's virtues, but it's now clearly being used and abused for the sake of furthering decadence and disease. And when "liberty" in white Western countries was chiefly for law abiding white men, that was one thing. But now we expect women and non-Europeans to somehow thrive in this sort of culture. And this is self-evidently disastrous, as our culture has been increasingly coarse, dumbed down, and not oriented toward long term security, ever since white Western elites thought that their culture would be "enhanced" by giving greater largess to "historically disadvantaged" (or historically weak and/or absent from the white West) groups. Those who are neither white nor male (and those who are just plain dumb or mentally ill, including some white guys) are never going to fully understand and respect the principles of Western intellectual and personal freedom that date back to ancient Rome. And that's not necessarily a criticism of women or non-whites; rather, we need to understand the differences between ethnic groups and between the two genders. Appreciating these differences won't "hurt" women and non-whites (which white Westerners have often claimed for the last 50 years); rather, it will insure that white Western men can prolong the culture for which they were once justifiably proud.

    The modern West is actively going backward in terms of over-all cultural freedom (of which freedom of speech is the most important), due to the (heavily contrived) advancement of women and non-whites and the growing pressure to never say anything negative about these two groups or the practices intended to help them (like affirmative action, hate speech codes, and dumbed down schools).

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hate+speech&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0

    "Hate speech" is not have wider usage until after 1987.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dumbing+down&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0

    "Dumbing down" begins to see greater usage in the 1980's.

    The late 80's is when it was becoming apparent that women and non-Asian minorities generally struggle to compete with elite white and Asian men in many fields. But this is also when "white" countries began to see rapid increases in the non-white population, and more women going to college. You see what's going on here? The continuous disappointing performance of women and NAMs has led to growing efforts to both outlaw criticism of minorities and make studies easier (so Suzy, Juan, and Tyrone don't get a massive headache from high-ed course with 1950's level rigor).
  99. @Talha
    He's right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    https://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/mma/players/full/2611557.png

    Here's another guy - same area, Daghestan:
    https://statics.sportskeeda.com/editor/2019/09/0cfc2-15684595089430-800.jpg

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

    Caucasians – by that, I mean the actual people from the Caucasus – are highly overrepresented in combat sports, including Judo and wrestling. Khabib Nurmagomedov did both Sambo and Judo growing up.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah - for that small population, they are definitely cranking them out like crazy.

    This gives a good insight into the culture:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l027P8kkQDw

    Also, this dude stayed with Khabib for a while:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0y9VWF_rZA

    Peace.
  100. @Twinkie
    Caucasians - by that, I mean the actual people from the Caucasus - are highly overrepresented in combat sports, including Judo and wrestling. Khabib Nurmagomedov did both Sambo and Judo growing up.

    Yeah – for that small population, they are definitely cranking them out like crazy.

    This gives a good insight into the culture:

    Also, this dude stayed with Khabib for a while:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques.
    https://youtu.be/Ud8qL70iuV0

    https://youtu.be/Yi59LbOud64
    , @Twinkie
    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques.
    https://youtu.be/Ud8qL70iuV0

    https://youtu.be/Yi59LbOud64
    , @Twinkie
    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques:
    https://youtu.be/Ud8qL70iuV0
    https://youtu.be/Yi59LbOud64
    , @Twinkie
    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques:
    https://youtu.be/Ud8qL70iuV0
  101. @Talha
    There you go. Now here I would expect them to restrict it to Whites only and specifically European-descent (as they claim) and keep people like me out. Just like if I go to https://www.halfourdeen.com/ (which was started by an old friend of mine), I expect it to have only Muslims.

    Peace.

    Why half? Is that a reference to something?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yes - it means your spouse is "half your religion (deen)" and it comes from the hadith (which is reported in variant wordings, but one of which is):
    "Whoever Allah blesses with a righteous wife, He has helped him with half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half.” - reported in the Mustadrak of Imam Hakim (ra)

    Imam Bayhaqi (ra) reported a similar statement "When a person gets married he has completed half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half."

    Peace.

  102. @RSDB
    Why half? Is that a reference to something?

    Yes – it means your spouse is “half your religion (deen)” and it comes from the hadith (which is reported in variant wordings, but one of which is):
    “Whoever Allah blesses with a righteous wife, He has helped him with half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half.” – reported in the Mustadrak of Imam Hakim (ra)

    Imam Bayhaqi (ra) reported a similar statement “When a person gets married he has completed half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half.”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Thanks.
  103. @dfordoom

    Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.
     
    I believe that race is both biologically and socially constructed. There's a world of difference between believing that and believing (as liberals do) that race is purely a social construct.

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it's real. I have no idea why.

    The word Hispanic is a shoddy term used to classify a group of people based upon shared language. African Cubans share no racial relation to Aztec descended Mexicans, but both speak a form of Spanish.

    You’re changing the original meaning of “race is a social construct” in order to prove.. what exactly? Even without human categorization, Africans, Asians, and Europeans would still be different races. Referring to that fact as a social construct is nonsense.

  104. @Intelligent Dasein
    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you've got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally "white". They themselves will most likely marry white people, and within one or two more generations their descendants will be phenotypically white as well. White people absorb and assimilate Asians and Hispanics quite readily.

    I find it to be just the opposite.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic…

    I only know one asian and black couple and they too are raising the kids as black, even though they look Japanese (like their father) to me…

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical…with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.

    Look at Obama, he threw his grandparents under the bus (who raised him from the age of 5 years old) even before he became President. He didn’t even bother attending his grandmother’s funeral when she passed away.

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don’t know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood…

    There are numerous other examples but I think you get the point…

    • Agree: 95Theses, Female in FL
    • Replies: @216

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don’t know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood…
     
    Mr. Kapernick's adoptive parents are some sort of white liberals, a lot of Boomercons made the dumb take that he was embarassing them.

    I often remark that Kapernick can pass as an Arab, and his girlfriend is Arab.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic…
     
    White + Hispanic = ~white
    White + South Asian = ~white
    White + East Asian = hapa
    White + Black = black
    White + Mixed/Other = Gabbard

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical…with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.
     
    No one backs the weak horse.

    ---

    Among racial groups, Mixed/Other is the second most likely to support the GOP. Any politics based on blood purity will result in their full radicalization to the 9-1 hate ratio that blacks display.

    The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean "strong state" model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can't/won't assimilate.

    In the current model, white conservatives love assimilation so much that their children assimilated to the dominant liberal culture.
  105. @Audacious Epigone
    It is a social construct but it also has a firm basis in biological reality.

    A "hill" is a social construct, too (at what point does a mound become a hill and a hill become a mountain?)--but it has a very real and very meaningful basis in geological reality.

    Hell, the idea of "family" is a social construct (do third-cousins count?)--but it obviously has a firm basis in biological reality, too.

    No.

    The term “race is a social construct” was originally used as a rebuke of obvious biological differences between races, namely intelligence. It was used in support of the blank slate belief. You’re changing its original intent for reasons unclear to me.

    Categorization is a social construct, or a human construct, take you pick. The things being categorized already were what they were, before categorization.

    Differences in races exist whether or not we come up with names for them.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Race is both a biological AND a social construct, largely because it is not a biologically discrete category. In other words, the borders of races are ambiguous and porous, and are usually determined socially and culturally.* Acknowledging that reality is very different from insisting that race is solely a social construct.

    You seem intentionally obtuse to this, because you have certain priors that are ideological in nature rather than factual.

    *Example: the one drop rule for blacks.
  106. @Talha

    forced to include gays
     
    That's just stupid. Why didn't Christians and Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    Sometimes, it is right to exclude people.
     
    I agree. And I would agree that an app called "White Singles" or "Whinder" or whatever, that claims to be a place to find White dating/hookup matches should exclude Blacks and everyone else to meet the expectations of their clients. Maybe they can have an invitation-only model or you have to send in a photo and it needs to be approved for your account to be verified.

    Again, I could make the same argument for why really fat people should be excluded so somebody doesn't have to spend time clicking on a filter for "less than 200lbs".

    I don't think the intention of Tinder or any of these other apps was to exclude anyone from the online meat market.

    Peace.

    Why didn’t … Catholics boycott on a massive scale?

    I’ve only heard of “Catholic Match” and I don’t know too much about it in depth.

    I don’t know if they do gay dates or not; here’s an article from their website though: https://www.catholicmatch.com/about/you-cant-fool-mother-nature

    They have a reputation for having a slightly “trad” orientation, I think, but online dating is still online dating. Here’s a joke article about them:
    http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/04/02/chuck-50012-still-desperately-awaiting-response-from-kristin-51053-on-catholic-match/

    A lot of heretical Christians in the US are more or less okay with gay marriage/gay non-marriage/other cohabitation, and I think they should have sites to cater to them if they really want to, though it’s unfair to try to legally pressure the owners of existing sites who may have different ideas; at least one site (eharmony, I think?) was sued into allowing gay dating.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I think they should have sites to cater to them if they really want to
     
    Yeah, one would think they would rather not waste the time on apps and sites where the majority are not like them, but here we are. It’s all weird to me - this Internet dating/hookup stuff - might as well be from Mars. The sites I know on the Muslim end of things (that I would actually recommend to others) are only two or three, all having been vetted by ulema and all of them serious about getting a person married.

    I’ve never been on one of those sites or registered so I don’t know if they let you filter by ethnic preference (I would imagine they would since many families deem cultural compatibility to be a factor).

    Peace.

  107. @Talha
    Yes - it means your spouse is "half your religion (deen)" and it comes from the hadith (which is reported in variant wordings, but one of which is):
    "Whoever Allah blesses with a righteous wife, He has helped him with half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half.” - reported in the Mustadrak of Imam Hakim (ra)

    Imam Bayhaqi (ra) reported a similar statement "When a person gets married he has completed half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half."

    Peace.

    Thanks.

  108. @Twinkie

    His solution to cultural and political problems is a recomendation to be more like Twinkie and it works for him, but it is not a solution that can be implemented at a societal and political level.
     
    The Twinkie solution, as such, has a very good track record among non-Twinkies.

    The Twinkie Solution:

    Be Asian, marry a white broad, live in an upper class white neighborhood, then lecture everybody else about how great Asians are.

    • Troll: Twinkie
  109. @Mark G.
    I would think these marriage preferences might provide some ideas about possible political coalitions. For example, Asians would want to marry a white at double the rate they would want to marry a black. When they currently go into a voting booth, though, they'll vote for the Democrat party that most blacks vote for rather than the Republican party that most whites vote for. It might be possible for Republicans to emphasize or deemphasize certain issues that would attract Asians. Repealing affirmative action that benefits blacks but hurt Asians is one thing I can think of immediately. Black criminals like to target Asians (and also Hispanics) but the Democrat party is soft on black crime so a law and order Republican could pick up Asian (and some Hispanic) voters along with white voters. There are other issues like that. Whites may have a shrinking majority of the population but they can exploit the fact that other racial groups dislike each other more than they dislike whites. Even in places where they are the minority, whites could be the compromise candidate that is acceptable to all the other racial groups and still get elected that way.

    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women. Trump tried to make the Democrat party the party of non-Americans, but blacks spit in his face for it. That approach is an electoral dead end.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women.
     
    Of course, that would play right into the hands of those who claim that Whiteness is not an affirmative identity but rather a meaningless construct designed to specifically to exclude, marginalize, and humiliate black people. That would be very unfortunate.
    , @Twinkie
    I think Mr. Sailer is generally correct. If the Democrats become the party of black supremacy, it loses. If the Republicans become the white-only party, it loses. That’s the electoral math.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    I think you're off here. The Sailer Strategy in his own words:

    "“The Sailer Strategy”—that the Republican Party should and can only win, not through “outreach”/minority pandering, but by “inreach”/mobilizing its own (white) base"

    https://vdare.com/articles/the-sailer-strategy-updated-three-steps-to-save-america

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.
  110. @Audacious Epigone
    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women. Trump tried to make the Democrat party the party of non-Americans, but blacks spit in his face for it. That approach is an electoral dead end.

    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women.

    Of course, that would play right into the hands of those who claim that Whiteness is not an affirmative identity but rather a meaningless construct designed to specifically to exclude, marginalize, and humiliate black people. That would be very unfortunate.

  111. @Audacious Epigone
    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women. Trump tried to make the Democrat party the party of non-Americans, but blacks spit in his face for it. That approach is an electoral dead end.

    I think Mr. Sailer is generally correct. If the Democrats become the party of black supremacy, it loses. If the Republicans become the white-only party, it loses. That’s the electoral math.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone, iffen, Aft
  112. @MikeatMikedotMike
    No.

    The term "race is a social construct" was originally used as a rebuke of obvious biological differences between races, namely intelligence. It was used in support of the blank slate belief. You're changing its original intent for reasons unclear to me.

    Categorization is a social construct, or a human construct, take you pick. The things being categorized already were what they were, before categorization.

    Differences in races exist whether or not we come up with names for them.

    Race is both a biological AND a social construct, largely because it is not a biologically discrete category. In other words, the borders of races are ambiguous and porous, and are usually determined socially and culturally.* Acknowledging that reality is very different from insisting that race is solely a social construct.

    You seem intentionally obtuse to this, because you have certain priors that are ideological in nature rather than factual.

    *Example: the one drop rule for blacks.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Race is both a biological AND a social construct, largely because it is not a biologically discrete category. In other words, the borders of races are ambiguous and porous, "

    Irrelevant. The borders of some species are ambiguous and porous.

    "and are usually determined socially and culturally.*

    You're defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct. Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race, but adhere to vastly different social and cultural customs. Not coincidentally, neither set of customs fits particularly well with a high trust, Western society. It's almost like race is actually upstream from oh I don't know, everything else.

    "You seem intentionally obtuse to this, because you have certain priors that are ideological in nature rather than factual."

    LOL yeah, looks who's talking. At least I'm honest about my ideals.
  113. @Charles Pewitt

    Though it will upset Wokians, notice that after enthusiasm for intraracial marriage, each non-white group prefers close relatives marry whites over marrying from another group in the coalition that is not their own. It is going to take a lot of work to extirpate the legacy of white supremacy from the multiracial paradise of the future.

     

    The Anglo-Celts in the South should get out of their corrupt bargain marriage to the Republican Party.

    It's time for Southern Nationalists to get a Las Vegas type divorce from the evil nation-wreckers who own and control the globalizer Republican Party.

    All the non-Whites want to get down and party and marry Whites because Whites are the best looking and most intelligent of all the other races on the globe. It's not even close!

    Whites have all kinds of different eye colors and hair colors and they seem to be the most evolved of all the races. Asians and Blacks and Mestizos and Amerindians and all the others are aesthetically displeasing to a very high extent. Some horrible wags would say that they were genetically beaten by a graphite fishing pole called the Ugly Stick.

    Now back to those Peckerwood Anglo-Celts who need to divorce themselves from the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire and the ruling class of the Republican Party. It ain't no secret to the high IQ Unz Review commenters that the South was bought off something fierce by the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire with big fat delicious piles of military Keynesianism.

    What I'm saying is that like a broad who might stick around with her husband because she really likes the loot that that husband has, the Southern states stick with the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire because of all that conjured up cash coming from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

    What the Southern Nationalists need to do is get their own central bank ready to go to electronically conjure up the cash to keep all the government loot pouring into the Southern states.

    The Southern Nationalists should make sure they have a nuclear deterrent to keep the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire behaving in a decent manner.

    Southern Nationalists should take the oil in Texas and New Mexico and make a deal with the Krauts in North Dakota on oil command and control.

    The only thing holding the United States of America together is electronically conjured up cash from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

    White Core American Patriots Must Immediately Divorce The Nation-Wreckers In The JEW/WASP Ruling Class Of The American Empire.

    So intelligent and good looking that they’re embarrassed by what they think and who they are?

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    So intelligent and good looking that they’re embarrassed by what they think and who they are?

     

    Perhaps ten percent of Whites feel that way. When the next round of the global financial implosion hits that ten percent of Whites who feel that way can be expelled and forcibly exiled to sub-Saharan Africa. I am a jolly Andrew Jackson/George Washington White Core American and my radicalism is tempered by a decent and sweet disposition. But go they will if I am in command!

    The globalizer plutocrats are pulling out all the monetary extremism tricks because they know that very soon a political leader will emerge to begin the necessary mass demographic expulsions and mass debt repudiations to set the stage for a European Christian national sovereignty rejuvenation.

    Ruling class removal and replacement is the answer to race replacement and the weaponization of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Africa is a massive continent and I'm sure some land can be found to serve as a receptacle for all the Whites who hide their own greed and materialism behind the cloak of racial crybaby claptrap and racial self-abasement. I'm saying the White pukes pushing all this racial guilt tripping are nasty White frauds hiding their own greed and hatred for regular Whites.

    The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire must be removed from power. The key is to get the Anglo-Celts in the South and the German Americans in the Great Lakes states to form a White Core American bloc which can work with White Core Americans in the West and Northeast to become the new ruling class.

    White Core America must dislodge the JEW/WASP ruling class from power and take control of the American Empire and the United States of America.

  114. @Thomm

    On the other side of the ledger, Thomm, you’ve got to realize that virtually all those interracial babies (with the exception of a handful of mulattoes) are going to grow up culturally “white”.
     
    Of course. I have been one of the primary observers of this trend here.

    For all the whining about Asian-Americans becoming an unassimilated 'cultural elite', or the myth that 2nd and even 3rd gen Hispanics don't speak English or aspire to some 'reconquista', neither is remotely true given the high rate of disappearance into the white population.

    Here in California, I know a couple of 60 year old white guys with Japanese last names. Their paternal grandfathers were Japanese. A completely white person with a Hispanic last name is very common, on account of some Mexican grandfather.

    That happens in conjunction with a white super majority. The story isn’t going to be the same two more generations down the line, especially not in California.

  115. @red6020

    Hispanic as a race is almost entirely socially constructed. But people apparently think it’s real. I have no idea why.
     
    Alberto Fujimori, Juan Castro, George Lopez, Nicolas Maduro, Papa Bergoglio, Ted Cruz and Jorge Ramos all qualify as Hispanics. Considering them and counting them statistically as a single race is purely a social construct. I don't see why that's controversial.

    It’s a bad proxy for Amerindian.

  116. @Talha
    Yeah - for that small population, they are definitely cranking them out like crazy.

    This gives a good insight into the culture:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l027P8kkQDw

    Also, this dude stayed with Khabib for a while:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0y9VWF_rZA

    Peace.

    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques.

  117. @Talha
    Yeah - for that small population, they are definitely cranking them out like crazy.

    This gives a good insight into the culture:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l027P8kkQDw

    Also, this dude stayed with Khabib for a while:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0y9VWF_rZA

    Peace.

    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques.

  118. @Steve in Greensboro
    Oops. AE explained this in the body. Tried to delete this comment, but apparently it did not take.

    It’s okay, my explanation is just speculative.

  119. @Talha

    Christians don’t seem to be very good at organizing anymore.
     
    Except when it comes to Israel.

    Peace.

    And that is the sound of the mic hitting the floor.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Evangelical theology teaches that the world has to get worse for the End Times to begin

    New data finds that white evangelicals were the least likely to know that divorce rates, teen sex rates, and births out of wedlock have declined in the last decade

    There is a resurgence of evangelical postmillenialism that thinks things will get better if Christians get the right leaders in place
  120. @iffen
    to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.

    Subconsciously, yes, I suspect some do–and more will.

    • Replies: @216
    Consciously, from a K selection perspective it makes considerable sense.

    I used to have interest in East Asian girls, before I encountered something called "r/Hapa".

    No thanks, I don't want my sons hating me.

    If "the box" acquires greater potency under a perma-blue government, it would certainly force me to adjust my preferences.

    Otoh, conservative women that are SES peers don't really exist; so I doubt I will be marrying anytime soon.
  121. @Audacious Epigone
    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it's closer to 10%.

    It is definitely on the rise. We did a post here a few months ago showing that it is especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.

    I’ve got a cousin who got impregnated by a black man as to destroy any chance the kid becomes Republican voting after evil orange man won. She wasn’t the only one in her circle

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Someone has to volunteer for the Eloi Tax and self-nominate for a Darwin Award.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That could well be the offensive side of the same coin, the defensive side being to give her child a leg up and shield him from being taught through school and in media that he is sinful and responsible for all the world's problems.
  122. @Rosie

    You go where I fear to tread. You are saying that there are people who consciously decide to have mulatto children so that those children can check the box.
     
    A terrifying possibility that nevertheless cannot be ignored.

    I can 100% say this is happening. Not just with one of my cousins and her communist posse, but also with my ex roommate who did the same with her “Mexican” kid

    The kid by all accounts looks like a blonde haired blue eyed German like his mother, speaks no Spanish, has no Spanish friends and yet his mother insistently has him down as Mexican and routinely teaches him to burn the American flag/revolt. The kid is 7. The kid already has rainbow colour hair and wants to vote Democrat

    At this point i believe the way left online circles are going choosing to marry a white person is paramount will be seen as betraying the movement no matter who you are.

  123. @Audacious Epigone
    And that is the sound of the mic hitting the floor.

    Evangelical theology teaches that the world has to get worse for the End Times to begin

    New data finds that white evangelicals were the least likely to know that divorce rates, teen sex rates, and births out of wedlock have declined in the last decade

    There is a resurgence of evangelical postmillenialism that thinks things will get better if Christians get the right leaders in place

  124. @S. M. Coulton
    Over 90%? No way man, Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially "other". I'm actually not even sure they're less popular than whites, they certainly are not relative to census figures. "Other" is the most popular category relative to population size.


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbFsV1vVMAA6Nze.jpg

    My chart in Comment #3 proves otherwise. 89% of all interracial marriage contains one white spouse. Only 11% are those where neither spouse is white.

    • Replies: @S. M. Coulton
    Uh, no it fucking does not.
  125. @Twinkie
    Race is both a biological AND a social construct, largely because it is not a biologically discrete category. In other words, the borders of races are ambiguous and porous, and are usually determined socially and culturally.* Acknowledging that reality is very different from insisting that race is solely a social construct.

    You seem intentionally obtuse to this, because you have certain priors that are ideological in nature rather than factual.

    *Example: the one drop rule for blacks.

    “Race is both a biological AND a social construct, largely because it is not a biologically discrete category. In other words, the borders of races are ambiguous and porous, ”

    Irrelevant. The borders of some species are ambiguous and porous.

    “and are usually determined socially and culturally.*

    You’re defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct. Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race, but adhere to vastly different social and cultural customs. Not coincidentally, neither set of customs fits particularly well with a high trust, Western society. It’s almost like race is actually upstream from oh I don’t know, everything else.

    “You seem intentionally obtuse to this, because you have certain priors that are ideological in nature rather than factual.”

    LOL yeah, looks who’s talking. At least I’m honest about my ideals.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race
     
    The latter have a substantial fraction of white ancestry.

    I’ve never seen Ethiopians who look like Ben Jealous, the last head of NAACP, and a “black” person in America.

    https://images.app.goo.gl/Pvimg5DQ7whKoJP3A

    You’re defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct.
     
    Ethnicity is also both a biological and a social construct.
  126. @Audacious Epigone
    Steve Sailer has long suggested the electoral strategy of portraying the Democrat party as the party of blacks rather than as the party of non-whites and women. Trump tried to make the Democrat party the party of non-Americans, but blacks spit in his face for it. That approach is an electoral dead end.

    I think you’re off here. The Sailer Strategy in his own words:

    ““The Sailer Strategy”—that the Republican Party should and can only win, not through “outreach”/minority pandering, but by “inreach”/mobilizing its own (white) base”

    https://vdare.com/articles/the-sailer-strategy-updated-three-steps-to-save-america

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.
     
    As I recall, Trump won a tad smaller share of the white vote and a tiny bit higher share of the black and Hispanic vote than Romney did.

    Also, there is a big difference between attracting a large share of the white vote and becoming a “white only” party. The latter is liable turn off a large fraction of white voters.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Those are two separate strategies.

    Or more accurately, yours is Steve's signature strategy while making the Democrats the Black party is more of an accompanying tactic.

    Indeed, it looks like in 2009 he wrote Sailer Strategy Supplement: Rebrand Democrats As The Black Party.

  127. @Talha
    Yeah - for that small population, they are definitely cranking them out like crazy.

    This gives a good insight into the culture:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l027P8kkQDw

    Also, this dude stayed with Khabib for a while:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0y9VWF_rZA

    Peace.

    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques:

    • Replies: @Talha
    Nice - thanks for the videos!

    Peace.
  128. @Talha
    Yeah - for that small population, they are definitely cranking them out like crazy.

    This gives a good insight into the culture:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l027P8kkQDw

    Also, this dude stayed with Khabib for a while:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0y9VWF_rZA

    Peace.

    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques:

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Sorry about the quadruple tap. I kept getting errors, so I tried re-posting.
  129. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Race is both a biological AND a social construct, largely because it is not a biologically discrete category. In other words, the borders of races are ambiguous and porous, "

    Irrelevant. The borders of some species are ambiguous and porous.

    "and are usually determined socially and culturally.*

    You're defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct. Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race, but adhere to vastly different social and cultural customs. Not coincidentally, neither set of customs fits particularly well with a high trust, Western society. It's almost like race is actually upstream from oh I don't know, everything else.

    "You seem intentionally obtuse to this, because you have certain priors that are ideological in nature rather than factual."

    LOL yeah, looks who's talking. At least I'm honest about my ideals.

    Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race

    The latter have a substantial fraction of white ancestry.

    I’ve never seen Ethiopians who look like Ben Jealous, the last head of NAACP, and a “black” person in America.

    https://images.app.goo.gl/Pvimg5DQ7whKoJP3A

    You’re defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct.

    Ethnicity is also both a biological and a social construct.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    I’ve never seen Ethiopians who look like Ben Jealous, the last head of NAACP, and a “black” person in America.
     
    Ben Jealous is literally 81% white, as determined on the Henry Louis Gates show. Even HLG, himself 50% white, made fun of Ben Jealous, saying 'you are the whitest black man we have ever tested'.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The latter have a substantial fraction of white ancestry."

    I laugh at you civ nats who throw this line out like it means anything. "Substantial" being used in a completely relative sense. An average of 20% Euro ancestry for the American negro, if it's even that high, which I doubt, has made no measurable positive influence upon the group as a whole. Physiologically and behaviorally they are African. Every shred of evidence confirms they cannot function productively and independently within Western Civilization but you would have your "fellow" Americans continue to be subject to their primitiveness so you can maintain some grotesque sense of morality.

    "Ethnicity is also both a biological and a social construct."

    Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct.
  130. @Twinkie
    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques:
    https://youtu.be/Ud8qL70iuV0

    Sorry about the quadruple tap. I kept getting errors, so I tried re-posting.

  131. @AnotherDad

    Though it will upset Wokians, notice that after enthusiasm for intraracial marriage, each non-white group prefers close relatives marry whites over marrying from another group in the coalition that is not their own. It is going to take a lot of work to extirpate the legacy of white supremacy from the multiracial paradise of the future.
     
    This is a very positive thing. This is what you want to see in any nation. That the newcomers, and their descendants want to marry *toward* the core, or at least have somewhat positiev feelings about their relatives doing it.

    Note that along with the above skew toward whites, there is a corresponding skew away from blacks. They are at the bottom of the "not-my-own" groups for all other groups.


    If there's something perplexing it's why all the intra-race numbers aren't basically 99%. Ok, i can come up with some plausible reasons for the Hispanic and Asian numbers--basically marrying toward the core, and in the Asian case, "Asian" doesn't necessary mean "your group". But what the heck is wrong with whites?

    Wanting to marry into a nation’s dominant racial group is a reasonable proxy for the desire to assimilate. Desire to maintain a distance–in this case genetically–is conversely a reasonable proxy for the opposite, what Derb calls “absimilation”.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It is part of the scramble for victim status. There seems to be no higher status than that of victim.
  132. @Twinkie
    I’m a big fan of the Georgian style of Judo, a really nice mix of Classical Japanese techniques and Georgia’s folk (belt) wrestling techniques:
    https://youtu.be/Ud8qL70iuV0
    https://youtu.be/Yi59LbOud64

    Nice – thanks for the videos!

    Peace.

  133. @Twinkie

    but why would I not assume this?
     
    Lack of self-awareness.

    Really? So your seemingly endless comments on almost every post aren’t based on your assumption that they’re correct and logically derived? Doom later clarified his initial statement, but I initially thought it sounded cuck-like too.

  134. @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That’s undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it’s true... they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists
     
    (X) Doubt

    People want their grandchildren to resemble them in exactly the way that motto means, what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild? In the real world religion and culture almost never trump race, given that culture is so tightly bound to race as to make the distinction nearly meaningless. White Christians and Black Christians don't have the same culture anywhere, it's almost a stretch to say they practice the same religion. Your counterfactuals are absurd as a predictor for accelerating miscegenation if only for the fact that even if there were culturally palatable inter-racial partners available in great supply (there aren't, regardless of the combination you come up with), there's already a large supply of partners with the same preferable culture who are also of the same race.

    If you think religion or political ideology trump race, then why is the party of the ideologically unfocused and religious-minded black race also the rabidly anti-christian party? Could it be that those things aren't even a blip on the radar compared to their ethnic identity?

    what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild?

    Liberals. Ask a liberal how he or she feels about their grandson who has just announced that he’s voting for Trump in 2020. Ask a liberal Londoner how she feels about her granddaughter who’s just admitted to being a Brexit supporter. Ask liberals how they’d feel if their grandkid announced at Thanksgiving dinner that he thought climate change was a hoax. Or that immigration should be halted.

    • Replies: @Talha
    “Apostate! Heretic!”

    Peace.
    , @Twodees Partain
    The one question that I always want to ask a liberal is "WTF is wrong with you?"
  135. @RSDB

    Why didn’t ... Catholics boycott on a massive scale?
     
    I've only heard of "Catholic Match" and I don't know too much about it in depth.

    I don't know if they do gay dates or not; here's an article from their website though: https://www.catholicmatch.com/about/you-cant-fool-mother-nature

    They have a reputation for having a slightly "trad" orientation, I think, but online dating is still online dating. Here's a joke article about them:
    http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/04/02/chuck-50012-still-desperately-awaiting-response-from-kristin-51053-on-catholic-match/

    A lot of heretical Christians in the US are more or less okay with gay marriage/gay non-marriage/other cohabitation, and I think they should have sites to cater to them if they really want to, though it's unfair to try to legally pressure the owners of existing sites who may have different ideas; at least one site (eharmony, I think?) was sued into allowing gay dating.

    I think they should have sites to cater to them if they really want to

    Yeah, one would think they would rather not waste the time on apps and sites where the majority are not like them, but here we are. It’s all weird to me – this Internet dating/hookup stuff – might as well be from Mars. The sites I know on the Muslim end of things (that I would actually recommend to others) are only two or three, all having been vetted by ulema and all of them serious about getting a person married.

    I’ve never been on one of those sites or registered so I don’t know if they let you filter by ethnic preference (I would imagine they would since many families deem cultural compatibility to be a factor).

    Peace.

  136. @dfordoom

    what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild?
     
    Liberals. Ask a liberal how he or she feels about their grandson who has just announced that he's voting for Trump in 2020. Ask a liberal Londoner how she feels about her granddaughter who's just admitted to being a Brexit supporter. Ask liberals how they'd feel if their grandkid announced at Thanksgiving dinner that he thought climate change was a hoax. Or that immigration should be halted.

    “Apostate! Heretic!”

    Peace.

  137. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    Personally, I would have very little enthusiasm for a relative marrying a black, and in general, I would have less enthusiasm for a female relative out-marrying than a male relative doing so. I think this male bias is fairly common. People in general seem to be more comfortable with male relatives out-marrying than with men from another group taking one of their women.

    For other groups, it would be more on an individual basis. In general, I would have more enthusiasm for a relative marrying someone from a similar background – white, upper-middle class Christian (secular or religious) – than from other backgrounds. But I would not necessarily have greater enthusiasm for someone white just because they were white if they were deficient in other respects.

  138. @Audacious Epigone
    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it's closer to 10%.

    It is definitely on the rise. We did a post here a few months ago showing that it is especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.

    If people paired up completely randomly though the rate of interracial marriage would be well over 50% in the US. Outside of the Southwest, it’s closer to 10%.

    Does online dating “nudge” in one way or the other?

    If increase, then Tinder becomes a mandatory part of the social credit system

    If decrease, SJW will align with Incel and demand either the revision or ban of online dating.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/cumming-apart/

    especially the case among young white liberals, who love the idea of interracial relationships.

    16% is the highest recorded, but we also see higher rates of LGBT in this same group.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/gen-z-is-pretty-lgaybtq/

    If we consider that Asian outmarriage is around 40%, white liberals are actually showing a disparate impact, indeed one should expect a higher rate of nearly 75% given how much white liberals are outgroup-favoring.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  139. @Talha
    Well, depends. Many people of the Caucasus went straight from paganism/animism into Islam directly without Christianity intervening in between. That has been their culture - for centuries.

    But it's good you consider him White; which lends credence to your take on race being a biological reality. There are many here on UNZ who do not; which basically means it is social construct.

    Still looking for consensus on the issue...

    Peace.

    But it’s good you consider him White

    A fun question for Rosie and her ilk: would you like to raise your children in Chechnya with their fellow white people or in, say, Singapore?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Good question.

    Peace.
    , @Truth
    Well Twinx, I mean, an alpha like yourself would be doing your children a disservice by raising them in Singapore (or Kentucky) instead of Chechnya. Think about it, a Christian, American, mixed-race, ex US Military family in Chechnya?!? think of all the great sparring, daily, that you and the boys would get, even when you didn't want it!

    And your daughters? 100m Olympic sprint champions for sure. I mean, as they say repitition is the mother of skill, and y'all's judo would improve precipitiously if the rules were kill or die.

  140. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I think you're off here. The Sailer Strategy in his own words:

    "“The Sailer Strategy”—that the Republican Party should and can only win, not through “outreach”/minority pandering, but by “inreach”/mobilizing its own (white) base"

    https://vdare.com/articles/the-sailer-strategy-updated-three-steps-to-save-america

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.

    As I recall, Trump won a tad smaller share of the white vote and a tiny bit higher share of the black and Hispanic vote than Romney did.

    Also, there is a big difference between attracting a large share of the white vote and becoming a “white only” party. The latter is liable turn off a large fraction of white voters.

    • Replies: @216
    The Q poll recorded that 56% of the sample think that Trump is a racist, that's a big whole to dig out of in a culture that considers this the worst secular sin.

    Those that continue to self-describe as Alt-Right love repeating "muh black unemployment" about the Administration's crowing.

    That's the wrong aim. Undoubtebly most blacks are highly ethnocentric and hate white conservatives with a passion. But there are a number of black moderates, and younger/Southern blacks are more moderate than older blacks.

    More importantly, as you say, there are a lot of white voters that genuinely believe in reconciliation. Pandering is what these people love, and we are delivering it. It shouldn't be countersignalled.

    What some people need...is copeservatism.
  141. @nymom
    I find it to be just the opposite.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic...

    I only know one asian and black couple and they too are raising the kids as black, even though they look Japanese (like their father) to me...

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical...with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.

    Look at Obama, he threw his grandparents under the bus (who raised him from the age of 5 years old) even before he became President. He didn't even bother attending his grandmother's funeral when she passed away.

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don't know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood...

    There are numerous other examples but I think you get the point...

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don’t know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood…

    Mr. Kapernick’s adoptive parents are some sort of white liberals, a lot of Boomercons made the dumb take that he was embarassing them.

    I often remark that Kapernick can pass as an Arab, and his girlfriend is Arab.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic…

    White + Hispanic = ~white
    White + South Asian = ~white
    White + East Asian = hapa
    White + Black = black
    White + Mixed/Other = Gabbard

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical…with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.

    No one backs the weak horse.

    Among racial groups, Mixed/Other is the second most likely to support the GOP. Any politics based on blood purity will result in their full radicalization to the 9-1 hate ratio that blacks display.

    The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean “strong state” model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can’t/won’t assimilate.

    In the current model, white conservatives love assimilation so much that their children assimilated to the dominant liberal culture.

    • Replies: @iffen
    a revitalized Eurocentric culture

    So you want to do a reset just to see if we get back to this same point?
    , @95Theses
    Slightly OT:

    Hey, I may have a catchy motto for Singapore to bring in (or not) potential emigrants/tourists:

    We are Abel to Cain!

    ツ ツ ツ ツ

    Just kidding, AE !

    , @Corvinus
    "The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean “strong state” model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can’t/won’t assimilate."

    That's great in theory. Today's white men and women tend to have their own views about race and culture. You're going to have to propagandize the hell out of several generations to convince them otherwise. Generation Z holds the key. They are diverse, tend to be fiscal conservative but social liberals, and are poised to take over the institutions. Do you have the time, energy, and Daddy Warbucks money to go on a soapbox tour of epic proportions to maybe make a small dent in the line of thinking of that group?
  142. @Twinkie

    But it’s good you consider him White
     
    A fun question for Rosie and her ilk: would you like to raise your children in Chechnya with their fellow white people or in, say, Singapore?

    Good question.

    Peace.

  143. @Twinkie

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.
     
    As I recall, Trump won a tad smaller share of the white vote and a tiny bit higher share of the black and Hispanic vote than Romney did.

    Also, there is a big difference between attracting a large share of the white vote and becoming a “white only” party. The latter is liable turn off a large fraction of white voters.

    The Q poll recorded that 56% of the sample think that Trump is a racist, that’s a big whole to dig out of in a culture that considers this the worst secular sin.

    Those that continue to self-describe as Alt-Right love repeating “muh black unemployment” about the Administration’s crowing.

    That’s the wrong aim. Undoubtebly most blacks are highly ethnocentric and hate white conservatives with a passion. But there are a number of black moderates, and younger/Southern blacks are more moderate than older blacks.

    More importantly, as you say, there are a lot of white voters that genuinely believe in reconciliation. Pandering is what these people love, and we are delivering it. It shouldn’t be countersignalled.

    What some people need…is copeservatism.

    • Replies: @iffen
    More importantly, as you say, there are a lot of white voters that genuinely believe in reconciliation.

    #Truth and Reconciliation Commission (America)

    #Reparations: 40 Acres & a Mule + Interest

    #Reconciliation: All My White Sins Forgiven

    #Truth: No More Quotas
  144. @Thomm
    My chart in Comment #3 proves otherwise. 89% of all interracial marriage contains one white spouse. Only 11% are those where neither spouse is white.

    Uh, no it fucking does not.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Uh, no it fucking does not.
     
    Yes it does. The vertical bar in comment #3 shows that 89% of all interracial marriage involves a white spouse. Only the remaining 11% comprise all possible non-white combinations.

    Furthermore, your chart supports my statement, and refutes yours. Look closely at your own chart. It does NOT indicate that Hispanic-black, or Asian-black, is very common at all.

    I understand that you may not know how to read graphs and charts.

  145. @95Theses
    Amen! to this.

    Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act gave the federal government the power to violate one of the most basic human rights, the right to choose whom we associate with. It was a revolutionary and tyrannical act from its outset. With its various statutory and regulatory excrescences since then, ranging from quotas and “disparate impact” to sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and now “transgender” discrimination, it has become vastly worse. It cannot be fixed. There is only one way out of this horror, and that is go to the root and repeal Title VII. Any conservative who accepts Title VII, let alone celebrates it, as all “conservatives” do, is a part of the liberal tyranny under which we now live.

    — Lawrence Auster

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/022280.html
     

    The 1964 civil rights act offered every American the chance to live anywhere he can affiord… and no American the opportunity to tell any other American that he cannot live anywhere that he can afford.

    So what’s wrong with that?

    • Replies: @iffen
    So what’s wrong with that?

    I don't have enough money to live in a mansion in a gated community.
    , @dc.sunsets
    The power to exclude is central to the freedom to not associate.

    The CRA of 1964 put the fist of the state into every human relationship. It's not, "What's wrong with that?" it's "What fraction of that is right?"

    The answer is, not the smallest part.

    Positive rights vs negative rights. The former are defined by organized human coercion, the latter by nature's barriers.
  146. @Truth
    The 1964 civil rights act offered every American the chance to live anywhere he can affiord... and no American the opportunity to tell any other American that he cannot live anywhere that he can afford.

    So what's wrong with that?

    So what’s wrong with that?

    I don’t have enough money to live in a mansion in a gated community.

    • Replies: @Truth
    This is a capitalist county, Boris, argubably the most capitalist in history, and that is a personal problem.
  147. @216
    The Q poll recorded that 56% of the sample think that Trump is a racist, that's a big whole to dig out of in a culture that considers this the worst secular sin.

    Those that continue to self-describe as Alt-Right love repeating "muh black unemployment" about the Administration's crowing.

    That's the wrong aim. Undoubtebly most blacks are highly ethnocentric and hate white conservatives with a passion. But there are a number of black moderates, and younger/Southern blacks are more moderate than older blacks.

    More importantly, as you say, there are a lot of white voters that genuinely believe in reconciliation. Pandering is what these people love, and we are delivering it. It shouldn't be countersignalled.

    What some people need...is copeservatism.

    More importantly, as you say, there are a lot of white voters that genuinely believe in reconciliation.

    #Truth and Reconciliation Commission (America)

    #Reparations: 40 Acres & a Mule + Interest

    #Reconciliation: All My White Sins Forgiven

    #Truth: No More Quotas

    • Replies: @Talha
    There has got to be a genetic test someone has to pass to prove at least 50% African descent right? Also, they can’t be like Obama whose Kenyan father was not descended from original slave stock.

    I would imagine this is an important litmus test. Also, have you seen the Dave Chappelle skit on reparations?

    Peace.
  148. @Talha

    4 white kids are going to grow up and not consider their mulatto sister as a sister?
     
    Highly doubtful - they are after all related by blood which is a bout as genetic as you get.

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.

    Time to rethink cousin-marriage and revive clans...?

    Peace.

    As for your fears, ?

    • Replies: @Talha

    You go where I fear to tread.
     
    Peace.
  149. @Audacious Epigone
    Wanting to marry into a nation's dominant racial group is a reasonable proxy for the desire to assimilate. Desire to maintain a distance--in this case genetically--is conversely a reasonable proxy for the opposite, what Derb calls "absimilation".

    It is part of the scramble for victim status. There seems to be no higher status than that of victim.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  150. @216

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don’t know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood…
     
    Mr. Kapernick's adoptive parents are some sort of white liberals, a lot of Boomercons made the dumb take that he was embarassing them.

    I often remark that Kapernick can pass as an Arab, and his girlfriend is Arab.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic…
     
    White + Hispanic = ~white
    White + South Asian = ~white
    White + East Asian = hapa
    White + Black = black
    White + Mixed/Other = Gabbard

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical…with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.
     
    No one backs the weak horse.

    ---

    Among racial groups, Mixed/Other is the second most likely to support the GOP. Any politics based on blood purity will result in their full radicalization to the 9-1 hate ratio that blacks display.

    The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean "strong state" model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can't/won't assimilate.

    In the current model, white conservatives love assimilation so much that their children assimilated to the dominant liberal culture.

    a revitalized Eurocentric culture

    So you want to do a reset just to see if we get back to this same point?

  151. All parents have their preferences. I am thankful that none of my three children married a black or a Jew. That is the honest truth.

    There is no way that any person who is not a member of either of those groups can stay married to any Black or Jew. The differences are too great and with all the problems experienced within a marriage to add another one would be insane.

  152. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    All of them would be wise to. You play the hand your dealt.

    An idea I've bandied about here that I'd like to investigate in more detail is to what extent white millennials consider interracial marriage for the benefit of their children.

    As a member of the group you are talking about, I’ll explain.

    This only applies if you are MMC, UMC, or UC, and your IQ is 115+, and you have a bachelor’s degree or higher. I don’t know or care what the proles are thinking.

    Interracial marriage is beneficial IF it’s a chance to “marry up” or if it’s your only chance of marriage at all.

    For instance, there’s a lot of White husband – Jewish wife couples among people in my parents and grandparents generations. I went to school with a ton of kids who have a Jewish mother or grandmother, but not the other way around. Why? Because the average White woman demands more alphaness from her husband than the average White man possesses. The average White woman wants a 6 while the average White man is a 5. In the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, it was common for nerdy White men to marry Jewish women – better choice than not marrying at all and being an incel. The average Jewish young woman wants a husband who is slightly more beta than what the average White woman wants. I don’t know why this lopsided marriage ratio between Whites and Jews suddenly became even in the 90s.

    So looking at White millennials, if you are a beta young man or an ugly or average looking young woman, you are better off marrying a Jew or Asian IF that person is higher IQ, more educated, and richer than what you could have gotten from a white person.

    Obviously, an ugly but high IQ White girl would rather marry a high IQ Asian doctor than some IQ 87 West Virginia meth addict.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It makes sense intuitively that someone of mixed race would put relatively more emphasis on class than on race.
  153. @iffen
    As for your fears, ?

    You go where I fear to tread.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Ahh, yes.

    I don't know why I said that I was afraid to think about someone having a mixed race kid for the sole reason of enabling that child to check a box when I have said that I think some women decide to have mixed race children in order to create a beige race and bring about world peace. And we could very likely have as the next President a woman who absurdly checked a box for personal advantage and we had a two term President who, had he not identified as black would not have been president.

    Still worried about dem Jews are up to, I see.

  154. @iffen
    More importantly, as you say, there are a lot of white voters that genuinely believe in reconciliation.

    #Truth and Reconciliation Commission (America)

    #Reparations: 40 Acres & a Mule + Interest

    #Reconciliation: All My White Sins Forgiven

    #Truth: No More Quotas

    There has got to be a genetic test someone has to pass to prove at least 50% African descent right? Also, they can’t be like Obama whose Kenyan father was not descended from original slave stock.

    I would imagine this is an important litmus test. Also, have you seen the Dave Chappelle skit on reparations?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It will be a part of that "conversation" that all the right people say we need to have, but we will never have it because what they really mean is stop thinking differently from me. Reparations will come to be a part of the white privilege ideology. It's not really about the "money," except that it really is about the money.

    I think that I saw parts of it. Black people shouldn't have to pay for products made of cotton, like cotton swabs.
  155. @Oblivionrecurs
    I've got a cousin who got impregnated by a black man as to destroy any chance the kid becomes Republican voting after evil orange man won. She wasn't the only one in her circle

    Someone has to volunteer for the Eloi Tax and self-nominate for a Darwin Award.

  156. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Truth
    The 1964 civil rights act offered every American the chance to live anywhere he can affiord... and no American the opportunity to tell any other American that he cannot live anywhere that he can afford.

    So what's wrong with that?

    The power to exclude is central to the freedom to not associate.

    The CRA of 1964 put the fist of the state into every human relationship. It’s not, “What’s wrong with that?” it’s “What fraction of that is right?”

    The answer is, not the smallest part.

    Positive rights vs negative rights. The former are defined by organized human coercion, the latter by nature’s barriers.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The power to exclude is central to the freedom to not associate."

    The power to include without malice or harm is paramount to the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the power to personally associate with anyone you desire. We have tried the experiment of enabling people through legal means to exclude whomever they choose from the body politic, as well as social institutions, and the result were Southrons (NOT Southerners) who repeatedly violated several Constitutional amendments. They got greedy--separate and unequal--which was not the ruling issued in the Plessy case.

    Remember, there were southern white people who desired to sell property to blacks, employ blacks and afford them equal wages and benefits, and marry blacks. These whites were denied their opportunity to exercise their freedom to associate in their own community through social pressure and by the force of law, i.e. organized human coercion. Indeed, the battle cry of Southrons was "What fraction of that is right?", with the resounding answer "Zero". Thus, the 1964 Civil Rights Act ensured that their ham fisted efforts to deny people fundamental liberties would be addressed by the rule of law.

  157. @Hannah Katz
    Interesting that while each group of course prefers their relatives marry within their own group (imagine that) but I noticed that every group's second choice is whites, and every group's last choice is blacks. Seems like racism by the Asians and Hispanics at least. How can this be since per the media whites are all terrible people and blacks are world renowned for their intelligence, hard work and loyalty to spouses? Can't the racists be arrested or something?

    Oh, good catch! I spent so much time trying to puzzle out how to read the graph that I missed that.

  158. @Audacious Epigone
    So intelligent and good looking that they're embarrassed by what they think and who they are?

    So intelligent and good looking that they’re embarrassed by what they think and who they are?

    Perhaps ten percent of Whites feel that way. When the next round of the global financial implosion hits that ten percent of Whites who feel that way can be expelled and forcibly exiled to sub-Saharan Africa. I am a jolly Andrew Jackson/George Washington White Core American and my radicalism is tempered by a decent and sweet disposition. But go they will if I am in command!

    The globalizer plutocrats are pulling out all the monetary extremism tricks because they know that very soon a political leader will emerge to begin the necessary mass demographic expulsions and mass debt repudiations to set the stage for a European Christian national sovereignty rejuvenation.

    Ruling class removal and replacement is the answer to race replacement and the weaponization of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Africa is a massive continent and I’m sure some land can be found to serve as a receptacle for all the Whites who hide their own greed and materialism behind the cloak of racial crybaby claptrap and racial self-abasement. I’m saying the White pukes pushing all this racial guilt tripping are nasty White frauds hiding their own greed and hatred for regular Whites.

    The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire must be removed from power. The key is to get the Anglo-Celts in the South and the German Americans in the Great Lakes states to form a White Core American bloc which can work with White Core Americans in the West and Northeast to become the new ruling class.

    White Core America must dislodge the JEW/WASP ruling class from power and take control of the American Empire and the United States of America.

  159. @216

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don’t know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood…
     
    Mr. Kapernick's adoptive parents are some sort of white liberals, a lot of Boomercons made the dumb take that he was embarassing them.

    I often remark that Kapernick can pass as an Arab, and his girlfriend is Arab.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic…
     
    White + Hispanic = ~white
    White + South Asian = ~white
    White + East Asian = hapa
    White + Black = black
    White + Mixed/Other = Gabbard

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical…with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.
     
    No one backs the weak horse.

    ---

    Among racial groups, Mixed/Other is the second most likely to support the GOP. Any politics based on blood purity will result in their full radicalization to the 9-1 hate ratio that blacks display.

    The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean "strong state" model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can't/won't assimilate.

    In the current model, white conservatives love assimilation so much that their children assimilated to the dominant liberal culture.

    Slightly OT:

    Hey, I may have a catchy motto for Singapore to bring in (or not) potential emigrants/tourists:

    We are Abel to Cain!

    ツ ツ ツ ツ

    Just kidding, AE !

  160. @Talha

    You go where I fear to tread.
     
    Peace.

    Ahh, yes.

    I don’t know why I said that I was afraid to think about someone having a mixed race kid for the sole reason of enabling that child to check a box when I have said that I think some women decide to have mixed race children in order to create a beige race and bring about world peace. And we could very likely have as the next President a woman who absurdly checked a box for personal advantage and we had a two term President who, had he not identified as black would not have been president.

    Still worried about dem Jews are up to, I see.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Still worried about dem Jews are up to, I see.
     
    Well those Israelis would certainly love it if people stopped being so nosy...

    “Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House
    The likely Israeli spying efforts were uncovered during the Trump presidency, several former top U.S. officials said.”
    https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351

    Peace.
  161. @Talha
    There has got to be a genetic test someone has to pass to prove at least 50% African descent right? Also, they can’t be like Obama whose Kenyan father was not descended from original slave stock.

    I would imagine this is an important litmus test. Also, have you seen the Dave Chappelle skit on reparations?

    Peace.

    It will be a part of that “conversation” that all the right people say we need to have, but we will never have it because what they really mean is stop thinking differently from me. Reparations will come to be a part of the white privilege ideology. It’s not really about the “money,” except that it really is about the money.

    I think that I saw parts of it. Black people shouldn’t have to pay for products made of cotton, like cotton swabs.

    • LOL: Talha
  162. @iffen
    Ahh, yes.

    I don't know why I said that I was afraid to think about someone having a mixed race kid for the sole reason of enabling that child to check a box when I have said that I think some women decide to have mixed race children in order to create a beige race and bring about world peace. And we could very likely have as the next President a woman who absurdly checked a box for personal advantage and we had a two term President who, had he not identified as black would not have been president.

    Still worried about dem Jews are up to, I see.

    Still worried about dem Jews are up to, I see.

    Well those Israelis would certainly love it if people stopped being so nosy…

    “Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House
    The likely Israeli spying efforts were uncovered during the Trump presidency, several former top U.S. officials said.”
    https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351

    Peace.

  163. @Twinkie

    Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race
     
    The latter have a substantial fraction of white ancestry.

    I’ve never seen Ethiopians who look like Ben Jealous, the last head of NAACP, and a “black” person in America.

    https://images.app.goo.gl/Pvimg5DQ7whKoJP3A

    You’re defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct.
     
    Ethnicity is also both a biological and a social construct.

    I’ve never seen Ethiopians who look like Ben Jealous, the last head of NAACP, and a “black” person in America.

    Ben Jealous is literally 81% white, as determined on the Henry Louis Gates show. Even HLG, himself 50% white, made fun of Ben Jealous, saying ‘you are the whitest black man we have ever tested’.

  164. @Known Fact
    A helluva lot of radio ads lecture to listeners in a wise, Morgan Freemanesque black voice

    How could I forget – Morgan Freeman … another Hollywood-touted fiction of intellect and wisdom.

    When I watched Lucy for the first time on DVD I should’ve predicted that the world’s foremost authority on brain research was going to be either Morgan or Denzel.

  165. @Thomm
    Plus, there is considerable data to prove that among 2nd gen Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, intermarriage rates exceed 30% (and over 90% of those are with whites).

    over a third of births to asian women in the USA have a non – asian father ( mostly white) , since asian have the lowest fertility rate ,without immigration their population would decline

    • Replies: @Thomm

    over a third of births to asian women in the USA have a non – asian father ( mostly white) , since asian have the lowest fertility rate ,without immigration their population would declin
     
    True.

    Plus, it seems that a third of second-gen Hispanics also marry whites. This is a much larger number than Asians.

    The fact remains, over 20% of babies born in the US are mixed-race now, and 89% of those are half-white. I am quite certain that half-white/half-Asian, and half-white/half-mestizo people will not be considered 'non-white' in a visual/social sense in the future.

    One interesting pairup that is common in California is Filipinos + Mexicans. Filipinos are nominally 'Hispanic', so their intermarriage with Mexicans is to be expected. People of this racial mix are difficult for the unfamiliar to place.

  166. @ariel
    over a third of births to asian women in the USA have a non - asian father ( mostly white) , since asian have the lowest fertility rate ,without immigration their population would decline

    over a third of births to asian women in the USA have a non – asian father ( mostly white) , since asian have the lowest fertility rate ,without immigration their population would declin

    True.

    Plus, it seems that a third of second-gen Hispanics also marry whites. This is a much larger number than Asians.

    The fact remains, over 20% of babies born in the US are mixed-race now, and 89% of those are half-white. I am quite certain that half-white/half-Asian, and half-white/half-mestizo people will not be considered ‘non-white’ in a visual/social sense in the future.

    One interesting pairup that is common in California is Filipinos + Mexicans. Filipinos are nominally ‘Hispanic’, so their intermarriage with Mexicans is to be expected. People of this racial mix are difficult for the unfamiliar to place.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Plus, it seems that a third of second-gen Hispanics also marry whites. This is a much larger number than Asians.
     
    That’s because there are 2-3 times as many Hispanics as there are Asians in America, and a higher fraction of Hispanics are American-born on top of that. In percentage terms, Asians, esp. the American-born, have higher intermarriage rates with whites than Hispanics do.* And the SES of white partners also varies quite predictably (higher for Asians, lower for Hispanics). Moreover, offspring of white-Asian marriages identify as white at higher rates than do those of white-Hispanic marriages (the data I saw doesn’t explicitly state this, but it can be inferred negatively from whether they identify as Asian or Hispanic, respectively).

    *This will likely change as the Asian population in America becomes increasingly more Indian, as Indians have lower intermarriage rates.

  167. “Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue.”

    No. Just an accurate understanding of how skin color dynamics has developed. Skin color is an adaptation of human biology, it does denote one as anything other than human.

    Skin color trait : most meanings assigned to skin color regarding subjective standards of evaluation are social constructs. Though intense effort has been invested to indicate otherwise, the biological standard for humans as biological creatures is DNA and design of the same. And across the board the most consistent biological markers are

    DNA number and configuration.

    From there we have adaptation(s)
    And social assignment

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I don’t think he’s referring to skin color per se, but to the fact that races are, broadly-speaking, genetic clusters. In other words, races have a very firm basis in biology (I would further add that the membership therein, largely because of boundary issues, is socially mediated).
  168. @EliteCommInc.
    "Anyone that states that race is a social construct has been into the airplane glue."


    No. Just an accurate understanding of how skin color dynamics has developed. Skin color is an adaptation of human biology, it does denote one as anything other than human.

    Skin color trait : most meanings assigned to skin color regarding subjective standards of evaluation are social constructs. Though intense effort has been invested to indicate otherwise, the biological standard for humans as biological creatures is DNA and design of the same. And across the board the most consistent biological markers are

    DNA number and configuration.

    From there we have adaptation(s)
    And social assignment

    I don’t think he’s referring to skin color per se, but to the fact that races are, broadly-speaking, genetic clusters. In other words, races have a very firm basis in biology (I would further add that the membership therein, largely because of boundary issues, is socially mediated).

  169. @Thomm

    over a third of births to asian women in the USA have a non – asian father ( mostly white) , since asian have the lowest fertility rate ,without immigration their population would declin
     
    True.

    Plus, it seems that a third of second-gen Hispanics also marry whites. This is a much larger number than Asians.

    The fact remains, over 20% of babies born in the US are mixed-race now, and 89% of those are half-white. I am quite certain that half-white/half-Asian, and half-white/half-mestizo people will not be considered 'non-white' in a visual/social sense in the future.

    One interesting pairup that is common in California is Filipinos + Mexicans. Filipinos are nominally 'Hispanic', so their intermarriage with Mexicans is to be expected. People of this racial mix are difficult for the unfamiliar to place.

    Plus, it seems that a third of second-gen Hispanics also marry whites. This is a much larger number than Asians.

    That’s because there are 2-3 times as many Hispanics as there are Asians in America, and a higher fraction of Hispanics are American-born on top of that. In percentage terms, Asians, esp. the American-born, have higher intermarriage rates with whites than Hispanics do.* And the SES of white partners also varies quite predictably (higher for Asians, lower for Hispanics). Moreover, offspring of white-Asian marriages identify as white at higher rates than do those of white-Hispanic marriages (the data I saw doesn’t explicitly state this, but it can be inferred negatively from whether they identify as Asian or Hispanic, respectively).

    *This will likely change as the Asian population in America becomes increasingly more Indian, as Indians have lower intermarriage rates.

  170. “I don’t think he’s referring to skin color per se, but to the fact that races are, broadly-speaking, genetic clusters.”

    Try as we might to distance ourselves from the historic trope of color to race motif, it simply repeatedly fails as the comments routinely reveal that in most minds when differences are denoted by “skin color”.

    Despite the strained effort at nuance, the meaning is clear. Hence the constant reference to skin color and “racialized” distinctions. It’s akin to the attempt to distinguish Jews from Europe from “whiteness” — very strained pedantic mess.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    I agree. Skin color is huge. I am always perceived as white by both whites and non-whites. The vast majority have no interest in breaking it down any further.
    , @Thomm

    Try as we might to distance ourselves from the historic trope of color to race motif, it simply repeatedly fails as the comments routinely reveal that in most minds when differences are denoted by “skin color”.
     
    OK. Then both Jews and most East Asians are white. Many Middle Easterners (Lebanese, Syrians, Turks, and some Iranians) are white too.
  171. @EliteCommInc.
    "I don’t think he’s referring to skin color per se, but to the fact that races are, broadly-speaking, genetic clusters."


    Try as we might to distance ourselves from the historic trope of color to race motif, it simply repeatedly fails as the comments routinely reveal that in most minds when differences are denoted by "skin color".


    Despite the strained effort at nuance, the meaning is clear. Hence the constant reference to skin color and "racialized" distinctions. It's akin to the attempt to distinguish Jews from Europe from "whiteness" -- very strained pedantic mess.

    I agree. Skin color is huge. I am always perceived as white by both whites and non-whites. The vast majority have no interest in breaking it down any further.

  172. “The vast majority have no interest in breaking it down any further.”

    In my view, your skin tone is not a marker that you are a different species or any manner of subgrouping of human being.

    Biological construct – absolutely. Whether that makes you a different “race”(species) — dubious.

  173. @Anonymous
    You're forgetting that the majority of White Americans are non-SWPL. That is to say, they are not UC or UMC. Not even MMC.

    About 59% of White Americans are proles. Meaning, they are LC or LMC. Only 41% of us are MMC, UMC, or UC.

    Among LC and LMC Whites, your cousin marrying a Hispanic is greatly preferable to him marrying an Asian. Most LC and LMC Whites don't hate Asians, they just think that they are weird. Whereas prole Whites have a lot more interaction with Hispanics, and thus don't think they are as weird.

    Among MMC, UMC, and UC Whites, your cousin marrying an Asian or Jew is greatly preferable to him marrying a Hispanic. Hispanics are perceived the same way as Blacks and prole Whites. Whereas Jews and Asians are seen as socially, economically, and educationally "in the same ballpark" as SWPLs.

    The class angle is very interesting. I’m going to do additional posts looking at it in more detail.

  174. @Audacious Epigone
    The American Indian inflation must be a big part of the explanation for Oklahoma. It's otherwise inexplicable, isn't it?

    The American Indian inflation must be a big part of the explanation for Oklahoma. It’s otherwise inexplicable, isn’t it?

    I was wondering the same thing.

    Every other state correlates exactly to cumulative percentage + duration of Asian and/or Hispanic presence there (i.e. are there 2nd gen adults there as of yet), and hence no number is a surprise except OK.

    Black-white is unlikely to ever become a large fraction of interracial reproduction. Blacks have been here since the beginning, and are numerous, yet are just 11% of interracial marriages.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  175. @EliteCommInc.
    "I don’t think he’s referring to skin color per se, but to the fact that races are, broadly-speaking, genetic clusters."


    Try as we might to distance ourselves from the historic trope of color to race motif, it simply repeatedly fails as the comments routinely reveal that in most minds when differences are denoted by "skin color".


    Despite the strained effort at nuance, the meaning is clear. Hence the constant reference to skin color and "racialized" distinctions. It's akin to the attempt to distinguish Jews from Europe from "whiteness" -- very strained pedantic mess.

    Try as we might to distance ourselves from the historic trope of color to race motif, it simply repeatedly fails as the comments routinely reveal that in most minds when differences are denoted by “skin color”.

    OK. Then both Jews and most East Asians are white. Many Middle Easterners (Lebanese, Syrians, Turks, and some Iranians) are white too.

  176. @S. M. Coulton
    Uh, no it fucking does not.

    Uh, no it fucking does not.

    Yes it does. The vertical bar in comment #3 shows that 89% of all interracial marriage involves a white spouse. Only the remaining 11% comprise all possible non-white combinations.

    Furthermore, your chart supports my statement, and refutes yours. Look closely at your own chart. It does NOT indicate that Hispanic-black, or Asian-black, is very common at all.

    I understand that you may not know how to read graphs and charts.

    • Replies: @S. M. Coulton
    Are you fucking retarded or something? Yes you are. Your chart does not even plot the distribution of interracial pairings and my chart (whch does) clearly shows that interacial Asian pairings are roughly half distributed between white/nonwhite and that Hispanics (bogus category anyway) are roughly 80/20.
  177. @Mark G.
    I would think these marriage preferences might provide some ideas about possible political coalitions. For example, Asians would want to marry a white at double the rate they would want to marry a black. When they currently go into a voting booth, though, they'll vote for the Democrat party that most blacks vote for rather than the Republican party that most whites vote for. It might be possible for Republicans to emphasize or deemphasize certain issues that would attract Asians. Repealing affirmative action that benefits blacks but hurt Asians is one thing I can think of immediately. Black criminals like to target Asians (and also Hispanics) but the Democrat party is soft on black crime so a law and order Republican could pick up Asian (and some Hispanic) voters along with white voters. There are other issues like that. Whites may have a shrinking majority of the population but they can exploit the fact that other racial groups dislike each other more than they dislike whites. Even in places where they are the minority, whites could be the compromise candidate that is acceptable to all the other racial groups and still get elected that way.

    You’re not going to convince a lot of people to vote Republican until the GOP 86’s the Boomer culture war crapola that solidifies the votes of 60 year olds in the rural Midwest. Right now the GOP can count on Leftist culture war over-reach to make themselves seem saner, but only for so long*.

    Both parties need to jettison the culture war crap and restore New Deal economic and political norms. But, and this is key, the Republican flavor** of the culture war has almost no appeal to people under 40, whereas SJW stuff is very appealing to non-whites and well-educated younger whites.

    *What is the GOP doing to rein in campus propaganda excess, and civil rights violations? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. The GOP has known since the 70’s that colleges have increasingly favored activism over education, yet the GOP does nothing. Just like how the modern GOP, in spite of being in the White House longer than the Dems since 1968, never seems to shut down gay bars, repeal affirmative action, ban dangerous forms of pornography, restrict venues for gambling, and so forth. The GOP are con artists, pure and simple. When Democrats had more power in the 1930’s-1960’s, that’s precisely when our culture was more wholesome. As soon as we became more individualistic around 1970, and began voting more for the GOP, that’s exactly when we began sliding down the path of decadence, which the GOP than glibly blames on “Leftists”. And there’s no greater betrayal than immigration and the borders. Reagan had a looser border policy than JKF and LBJ did. GW Bush had a looser border policy than Bill Clinton did. Papa Bush signed the 1990 immigration act, one of the worst pieces of legislation in US history (the Visa lottery, expanded chain migration, etc.) that drastically increased 3rd world immigration. Trump’s border policy has been worse than the one we had in Obama’s first term.

    **I’m talking about what the GOP donor class has allowed, since the 80’s, not what some on the Right have been hallucinating as to the GOP’s actual policies. The GOP is not “the white party”, and is certainly not the working class party on most issues. It’s only the excesses of the Woke era that allow the GOP to posture as the populist party (wake up: Tucker Carlson represents ideal New Deal norms, not the actual norms that the GOP establishment has created over the last 50 years) or the nominal pro-white party.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As soon as we became more individualistic around 1970, and began voting more for the GOP, that’s exactly when we began sliding down the path of decadence, which the GOP than glibly blames on “Leftists”.
     
    Yes, there's a lot of truth in that.

    And interestingly you see the same story in other countries. In Britain the Conservative Party has done more to encourage degeneracy and decadence than Labour. Blair was a disaster but Thatcher, Cameron and May were worse. No-one did more to wreck traditional Britain than Thatcher. In Australia the supposedly conservative LNP led the push for homosexual marriage.

    Decadence is mostly a right-wing thing. Free markets, open borders and the encouragement of degeneracy all go together.
  178. @Jay Fink
    I wonder if there is any data to support my observations that black male/white female couples are more downscale than the reverse? (which is more rare).

    For Hispanics I would suspect generation plays a huge role, especially the language aspect. Spanish speaking Hispanics who know little or no English obviously would stick with other Hispanics. For the opposite extreme, 2nd or 3rd gen Hispanics who only speak English intermarriage would be more common.

    I wonder if there is any data to support my observations that black male/white female couples are more downscale than the reverse? (which is more rare).

    The chart in this post shows that white-black pairings are actually rather unusual, but I live in a more prole-ish suburban part of the Twin Cities metro area, which is now about 60-70% white (back in the late 90’s it was more like 85% white) and I’m seeing way more white female/black male pairings these days than I ever did in the pre-Obama era. I have a hunch, though, that the upper tier neighborhoods are still largely full of white couples, albeit with a growing number of Asians and talented 10th NAMs.

    I heard a liberal (but not SJW) podcaster acknowledge that black-white pairings are much more common among downscale Americans, whites included. He said that white liberals tend often to live in more affluent (e.g., white) enclaves, and generally marry other whites.

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90’s or 2000’s. It does seem like the 1980’s was the last decade where 95% of whites refused to have long-term relationships with non-whites, and blacks in particular.

    • Replies: @S. M. Coulton

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90’s or 2000’s.
     
    Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia.
  179. @Oblivionrecurs
    I've got a cousin who got impregnated by a black man as to destroy any chance the kid becomes Republican voting after evil orange man won. She wasn't the only one in her circle

    That could well be the offensive side of the same coin, the defensive side being to give her child a leg up and shield him from being taught through school and in media that he is sinful and responsible for all the world’s problems.

  180. @dfordoom


    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

     

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.
     
    You think so?

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That's undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it's true.

    I think it's fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians. So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists. And I'm guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW. All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    In the real world religion and culture (and even political ideology) often trumps race.

    I think it’s fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians.

    So what? Even if this is true, it reveals little about racial preferences, unless one assumes it’s always an either/or proposition, as you posit below.

    So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists.

    Or might well not. Just assumptions, which AE’s chart suggest are not so.

    And I’m guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW.

    Again, “guessing”, and my guess is “Pakistanis” are far less forgiving of marrying outside their tribe, irrespective of religion, than many other groups.

    All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    Which actually says nothing about their preferences for marriage.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.
     
    Which actually says nothing about their preferences for marriage.
     
    It actually says everything about their preferences for marriage. It says that class (and being a liberal is very much a class thing), culture and political ideology are as important as race.

    I'm not arguing that race doesn't exist or that it's not important to people. I'm simply arguing that other things are just as important.

    Would you honestly like your granddaughter to be a blue-haired Democrat-voting lesbian SJW?
  181. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I think you're off here. The Sailer Strategy in his own words:

    "“The Sailer Strategy”—that the Republican Party should and can only win, not through “outreach”/minority pandering, but by “inreach”/mobilizing its own (white) base"

    https://vdare.com/articles/the-sailer-strategy-updated-three-steps-to-save-america

    Trump won by doing pretty much the above.

    Those are two separate strategies.

    Or more accurately, yours is Steve’s signature strategy while making the Democrats the Black party is more of an accompanying tactic.

    Indeed, it looks like in 2009 he wrote Sailer Strategy Supplement: Rebrand Democrats As The Black Party.

  182. @Talha

    4 white kids are going to grow up and not consider their mulatto sister as a sister?
     
    Highly doubtful - they are after all related by blood which is a bout as genetic as you get.

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.

    Time to rethink cousin-marriage and revive clans...?

    Peace.

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.

    Telling women to put off the securing of a male protector, and go to college alone for the sake of “building a career” tells you all you need to know. Do modern Westerners ever care to consider why women end up being raped, or addicted to drugs, or turning to prostitution (on camera or off)?

    Sadly, atomized Westerners care more about status than they do over-all cultural and mental well-being. Padding your resume, and focusing on “competition”, is more important than looking out for the long-term survival of your genetics.

    It’s safe to say that Western European individualism had it’s virtues, but it’s now clearly being used and abused for the sake of furthering decadence and disease. And when “liberty” in white Western countries was chiefly for law abiding white men, that was one thing. But now we expect women and non-Europeans to somehow thrive in this sort of culture. And this is self-evidently disastrous, as our culture has been increasingly coarse, dumbed down, and not oriented toward long term security, ever since white Western elites thought that their culture would be “enhanced” by giving greater largess to “historically disadvantaged” (or historically weak and/or absent from the white West) groups. Those who are neither white nor male (and those who are just plain dumb or mentally ill, including some white guys) are never going to fully understand and respect the principles of Western intellectual and personal freedom that date back to ancient Rome. And that’s not necessarily a criticism of women or non-whites; rather, we need to understand the differences between ethnic groups and between the two genders. Appreciating these differences won’t “hurt” women and non-whites (which white Westerners have often claimed for the last 50 years); rather, it will insure that white Western men can prolong the culture for which they were once justifiably proud.

    The modern West is actively going backward in terms of over-all cultural freedom (of which freedom of speech is the most important), due to the (heavily contrived) advancement of women and non-whites and the growing pressure to never say anything negative about these two groups or the practices intended to help them (like affirmative action, hate speech codes, and dumbed down schools).

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hate+speech&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0

    “Hate speech” is not have wider usage until after 1987.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dumbing+down&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0

    “Dumbing down” begins to see greater usage in the 1980’s.

    The late 80’s is when it was becoming apparent that women and non-Asian minorities generally struggle to compete with elite white and Asian men in many fields. But this is also when “white” countries began to see rapid increases in the non-white population, and more women going to college. You see what’s going on here? The continuous disappointing performance of women and NAMs has led to growing efforts to both outlaw criticism of minorities and make studies easier (so Suzy, Juan, and Tyrone don’t get a massive headache from high-ed course with 1950’s level rigor).

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Except white "Westerners" are looking out for the long-term survival of their genetics, and are prolonging their culture, just in ways you personally find distasteful. Perhaps these "racial and gender differences" are not as important to them compared to yourself.
    , @Talha

    individualism had it’s virtues, but it’s now clearly being used and abused for the sake of furthering decadence and disease
     
    This seems to be the inevitable cycle that civilizations caught up in individualism tend to suffer. You would hope people would only use their freedoms for noble and moral ends, but "muh on-demand porn" style decadence seems to crop up in various incarnations:
    https://www.planetpompeii.com/public/news/terme-home.jpg

    As for the rest of your comment; I personally like the idea of a meritocracy, but it should really be one that simply allows people to achieve to the potential that they can and not handicap some to play with others.

    Peace.
  183. @Anonymous
    As a member of the group you are talking about, I'll explain.

    This only applies if you are MMC, UMC, or UC, and your IQ is 115+, and you have a bachelor's degree or higher. I don't know or care what the proles are thinking.

    Interracial marriage is beneficial IF it's a chance to "marry up" or if it's your only chance of marriage at all.

    For instance, there's a lot of White husband - Jewish wife couples among people in my parents and grandparents generations. I went to school with a ton of kids who have a Jewish mother or grandmother, but not the other way around. Why? Because the average White woman demands more alphaness from her husband than the average White man possesses. The average White woman wants a 6 while the average White man is a 5. In the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, it was common for nerdy White men to marry Jewish women - better choice than not marrying at all and being an incel. The average Jewish young woman wants a husband who is slightly more beta than what the average White woman wants. I don't know why this lopsided marriage ratio between Whites and Jews suddenly became even in the 90s.

    So looking at White millennials, if you are a beta young man or an ugly or average looking young woman, you are better off marrying a Jew or Asian IF that person is higher IQ, more educated, and richer than what you could have gotten from a white person.

    Obviously, an ugly but high IQ White girl would rather marry a high IQ Asian doctor than some IQ 87 West Virginia meth addict.

    It makes sense intuitively that someone of mixed race would put relatively more emphasis on class than on race.

  184. @Feryl
    You're not going to convince a lot of people to vote Republican until the GOP 86's the Boomer culture war crapola that solidifies the votes of 60 year olds in the rural Midwest. Right now the GOP can count on Leftist culture war over-reach to make themselves seem saner, but only for so long*.

    Both parties need to jettison the culture war crap and restore New Deal economic and political norms. But, and this is key, the Republican flavor** of the culture war has almost no appeal to people under 40, whereas SJW stuff is very appealing to non-whites and well-educated younger whites.

    *What is the GOP doing to rein in campus propaganda excess, and civil rights violations? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. The GOP has known since the 70's that colleges have increasingly favored activism over education, yet the GOP does nothing. Just like how the modern GOP, in spite of being in the White House longer than the Dems since 1968, never seems to shut down gay bars, repeal affirmative action, ban dangerous forms of pornography, restrict venues for gambling, and so forth. The GOP are con artists, pure and simple. When Democrats had more power in the 1930's-1960's, that's precisely when our culture was more wholesome. As soon as we became more individualistic around 1970, and began voting more for the GOP, that's exactly when we began sliding down the path of decadence, which the GOP than glibly blames on "Leftists". And there's no greater betrayal than immigration and the borders. Reagan had a looser border policy than JKF and LBJ did. GW Bush had a looser border policy than Bill Clinton did. Papa Bush signed the 1990 immigration act, one of the worst pieces of legislation in US history (the Visa lottery, expanded chain migration, etc.) that drastically increased 3rd world immigration. Trump's border policy has been worse than the one we had in Obama's first term.

    **I'm talking about what the GOP donor class has allowed, since the 80's, not what some on the Right have been hallucinating as to the GOP's actual policies. The GOP is not "the white party", and is certainly not the working class party on most issues. It's only the excesses of the Woke era that allow the GOP to posture as the populist party (wake up: Tucker Carlson represents ideal New Deal norms, not the actual norms that the GOP establishment has created over the last 50 years) or the nominal pro-white party.

    As soon as we became more individualistic around 1970, and began voting more for the GOP, that’s exactly when we began sliding down the path of decadence, which the GOP than glibly blames on “Leftists”.

    Yes, there’s a lot of truth in that.

    And interestingly you see the same story in other countries. In Britain the Conservative Party has done more to encourage degeneracy and decadence than Labour. Blair was a disaster but Thatcher, Cameron and May were worse. No-one did more to wreck traditional Britain than Thatcher. In Australia the supposedly conservative LNP led the push for homosexual marriage.

    Decadence is mostly a right-wing thing. Free markets, open borders and the encouragement of degeneracy all go together.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    But the strange thing is that the populace has to some degree (albeit not to New Deal era levels) chosen on it's own to not be as degenerate as it could be; the authorities since the 70's have put less and less effort into regulating many things, only going after the most obvious things like violent criminals and hard drugs. But asking the populace to regulate itself is a dubious proposition, since things like dangerous dog ownership, risky stock market plays, obesity levels, production (and therefore consumption) of extreme porno and so on are all clearly much worse nowadays than they were in the 1930's-1960's.

    Some forms of degeneracy were at their worst in the 70's and 80's, but have since gotten better(the the young generations of that time thought they were rebelling against "squares). That being said, if we returned to New Deal norms of tightly knit communities policing their residents (which would put gambling, homosexuality, obesity, and dangerous use of drugs and alcohol back on the margins where they belong) that would go a long way towards reducing most of the excesses that have been a clear problem since the 70's.

    I've tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism; there is the Anglo neo-liberal camp that attempts to shrink or co-opt the government so that profit motivated "private" sector entities get their way. Then there is the cultural traditionalist conservative camp that seeks to maintain order and tradition, even if it means trampling on ostensible rights. A big reason self-described conservatives are often unhappy is because there is always a tug of war between the anti-statist social Darwinists (libertarians) and the morally driven cultural types. Both sides always have their guard up that the other side is trying to strangle them. On the other hand, left-liberals generally don't have to deal with this same tension and division.

    The neo-lib era has been about "conservatives" using big government for policing of street crime* and war, to the point that the government is actually bigger now than it was in the 70's. But since corporate monopolies grow unchecked and the wealthy are asked to shoulder less and less of the financial burden, the modern establishment Right is evidently just fine with today's variant of big government.

    WRT freedom, there is intellectual freedom, financial freedom (as in you have enough money to get by), and cultural freedom. Though the right makes a big deal out of "freedom", the reality is that intellectual freedom has been under siege since the late 80's beginnings of PC and corporate enforced doctrine regarding "sensitivity" and "safety". Financial freedom is enjoyed by the top 20%, but the other 80% are poorly paid, don't own much property or stocks (so they can't gain wealth from asset appreciation), and deal with massive healthcare, education, and housing costs). Not at all like the 1940's-early 1970's when more and more people could easily afford to start a family. Cultural freedom regarding marijuana, prostitution, porn, gambling, video game playing, etc. is certainly higher now than it was 50, or 60, or 70 years ago (although police state measures regarding drunk driving appear to have heavily diminished the appeal of even rather casual drinking). And theaters no longer admit minors to R-rated movies like they did in the 80's and early 90's. So I suppose on the cultural front it's a mixed bag.

    Overall, though, the trend is toward too much of the wrong kind of freedom (cultural freedom) and not enough of the good kind of freedom (intellectual and financial freedom).
  185. @Oleaginous Outrager

    I think it’s fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians.
     
    So what? Even if this is true, it reveals little about racial preferences, unless one assumes it's always an either/or proposition, as you posit below.

    So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists.
     
    Or might well not. Just assumptions, which AE's chart suggest are not so.

    And I’m guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW.
     
    Again, "guessing", and my guess is "Pakistanis" are far less forgiving of marrying outside their tribe, irrespective of religion, than many other groups.

    All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.
     
    Which actually says nothing about their preferences for marriage.

    All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    Which actually says nothing about their preferences for marriage.

    It actually says everything about their preferences for marriage. It says that class (and being a liberal is very much a class thing), culture and political ideology are as important as race.

    I’m not arguing that race doesn’t exist or that it’s not important to people. I’m simply arguing that other things are just as important.

    Would you honestly like your granddaughter to be a blue-haired Democrat-voting lesbian SJW?

  186. @Talha
    He's right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    https://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/mma/players/full/2611557.png

    Here's another guy - same area, Daghestan:
    https://statics.sportskeeda.com/editor/2019/09/0cfc2-15684595089430-800.jpg

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

    If he’s caucasian, he’s white in the case that the term is being used for the race of people collectively referred to as white people. Of course, Caucasian is an ethnicity, as well, since the Caucasus is a geographical area. Good thing you posted pics. That makes it easier.

    • Agree: Talha
  187. @Rosie

    I think that you simply evaluate a commenter based upon the degree with which he agrees with you. That’s a valid criterion for you, but it does not scale into the real world.
     
    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but why would I not assume this? It's not as though I just picked my opinions at random from a basket. I hold the opinions I hold because I have evaluated the evidence and applied the rules of logic to arrive at what I believe to be sound conclusions.

    Take the fact that men are better at math than women. I don't particularly like this fact, but I acknowledge it nonetheless. Relatively few around here are as intellectually honest as that. They cherry pick evidence, hold double standards, and refuse to own up to the logical implications of their premises.

    The white race is not disappearing.
     


    You only say that because you're not projecting trends into the future. There are no Whites in India, few in North Africa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    The extent to which a commenter agrees with me is a reasonably good proxy for how intelligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded they are.

    …Well isn’t that special.

  188. @Hannah Katz
    Interesting that while each group of course prefers their relatives marry within their own group (imagine that) but I noticed that every group's second choice is whites, and every group's last choice is blacks. Seems like racism by the Asians and Hispanics at least. How can this be since per the media whites are all terrible people and blacks are world renowned for their intelligence, hard work and loyalty to spouses? Can't the racists be arrested or something?

    Money?

  189. @Thomm

    Uh, no it fucking does not.
     
    Yes it does. The vertical bar in comment #3 shows that 89% of all interracial marriage involves a white spouse. Only the remaining 11% comprise all possible non-white combinations.

    Furthermore, your chart supports my statement, and refutes yours. Look closely at your own chart. It does NOT indicate that Hispanic-black, or Asian-black, is very common at all.

    I understand that you may not know how to read graphs and charts.

    Are you fucking retarded or something? Yes you are. Your chart does not even plot the distribution of interracial pairings and my chart (whch does) clearly shows that interacial Asian pairings are roughly half distributed between white/nonwhite and that Hispanics (bogus category anyway) are roughly 80/20.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Your chart does not even plot the distribution of interracial pairings and my chart (whch does) clearly shows that interacial Asian pairings are roughly half distributed between white/nonwhite and that Hispanics (bogus category anyway) are roughly 80/20.
     
    My chart indicates that 89% of all interracial pairings involve one white spouse. That means only 11% do not.

    Your chart largely corroborates this.

    What you are screeching about is that half of Asians don't outmarry, while half do. But the half that do still overwhelmingly go for whites.

    Note that in your chart, a Korean marrying a Chinese still counts as interethnic, when at the interracial level, that would not register.

    For clarity, your claim is that half of Asians that marry interracially marry non-whites. No one else here supports your claim, btw.

    In other words, your claim is only true if you count Chinese-Korean, or Japanese-Filipino, or Vietnamese-Cambodian marriages as 'interracial'. Of course, no one here does that.

    Are you a White Trashionalist? Members of that group are infamously bad at reading graphs and charts.

  190. @dfordoom

    what kind of incredibly inane person cares about the politics of their grandchild?
     
    Liberals. Ask a liberal how he or she feels about their grandson who has just announced that he's voting for Trump in 2020. Ask a liberal Londoner how she feels about her granddaughter who's just admitted to being a Brexit supporter. Ask liberals how they'd feel if their grandkid announced at Thanksgiving dinner that he thought climate change was a hoax. Or that immigration should be halted.

    The one question that I always want to ask a liberal is “WTF is wrong with you?”

  191. @Twinkie

    But it’s good you consider him White
     
    A fun question for Rosie and her ilk: would you like to raise your children in Chechnya with their fellow white people or in, say, Singapore?

    Well Twinx, I mean, an alpha like yourself would be doing your children a disservice by raising them in Singapore (or Kentucky) instead of Chechnya. Think about it, a Christian, American, mixed-race, ex US Military family in Chechnya?!? think of all the great sparring, daily, that you and the boys would get, even when you didn’t want it!

    And your daughters? 100m Olympic sprint champions for sure. I mean, as they say repitition is the mother of skill, and y’all’s judo would improve precipitiously if the rules were kill or die.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If it's Judo to the death, no one is going to be sticking to judo, I assure you.
  192. @Feryl
    I wonder if there is any data to support my observations that black male/white female couples are more downscale than the reverse? (which is more rare).

    The chart in this post shows that white-black pairings are actually rather unusual, but I live in a more prole-ish suburban part of the Twin Cities metro area, which is now about 60-70% white (back in the late 90's it was more like 85% white) and I'm seeing way more white female/black male pairings these days than I ever did in the pre-Obama era. I have a hunch, though, that the upper tier neighborhoods are still largely full of white couples, albeit with a growing number of Asians and talented 10th NAMs.

    I heard a liberal (but not SJW) podcaster acknowledge that black-white pairings are much more common among downscale Americans, whites included. He said that white liberals tend often to live in more affluent (e.g., white) enclaves, and generally marry other whites.

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90's or 2000's. It does seem like the 1980's was the last decade where 95% of whites refused to have long-term relationships with non-whites, and blacks in particular.

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90’s or 2000’s.

    Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    No, it's area-dependent. If you've lived in a once middle-middle class Midwestern suburban area that now is home to more prole trashy white girls dating black guys or toting around Uncle Sam funded mulatto kids, then that is going to leave an impression. Elite whites are still very resistant to black-white pairings in their own lives (how many blacks do you see with Jewish biological parents?), but a lot of prole white girls are still getting knocked up by black dudes.

    I think we're seeing more and more evidence of the elite-prole divide that's been widening for 50 years. There are now large chunks of the Northeast, Midwest, and South full of hopeless section 8'ers and SSI recipients, white and black alike. They are being left behind, and often are breeding with each other across the racial aisle at a rate far higher than what we saw pre-1990 (per Charles Murray, the 90's is when elite and prole whites fully split from each other). But the Western US, and the affluent areas of the Northeast, Midwest, and South, house affluent whites and a growing number of Asians and talented tenth Hispanics. Here, interracial dating when it does happen usually doesn't involve the most undesirable/poor/incarcerated demographic, black males.

    But my over-all point that the current dating patterns of whites is science-fiction from the perspective of pre-1990 America still stands.
    , @cmpx
    "Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia."

    This is not true at all. Back when the CDC website had easily viewable data on interracial births, I remember seeing that BMWF births were increasing year after year until 2014, which is the last year for which they had easily viewable data. And that's consistent with what I see IRL.
  193. @iffen
    So what’s wrong with that?

    I don't have enough money to live in a mansion in a gated community.

    This is a capitalist county, Boris, argubably the most capitalist in history, and that is a personal problem.

  194. @dfordoom


    I’m guessing that most people would feel differently about their daughter deciding to marry a subcontinental Hindu or a nice South Korean Christian boy.

     

    Would they? That’s a very doubtful assumption.
     
    You think so?

    White nationalists are fond of saying that people would like their grandchildren to resemble them. That's undoubtedly true, but not necessarily in the way that white nationalists think it's true.

    I think it's fair to say that most Christians would like their grandchildren to be Christians. So they might well prefer their children to marry black Christians rather than white atheists. And I'm guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW. All liberals would like their grandchildren to be liberals, regardless of colour.

    In the real world religion and culture (and even political ideology) often trumps race.

    I’m guessing that Pakistani Muslims would prefer their kid to marry a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani atheist SJW

    Darn right! Marrying a Pakistani atheist is a no-go – completely haram, you might as well try to marry your cat or your truck. Genetics is completely irrelevant in this case.

    Peace.

  195. @Truth
    Well Twinx, I mean, an alpha like yourself would be doing your children a disservice by raising them in Singapore (or Kentucky) instead of Chechnya. Think about it, a Christian, American, mixed-race, ex US Military family in Chechnya?!? think of all the great sparring, daily, that you and the boys would get, even when you didn't want it!

    And your daughters? 100m Olympic sprint champions for sure. I mean, as they say repitition is the mother of skill, and y'all's judo would improve precipitiously if the rules were kill or die.

    If it’s Judo to the death, no one is going to be sticking to judo, I assure you.

    • Replies: @Truth
    Hey, there's a huge market in knife, and blunt-object defense to be exploited.
  196. @dc.sunsets
    The power to exclude is central to the freedom to not associate.

    The CRA of 1964 put the fist of the state into every human relationship. It's not, "What's wrong with that?" it's "What fraction of that is right?"

    The answer is, not the smallest part.

    Positive rights vs negative rights. The former are defined by organized human coercion, the latter by nature's barriers.

    “The power to exclude is central to the freedom to not associate.”

    The power to include without malice or harm is paramount to the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the power to personally associate with anyone you desire. We have tried the experiment of enabling people through legal means to exclude whomever they choose from the body politic, as well as social institutions, and the result were Southrons (NOT Southerners) who repeatedly violated several Constitutional amendments. They got greedy–separate and unequal–which was not the ruling issued in the Plessy case.

    Remember, there were southern white people who desired to sell property to blacks, employ blacks and afford them equal wages and benefits, and marry blacks. These whites were denied their opportunity to exercise their freedom to associate in their own community through social pressure and by the force of law, i.e. organized human coercion. Indeed, the battle cry of Southrons was “What fraction of that is right?”, with the resounding answer “Zero”. Thus, the 1964 Civil Rights Act ensured that their ham fisted efforts to deny people fundamental liberties would be addressed by the rule of law.

  197. @Feryl

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.
     
    Telling women to put off the securing of a male protector, and go to college alone for the sake of "building a career" tells you all you need to know. Do modern Westerners ever care to consider why women end up being raped, or addicted to drugs, or turning to prostitution (on camera or off)?

    Sadly, atomized Westerners care more about status than they do over-all cultural and mental well-being. Padding your resume, and focusing on "competition", is more important than looking out for the long-term survival of your genetics.

    It's safe to say that Western European individualism had it's virtues, but it's now clearly being used and abused for the sake of furthering decadence and disease. And when "liberty" in white Western countries was chiefly for law abiding white men, that was one thing. But now we expect women and non-Europeans to somehow thrive in this sort of culture. And this is self-evidently disastrous, as our culture has been increasingly coarse, dumbed down, and not oriented toward long term security, ever since white Western elites thought that their culture would be "enhanced" by giving greater largess to "historically disadvantaged" (or historically weak and/or absent from the white West) groups. Those who are neither white nor male (and those who are just plain dumb or mentally ill, including some white guys) are never going to fully understand and respect the principles of Western intellectual and personal freedom that date back to ancient Rome. And that's not necessarily a criticism of women or non-whites; rather, we need to understand the differences between ethnic groups and between the two genders. Appreciating these differences won't "hurt" women and non-whites (which white Westerners have often claimed for the last 50 years); rather, it will insure that white Western men can prolong the culture for which they were once justifiably proud.

    The modern West is actively going backward in terms of over-all cultural freedom (of which freedom of speech is the most important), due to the (heavily contrived) advancement of women and non-whites and the growing pressure to never say anything negative about these two groups or the practices intended to help them (like affirmative action, hate speech codes, and dumbed down schools).

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hate+speech&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0

    "Hate speech" is not have wider usage until after 1987.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dumbing+down&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0

    "Dumbing down" begins to see greater usage in the 1980's.

    The late 80's is when it was becoming apparent that women and non-Asian minorities generally struggle to compete with elite white and Asian men in many fields. But this is also when "white" countries began to see rapid increases in the non-white population, and more women going to college. You see what's going on here? The continuous disappointing performance of women and NAMs has led to growing efforts to both outlaw criticism of minorities and make studies easier (so Suzy, Juan, and Tyrone don't get a massive headache from high-ed course with 1950's level rigor).

    Except white “Westerners” are looking out for the long-term survival of their genetics, and are prolonging their culture, just in ways you personally find distasteful. Perhaps these “racial and gender differences” are not as important to them compared to yourself.

  198. @216

    Another example Colin Kaepernick, I don’t know his actual racial background but he was adopted and raised by a white family. Again, could care less, no regard or affection whatsoever for the race of people who nurtured him to manhood…
     
    Mr. Kapernick's adoptive parents are some sort of white liberals, a lot of Boomercons made the dumb take that he was embarassing them.

    I often remark that Kapernick can pass as an Arab, and his girlfriend is Arab.

    Most interracial couples I know their children grow up culturally identifying with the minority race, ie., black or hispanic…
     
    White + Hispanic = ~white
    White + South Asian = ~white
    White + East Asian = hapa
    White + Black = black
    White + Mixed/Other = Gabbard

    Actually these bi-racial kids are turning out to be the most radical…with no loyalty whatsoever to their white heritage.
     
    No one backs the weak horse.

    ---

    Among racial groups, Mixed/Other is the second most likely to support the GOP. Any politics based on blood purity will result in their full radicalization to the 9-1 hate ratio that blacks display.

    The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean "strong state" model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can't/won't assimilate.

    In the current model, white conservatives love assimilation so much that their children assimilated to the dominant liberal culture.

    “The Right must promote a Eurocentrism and a Singaporean “strong state” model to encourage assimilation to a revitalized Eurocentric culture, which will deter those that can’t/won’t assimilate.”

    That’s great in theory. Today’s white men and women tend to have their own views about race and culture. You’re going to have to propagandize the hell out of several generations to convince them otherwise. Generation Z holds the key. They are diverse, tend to be fiscal conservative but social liberals, and are poised to take over the institutions. Do you have the time, energy, and Daddy Warbucks money to go on a soapbox tour of epic proportions to maybe make a small dent in the line of thinking of that group?

  199. @Twinkie

    Ethiopians and slave descended American blacks are the same race
     
    The latter have a substantial fraction of white ancestry.

    I’ve never seen Ethiopians who look like Ben Jealous, the last head of NAACP, and a “black” person in America.

    https://images.app.goo.gl/Pvimg5DQ7whKoJP3A

    You’re defining something better described as ethnicity, which is a social construct.
     
    Ethnicity is also both a biological and a social construct.

    “The latter have a substantial fraction of white ancestry.”

    I laugh at you civ nats who throw this line out like it means anything. “Substantial” being used in a completely relative sense. An average of 20% Euro ancestry for the American negro, if it’s even that high, which I doubt, has made no measurable positive influence upon the group as a whole. Physiologically and behaviorally they are African. Every shred of evidence confirms they cannot function productively and independently within Western Civilization but you would have your “fellow” Americans continue to be subject to their primitiveness so you can maintain some grotesque sense of morality.

    “Ethnicity is also both a biological and a social construct.”

    Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct.

  200. @dfordoom

    As soon as we became more individualistic around 1970, and began voting more for the GOP, that’s exactly when we began sliding down the path of decadence, which the GOP than glibly blames on “Leftists”.
     
    Yes, there's a lot of truth in that.

    And interestingly you see the same story in other countries. In Britain the Conservative Party has done more to encourage degeneracy and decadence than Labour. Blair was a disaster but Thatcher, Cameron and May were worse. No-one did more to wreck traditional Britain than Thatcher. In Australia the supposedly conservative LNP led the push for homosexual marriage.

    Decadence is mostly a right-wing thing. Free markets, open borders and the encouragement of degeneracy all go together.

    But the strange thing is that the populace has to some degree (albeit not to New Deal era levels) chosen on it’s own to not be as degenerate as it could be; the authorities since the 70’s have put less and less effort into regulating many things, only going after the most obvious things like violent criminals and hard drugs. But asking the populace to regulate itself is a dubious proposition, since things like dangerous dog ownership, risky stock market plays, obesity levels, production (and therefore consumption) of extreme porno and so on are all clearly much worse nowadays than they were in the 1930’s-1960’s.

    Some forms of degeneracy were at their worst in the 70’s and 80’s, but have since gotten better(the the young generations of that time thought they were rebelling against “squares). That being said, if we returned to New Deal norms of tightly knit communities policing their residents (which would put gambling, homosexuality, obesity, and dangerous use of drugs and alcohol back on the margins where they belong) that would go a long way towards reducing most of the excesses that have been a clear problem since the 70’s.

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism; there is the Anglo neo-liberal camp that attempts to shrink or co-opt the government so that profit motivated “private” sector entities get their way. Then there is the cultural traditionalist conservative camp that seeks to maintain order and tradition, even if it means trampling on ostensible rights. A big reason self-described conservatives are often unhappy is because there is always a tug of war between the anti-statist social Darwinists (libertarians) and the morally driven cultural types. Both sides always have their guard up that the other side is trying to strangle them. On the other hand, left-liberals generally don’t have to deal with this same tension and division.

    The neo-lib era has been about “conservatives” using big government for policing of street crime* and war, to the point that the government is actually bigger now than it was in the 70’s. But since corporate monopolies grow unchecked and the wealthy are asked to shoulder less and less of the financial burden, the modern establishment Right is evidently just fine with today’s variant of big government.

    WRT freedom, there is intellectual freedom, financial freedom (as in you have enough money to get by), and cultural freedom. Though the right makes a big deal out of “freedom”, the reality is that intellectual freedom has been under siege since the late 80’s beginnings of PC and corporate enforced doctrine regarding “sensitivity” and “safety”. Financial freedom is enjoyed by the top 20%, but the other 80% are poorly paid, don’t own much property or stocks (so they can’t gain wealth from asset appreciation), and deal with massive healthcare, education, and housing costs). Not at all like the 1940’s-early 1970’s when more and more people could easily afford to start a family. Cultural freedom regarding marijuana, prostitution, porn, gambling, video game playing, etc. is certainly higher now than it was 50, or 60, or 70 years ago (although police state measures regarding drunk driving appear to have heavily diminished the appeal of even rather casual drinking). And theaters no longer admit minors to R-rated movies like they did in the 80’s and early 90’s. So I suppose on the cultural front it’s a mixed bag.

    Overall, though, the trend is toward too much of the wrong kind of freedom (cultural freedom) and not enough of the good kind of freedom (intellectual and financial freedom).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism
     
    It's virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals. Then you have to explain to them that cultural marxism isn't marxist, it's anti-marxist. Then you have to explain that liberalism and leftism are not the same thing.

    And they're not going to believe you because the media and the schools have spent decades telling them the opposite as part of a deliberate and concerted disinformation campaign.

    It's not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It's almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    And as far as intellectual freedom is concerned you have to try to get people to understand that as a guarantee of intellectual freedom the First Amendment is pretty much useless. All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    Then you try to explain to them that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army because the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny. You have to try to explain that that battle was irretrievably lost three-quarters of a century ago and that whether you can or can't buy an AR-15 at WalMart is pretty much irrelevant.
  201. @Feryl

    As for your fears, I think this is simply an outcome of hyper-individualism which may be the result of the deliberate breakdown of tribes and clans among Europeans over many, many centuries.
     
    Telling women to put off the securing of a male protector, and go to college alone for the sake of "building a career" tells you all you need to know. Do modern Westerners ever care to consider why women end up being raped, or addicted to drugs, or turning to prostitution (on camera or off)?

    Sadly, atomized Westerners care more about status than they do over-all cultural and mental well-being. Padding your resume, and focusing on "competition", is more important than looking out for the long-term survival of your genetics.

    It's safe to say that Western European individualism had it's virtues, but it's now clearly being used and abused for the sake of furthering decadence and disease. And when "liberty" in white Western countries was chiefly for law abiding white men, that was one thing. But now we expect women and non-Europeans to somehow thrive in this sort of culture. And this is self-evidently disastrous, as our culture has been increasingly coarse, dumbed down, and not oriented toward long term security, ever since white Western elites thought that their culture would be "enhanced" by giving greater largess to "historically disadvantaged" (or historically weak and/or absent from the white West) groups. Those who are neither white nor male (and those who are just plain dumb or mentally ill, including some white guys) are never going to fully understand and respect the principles of Western intellectual and personal freedom that date back to ancient Rome. And that's not necessarily a criticism of women or non-whites; rather, we need to understand the differences between ethnic groups and between the two genders. Appreciating these differences won't "hurt" women and non-whites (which white Westerners have often claimed for the last 50 years); rather, it will insure that white Western men can prolong the culture for which they were once justifiably proud.

    The modern West is actively going backward in terms of over-all cultural freedom (of which freedom of speech is the most important), due to the (heavily contrived) advancement of women and non-whites and the growing pressure to never say anything negative about these two groups or the practices intended to help them (like affirmative action, hate speech codes, and dumbed down schools).

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hate+speech&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Chate%20speech%3B%2Cc0

    "Hate speech" is not have wider usage until after 1987.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dumbing+down&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cdumbing%20down%3B%2Cc0

    "Dumbing down" begins to see greater usage in the 1980's.

    The late 80's is when it was becoming apparent that women and non-Asian minorities generally struggle to compete with elite white and Asian men in many fields. But this is also when "white" countries began to see rapid increases in the non-white population, and more women going to college. You see what's going on here? The continuous disappointing performance of women and NAMs has led to growing efforts to both outlaw criticism of minorities and make studies easier (so Suzy, Juan, and Tyrone don't get a massive headache from high-ed course with 1950's level rigor).

    individualism had it’s virtues, but it’s now clearly being used and abused for the sake of furthering decadence and disease

    This seems to be the inevitable cycle that civilizations caught up in individualism tend to suffer. You would hope people would only use their freedoms for noble and moral ends, but “muh on-demand porn” style decadence seems to crop up in various incarnations:

    As for the rest of your comment; I personally like the idea of a meritocracy, but it should really be one that simply allows people to achieve to the potential that they can and not handicap some to play with others.

    Peace.

  202. “OK. Then both Jews and most East Asians are white. Many Middle Easterners (Lebanese, Syrians, Turks, and some Iranians) are white too.”

    Uhhh, that may very well be. And it explains the expanding definition of whiteness to include even darker shades of Latinos, etc. Skin color is a matter of hue. Black, how black, brown, how brown, red how red, white, how white . . . the pressure is making the one drop rule rather vague, if one can imagine one drop as anything but other than vague.

    My point is not about hue. It’s the peculiar reasoning about skin color and “race”. But what I find is going to be a quite a hat trick is when the immigrants intended to add to white numbers actually turn out to be the key deconstructionists of whiteness and the American Enterprise. Now corporate citizens may whether that shift, but for those of us in the middle, and below, the US may cease to have meaning. And I certainly intend to fight that battle.

    But there’s no record of whites not beating the tar out of each other – just because they were white. And the blurring the lines to demographic advantage — is “iffy” in my view.

    These: (Lebanese, Syrians, Turks, and some Iranians) are nationalities and ethnicities not skin colors.

  203. Ed Dutton did a good video on how the more distant the two races are the higher the incidence of mental problems there are in the offspring.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yeah I saw that. I think dating outside your race indicates a transgressive personality, and the resulting off-spring is likely to be rather maladjusted due to genetic and social factors (suicidal thoughts are more common among mixed race people).
  204. @Thomm
    I don't know. Almost 20% of new babies born are interracial (note that this chart was for 2010-15, so the current numbers are 3-4% higher), and 89% of those fit the description of 'white + non-white'.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FT_17.06.01_multiracialBabies_map.png

    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/15153113/PST_2017.05.15.intermarriage-00-00.png

    'Lower Enthusiasm' is not the exact antithesis of 'vehemently oppose', plus the trend is indisputably rising.

    Whites marrying Hispanics who are often 40-80% European, white men marrying Asian women, and the fattest and least educated white women boiling off into the mixed population is not exactly a sign of enthusiasm for more aggressive forms of racial intermarriage.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    That is why white-Hispanic and white-Asian offspring will never be seen as visible minorities in America (whether they choose to play up the other side for 'diversity' reasons, which don't benefit Asians anyway, is another matter).

    Whites marrying Hispanics who are often 40-80% European,
     
    The average is 40%. Hence, the offspring is 70% white. Effectively, an Italian-looking offspring (if that).

    white men marrying Asian women,

     

    By 2nd gen, the gender balance is a lot less lopsided, as Twinkie's data has shown. The offspring will always be at least upper middle class, so will never be seen as a visible, problematic group.

    But white-Hispanic and white-Asian intermarriage is rising quickly. That is not in dispute.

  205. @S. M. Coulton
    Over 90%? No way man, Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially "other". I'm actually not even sure they're less popular than whites, they certainly are not relative to census figures. "Other" is the most popular category relative to population size.


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbFsV1vVMAA6Nze.jpg

    Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially “other”

    “a ton” meaning well below 5%

    • Agree: Thomm
    • Replies: @Thomm

    “a ton” meaning well below 5%
     
    Indeed. He can't interpret his own chart.

    I retract that statement if he is colorblind. But otherwise not.
  206. @The Alarmist
    Funny thing is that the inter-racial couplings one sees on TV or in the movies seem far more numerous, involve better looking people, and have almost the opposite sex-pairings compared to inter-racial couplings one encounters in real life.

    It wouldn’t be effective propaganda if it remotely matched reality.

  207. @Feryl
    But the strange thing is that the populace has to some degree (albeit not to New Deal era levels) chosen on it's own to not be as degenerate as it could be; the authorities since the 70's have put less and less effort into regulating many things, only going after the most obvious things like violent criminals and hard drugs. But asking the populace to regulate itself is a dubious proposition, since things like dangerous dog ownership, risky stock market plays, obesity levels, production (and therefore consumption) of extreme porno and so on are all clearly much worse nowadays than they were in the 1930's-1960's.

    Some forms of degeneracy were at their worst in the 70's and 80's, but have since gotten better(the the young generations of that time thought they were rebelling against "squares). That being said, if we returned to New Deal norms of tightly knit communities policing their residents (which would put gambling, homosexuality, obesity, and dangerous use of drugs and alcohol back on the margins where they belong) that would go a long way towards reducing most of the excesses that have been a clear problem since the 70's.

    I've tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism; there is the Anglo neo-liberal camp that attempts to shrink or co-opt the government so that profit motivated "private" sector entities get their way. Then there is the cultural traditionalist conservative camp that seeks to maintain order and tradition, even if it means trampling on ostensible rights. A big reason self-described conservatives are often unhappy is because there is always a tug of war between the anti-statist social Darwinists (libertarians) and the morally driven cultural types. Both sides always have their guard up that the other side is trying to strangle them. On the other hand, left-liberals generally don't have to deal with this same tension and division.

    The neo-lib era has been about "conservatives" using big government for policing of street crime* and war, to the point that the government is actually bigger now than it was in the 70's. But since corporate monopolies grow unchecked and the wealthy are asked to shoulder less and less of the financial burden, the modern establishment Right is evidently just fine with today's variant of big government.

    WRT freedom, there is intellectual freedom, financial freedom (as in you have enough money to get by), and cultural freedom. Though the right makes a big deal out of "freedom", the reality is that intellectual freedom has been under siege since the late 80's beginnings of PC and corporate enforced doctrine regarding "sensitivity" and "safety". Financial freedom is enjoyed by the top 20%, but the other 80% are poorly paid, don't own much property or stocks (so they can't gain wealth from asset appreciation), and deal with massive healthcare, education, and housing costs). Not at all like the 1940's-early 1970's when more and more people could easily afford to start a family. Cultural freedom regarding marijuana, prostitution, porn, gambling, video game playing, etc. is certainly higher now than it was 50, or 60, or 70 years ago (although police state measures regarding drunk driving appear to have heavily diminished the appeal of even rather casual drinking). And theaters no longer admit minors to R-rated movies like they did in the 80's and early 90's. So I suppose on the cultural front it's a mixed bag.

    Overall, though, the trend is toward too much of the wrong kind of freedom (cultural freedom) and not enough of the good kind of freedom (intellectual and financial freedom).

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism

    It’s virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals. Then you have to explain to them that cultural marxism isn’t marxist, it’s anti-marxist. Then you have to explain that liberalism and leftism are not the same thing.

    And they’re not going to believe you because the media and the schools have spent decades telling them the opposite as part of a deliberate and concerted disinformation campaign.

    It’s not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It’s almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    And as far as intellectual freedom is concerned you have to try to get people to understand that as a guarantee of intellectual freedom the First Amendment is pretty much useless. All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    Then you try to explain to them that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army because the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny. You have to try to explain that that battle was irretrievably lost three-quarters of a century ago and that whether you can or can’t buy an AR-15 at WalMart is pretty much irrelevant.

    • Agree: Herbert West
    • Replies: @Talha

    All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.
     
    It also guarantees "slut walk" and LGBT+ events in all major metropolitan areas as well as the right for Satanists to display their statues of Baphomet in random public areas.

    Peace.
    , @iffen
    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.

    I'll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.
    , @Feryl

    It’s virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals.
     
    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80's and early 90's, but over-time the trend has been to retroactively elevate the character of post-1980 presidents. So Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all got heavily criticized during, and immediately after, their presidencies yet this is now easy to forget (and people too young to have lived through those presidencies won't have a clue).

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending. But on other issues (immigration, pornography, responsible pet ownership, infrastructure building and maintenance, family stability, domestic vs foreign goods) they had an attitude of "to each his own" individualism and "privatization", and globalism. Those who remember (and those who recently have studied) the moral clean-up campaigns that the establishment encouraged from about 1900-1970, often accompanied by measures to maintain economic sovereignty (e.g., we will rely on our own labor and our own industries to produce goods), ought to realize what a radical departure neo-liberalism is from the cultural conservatism and stability of the New Deal era. Modern GOP FDR haters really are a delusional breed. Anyone who has any moral scruples (or anyone who understands economic dos and don'ts) would gladly reject the decadence of the last 50 years in order to bring back the culture of the New Deal era.

    It’s not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It’s almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.
     
    Fears of communism, essentially, fears of "big government", are mainly for older people. Boomers haven't (and probably won't) produced any dictators* (or at least, they won't vote for them) because most of them still detest New Deal norms of tightly regulated behavior (if they didn't feel this way, they wouldn't have started the obesity epidemic and the AIDS epidemic).

    It's true that younger generations could produce Red brigades of fanatical enforcers of commie dogma, which certainly is not what we want (though a valid argument could be made that true-blue communists were still more behaviorally conservative than libertarian/neo-liberal Reaganites). But if such a thing were to happen, then the Boomers would need to take responsibility for the political culture falling into such chaos that an authoritarian regime could arise. The Boomers firmly rejected the tight, but generally well-reasoned, moral regime of the New Deal era. And in doing so they betrayed a lot their naivete and ingratitude. Under the leadership of Boomers (and elders championed by Boomer voters and donors), the top 20% has mostly abandoned moral regulation of society while also economically abandoning the lower 80%. Boomer CEOs and shareholders routinely shredded worker's rights and pensions, refused to offer better pay to hourly workers, brought in tons of immigrant labor, and off-shored what remained of much of American industry (GI and Silent Gen leaders began this stuff in the 1970's, but that was nothin' compared to the massive off-shoring and open borders that have occurred during the last 20 years of Boomer dominance of politics and industry.

    *Historian David Kaiser (an early Boomer) often says that throughout much of the world, the defining trait of the early 21st century of Boomer leadership is an absence of political and cultural continuity. This makes it very difficult to produce political and cultural strong men, strong communities, and strong governments. Individual hedonism ("freedom") and cultural dissolution are the rule. Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society's goals should be. Thus, chaos is the result.
    , @95Theses
    Re: In regard to understanding the function of the Second Amendment, the intent of the Framers is lost on even many (if not most) supporters of gun rights. The amendment was not intended principally for personal defense, but – as you say – as a hedge against the tyranny of the State.

    Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787–1823
    1999, February | Stephen P. Halbrook and David B. Kopel

    ... The drafters of the American Constitution trusted the people more than the government, intended the armed populace to be the ultimate check in the system of checks and balances, and meant to reserve to the American people the right affirmed in the Declaration of Independence to “alter or abolish” a tyrannical government. James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe explained that,

    [T]he powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

    Tench Coxe’s words from across the centuries are not very different from those of the late Vice President Hubert Humphrey: “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” Consistent with these quotations, virtually every scholar in the last 15 years who has studied the history of the Second Amendment finds that it was intended to recognize, not create, a fundamental human right to possess weapons, a right whose primary purpose was to facilitate resistance to a tyrannical government.

    — Page 13


    https://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf
     
  208. @Bardon Kaldian
    No, really nobody among non-whites prefers their IQ/skin color "close cousins". They all prefer whites. W-H-I-T-E-S.

    and for good reason

  209. Fascinating topic. I am a white Hispanic (who identifies basically as just “white”), married to a brown (high IQ) Latina from S. America. I have many darker more “non-white” Hispanic/Latino family members, and of course have had friends all along the Hispanic/Latino spectrum for decades. With the exception of clearly already-mixed Puerto Ricans and other misc (dark Hondurans, etc), and actual black Latinos from DR, I have never known Hispanic/Latinos to approve of any type of relationship with blacks. The distaste for it is much more overt if discussed openly than it would be in a white culture-family. Blacks are looked down upon as though they were another species.

    Also, in the Latin culture, if you are basically white looking with known white ancestry, you are white…the one drop basically works in the other direction. Culture plays a part too, as well as social class (there are clearly high-caste mestizos that are part of the white latin culture). Many “blacks” in the US would be considered White or White culture in Latin America, especially Brazil. Same with many self-identifying Latinos in the US, that go on and on about “Anglos”.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Is American cultural imperialism changing that at all? I have no handle on it, but it is an extremely interesting question to me.
  210. @Talha
    He's right actually. I mean here is a man from the Caucasus mountains (as in Caucasian) who is beating every opponent thrown at him thus far.
    https://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/mma/players/full/2611557.png

    Here's another guy - same area, Daghestan:
    https://statics.sportskeeda.com/editor/2019/09/0cfc2-15684595089430-800.jpg

    Is he White? Huwite? If not, what is he then?

    Peace.

    ASA:

    I would consider both to be Caucasian, obviously Khabib is a cross between European, Turkic and Asian (by our traditional classifications). Given that his ancestors precede all those classifications, the bottom line is, just as with many pure Persians and Arabs, they are the original whites (Syrians).

    What was interesting with the whole Conor-Khabib thing is, because Conor basically clowned black opponents (and everyone know he would have murdered Mayweather in an actual fight, i.e. the Octogon), Khabib became the defacto “non white” to black fans–who basically acted like he was some minority beating up an ultra White guy in Conor (who is clearly a mix of Celt and Viking). It was interesting to see how Khabib was caste as the righteous and noble fighter by American blacks, despite being from the original white people !

    By the way, Khabib is the greatest MMA fighter of all time P4P and a great example for all Muslims.

    • Replies: @Talha

    ASA
     
    Wa alaikum assalaam...?

    Khabib became the defacto “non white” to black fans–who basically acted like he was some minority beating up an ultra White guy
     
    Weird, I had no idea about this dynamic. I just know all the Muslims I know, from Somalia to Malaysia were rooting for Khabib.

    Khabib is the greatest MMA fighter of all time P4P
     
    If he isn't, he is definitely in the top 5.

    a great example for all Muslims.
     
    The man is a class act - the way he interacted with Porier after their fight, swapped shirts and helped raise $100K for the man's charity organization was great - even Dana White ended up saying he'd match whatever Khabib raised.

    Peace.
    , @Twinkie

    a great example for all Muslims.
     
    Sure, after beating an opponent, running out of the cage to start punching one of his training partners and thereby instigating a dangerous brawl in the arena is a great example of sportsmanship.
  211. @dfordoom

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism
     
    It's virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals. Then you have to explain to them that cultural marxism isn't marxist, it's anti-marxist. Then you have to explain that liberalism and leftism are not the same thing.

    And they're not going to believe you because the media and the schools have spent decades telling them the opposite as part of a deliberate and concerted disinformation campaign.

    It's not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It's almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    And as far as intellectual freedom is concerned you have to try to get people to understand that as a guarantee of intellectual freedom the First Amendment is pretty much useless. All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    Then you try to explain to them that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army because the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny. You have to try to explain that that battle was irretrievably lost three-quarters of a century ago and that whether you can or can't buy an AR-15 at WalMart is pretty much irrelevant.

    All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    It also guarantees “slut walk” and LGBT+ events in all major metropolitan areas as well as the right for Satanists to display their statues of Baphomet in random public areas.

    Peace.

  212. @dfordoom

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism
     
    It's virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals. Then you have to explain to them that cultural marxism isn't marxist, it's anti-marxist. Then you have to explain that liberalism and leftism are not the same thing.

    And they're not going to believe you because the media and the schools have spent decades telling them the opposite as part of a deliberate and concerted disinformation campaign.

    It's not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It's almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    And as far as intellectual freedom is concerned you have to try to get people to understand that as a guarantee of intellectual freedom the First Amendment is pretty much useless. All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    Then you try to explain to them that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army because the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny. You have to try to explain that that battle was irretrievably lost three-quarters of a century ago and that whether you can or can't buy an AR-15 at WalMart is pretty much irrelevant.

    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.

    I’ll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.
     
    I’ll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.
     
    They'd probably have been much happier with the idea of ordinary citizens owning an M79 grenade launcher than with the state owning them.

    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army and an immense surveillance/social control apparatus in peacetime.
    , @Joe Stalin
    You can have a 40mm M79 grenade launcher with payment of a $200 NFA tax; of course, each EXPLOSIVE round will also cost you a $200 tax.

    Unlike machine guns, they can still be legally manufactured for sale to us lowly civilians.

    If you can get by on just 37mm, you CAN buy one for $995 USD. Not even an FFL item!

    https://d1tjnq8epgf80i.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/products-Thumper_NEW-1.jpg

    https://www.spikestactical.com/collections/havoc/st-thumper/
  213. @LondonBob
    Ed Dutton did a good video on how the more distant the two races are the higher the incidence of mental problems there are in the offspring.

    Yeah I saw that. I think dating outside your race indicates a transgressive personality, and the resulting off-spring is likely to be rather maladjusted due to genetic and social factors (suicidal thoughts are more common among mixed race people).

  214. @dfordoom

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism
     
    It's virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals. Then you have to explain to them that cultural marxism isn't marxist, it's anti-marxist. Then you have to explain that liberalism and leftism are not the same thing.

    And they're not going to believe you because the media and the schools have spent decades telling them the opposite as part of a deliberate and concerted disinformation campaign.

    It's not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It's almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    And as far as intellectual freedom is concerned you have to try to get people to understand that as a guarantee of intellectual freedom the First Amendment is pretty much useless. All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    Then you try to explain to them that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army because the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny. You have to try to explain that that battle was irretrievably lost three-quarters of a century ago and that whether you can or can't buy an AR-15 at WalMart is pretty much irrelevant.

    It’s virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals.

    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80’s and early 90’s, but over-time the trend has been to retroactively elevate the character of post-1980 presidents. So Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all got heavily criticized during, and immediately after, their presidencies yet this is now easy to forget (and people too young to have lived through those presidencies won’t have a clue).

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending. But on other issues (immigration, pornography, responsible pet ownership, infrastructure building and maintenance, family stability, domestic vs foreign goods) they had an attitude of “to each his own” individualism and “privatization”, and globalism. Those who remember (and those who recently have studied) the moral clean-up campaigns that the establishment encouraged from about 1900-1970, often accompanied by measures to maintain economic sovereignty (e.g., we will rely on our own labor and our own industries to produce goods), ought to realize what a radical departure neo-liberalism is from the cultural conservatism and stability of the New Deal era. Modern GOP FDR haters really are a delusional breed. Anyone who has any moral scruples (or anyone who understands economic dos and don’ts) would gladly reject the decadence of the last 50 years in order to bring back the culture of the New Deal era.

    It’s not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It’s almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    Fears of communism, essentially, fears of “big government”, are mainly for older people. Boomers haven’t (and probably won’t) produced any dictators* (or at least, they won’t vote for them) because most of them still detest New Deal norms of tightly regulated behavior (if they didn’t feel this way, they wouldn’t have started the obesity epidemic and the AIDS epidemic).

    It’s true that younger generations could produce Red brigades of fanatical enforcers of commie dogma, which certainly is not what we want (though a valid argument could be made that true-blue communists were still more behaviorally conservative than libertarian/neo-liberal Reaganites). But if such a thing were to happen, then the Boomers would need to take responsibility for the political culture falling into such chaos that an authoritarian regime could arise. The Boomers firmly rejected the tight, but generally well-reasoned, moral regime of the New Deal era. And in doing so they betrayed a lot their naivete and ingratitude. Under the leadership of Boomers (and elders championed by Boomer voters and donors), the top 20% has mostly abandoned moral regulation of society while also economically abandoning the lower 80%. Boomer CEOs and shareholders routinely shredded worker’s rights and pensions, refused to offer better pay to hourly workers, brought in tons of immigrant labor, and off-shored what remained of much of American industry (GI and Silent Gen leaders began this stuff in the 1970’s, but that was nothin’ compared to the massive off-shoring and open borders that have occurred during the last 20 years of Boomer dominance of politics and industry.

    *Historian David Kaiser (an early Boomer) often says that throughout much of the world, the defining trait of the early 21st century of Boomer leadership is an absence of political and cultural continuity. This makes it very difficult to produce political and cultural strong men, strong communities, and strong governments. Individual hedonism (“freedom”) and cultural dissolution are the rule. Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society’s goals should be. Thus, chaos is the result.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    During the Progressive and New Deal era, there was growing attempts to safe-guard American culture, people, and industry. Whereas since circa 1970, we've seen the Republicans win the White House in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2016. And what do we have to show for it? Ever growing levels of off-shoring and immigration. Anyone who thinks that rewarding the GOP with the White House again ....And again, will make any difference.....Is a fool. We have to keep the GOP out of office for quite some time for them to understand what's good for America. That's what the GOP spent 1900-1940 learning, and they need to re-learn the same lesson...Even if it takes 40 years.

    Look, Trump knew that the GOP's ideology was so inherently flawed that he spent almost the entire 2016 campaign blurting out truths that the GOP establishment desperately suppresses (as did Bernie Sanders). The end result is that working class people and younger generations began to more fully realize just how elitist and corrupt the neo-libs are. But since the GOP's major donors, and the UMC, has obviously had no issue with supporting nation-wrecking bullshit, they co-opted Trump and proved, for the millionth time, that they don't care about ordinary Americans and have been good at gradually wearing down any opposition toward oligarchy over the last 50 years.
    , @iffen
    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80’s

    All ten of them?
    , @dfordoom

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending.
     
    They weren't cultural traditionalists because they did nothing to maintain traditional cultural norms. They didn't care about such things. Thatcher is the woman who said that there's no such thing as society. They were happy to see cultural norms get trashed as long as it was good for the economy, because money is the only thing that matters.

    In practice Reagan and Thatcher were individualist social libertarians.

    Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society’s goals should be.
     
    There was a fear of ideology in the postwar world. Ideology was bad because Hitler and because Stalin. The New Deal was bad because it was ideological. The only respectable ideology in the 50s was anti-ideological. Ideology is un-American! The generations that preceded the Boomers loved Eisenhower because he seemed to be non-ideological and non-intellectual. They loved him because he had no vision. Having a vision is bad because it's ideological. Having a plan is bad. Having goals is bad. Only commies and fascists have plans or a vision for the future.

    Mostly it was a reaction to WW2.
  215. @Feryl

    It’s virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals.
     
    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80's and early 90's, but over-time the trend has been to retroactively elevate the character of post-1980 presidents. So Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all got heavily criticized during, and immediately after, their presidencies yet this is now easy to forget (and people too young to have lived through those presidencies won't have a clue).

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending. But on other issues (immigration, pornography, responsible pet ownership, infrastructure building and maintenance, family stability, domestic vs foreign goods) they had an attitude of "to each his own" individualism and "privatization", and globalism. Those who remember (and those who recently have studied) the moral clean-up campaigns that the establishment encouraged from about 1900-1970, often accompanied by measures to maintain economic sovereignty (e.g., we will rely on our own labor and our own industries to produce goods), ought to realize what a radical departure neo-liberalism is from the cultural conservatism and stability of the New Deal era. Modern GOP FDR haters really are a delusional breed. Anyone who has any moral scruples (or anyone who understands economic dos and don'ts) would gladly reject the decadence of the last 50 years in order to bring back the culture of the New Deal era.

    It’s not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It’s almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.
     
    Fears of communism, essentially, fears of "big government", are mainly for older people. Boomers haven't (and probably won't) produced any dictators* (or at least, they won't vote for them) because most of them still detest New Deal norms of tightly regulated behavior (if they didn't feel this way, they wouldn't have started the obesity epidemic and the AIDS epidemic).

    It's true that younger generations could produce Red brigades of fanatical enforcers of commie dogma, which certainly is not what we want (though a valid argument could be made that true-blue communists were still more behaviorally conservative than libertarian/neo-liberal Reaganites). But if such a thing were to happen, then the Boomers would need to take responsibility for the political culture falling into such chaos that an authoritarian regime could arise. The Boomers firmly rejected the tight, but generally well-reasoned, moral regime of the New Deal era. And in doing so they betrayed a lot their naivete and ingratitude. Under the leadership of Boomers (and elders championed by Boomer voters and donors), the top 20% has mostly abandoned moral regulation of society while also economically abandoning the lower 80%. Boomer CEOs and shareholders routinely shredded worker's rights and pensions, refused to offer better pay to hourly workers, brought in tons of immigrant labor, and off-shored what remained of much of American industry (GI and Silent Gen leaders began this stuff in the 1970's, but that was nothin' compared to the massive off-shoring and open borders that have occurred during the last 20 years of Boomer dominance of politics and industry.

    *Historian David Kaiser (an early Boomer) often says that throughout much of the world, the defining trait of the early 21st century of Boomer leadership is an absence of political and cultural continuity. This makes it very difficult to produce political and cultural strong men, strong communities, and strong governments. Individual hedonism ("freedom") and cultural dissolution are the rule. Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society's goals should be. Thus, chaos is the result.

    During the Progressive and New Deal era, there was growing attempts to safe-guard American culture, people, and industry. Whereas since circa 1970, we’ve seen the Republicans win the White House in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2016. And what do we have to show for it? Ever growing levels of off-shoring and immigration. Anyone who thinks that rewarding the GOP with the White House again ….And again, will make any difference…..Is a fool. We have to keep the GOP out of office for quite some time for them to understand what’s good for America. That’s what the GOP spent 1900-1940 learning, and they need to re-learn the same lesson…Even if it takes 40 years.

    Look, Trump knew that the GOP’s ideology was so inherently flawed that he spent almost the entire 2016 campaign blurting out truths that the GOP establishment desperately suppresses (as did Bernie Sanders). The end result is that working class people and younger generations began to more fully realize just how elitist and corrupt the neo-libs are. But since the GOP’s major donors, and the UMC, has obviously had no issue with supporting nation-wrecking bullshit, they co-opted Trump and proved, for the millionth time, that they don’t care about ordinary Americans and have been good at gradually wearing down any opposition toward oligarchy over the last 50 years.

  216. @Feryl

    It’s virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals.
     
    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80's and early 90's, but over-time the trend has been to retroactively elevate the character of post-1980 presidents. So Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all got heavily criticized during, and immediately after, their presidencies yet this is now easy to forget (and people too young to have lived through those presidencies won't have a clue).

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending. But on other issues (immigration, pornography, responsible pet ownership, infrastructure building and maintenance, family stability, domestic vs foreign goods) they had an attitude of "to each his own" individualism and "privatization", and globalism. Those who remember (and those who recently have studied) the moral clean-up campaigns that the establishment encouraged from about 1900-1970, often accompanied by measures to maintain economic sovereignty (e.g., we will rely on our own labor and our own industries to produce goods), ought to realize what a radical departure neo-liberalism is from the cultural conservatism and stability of the New Deal era. Modern GOP FDR haters really are a delusional breed. Anyone who has any moral scruples (or anyone who understands economic dos and don'ts) would gladly reject the decadence of the last 50 years in order to bring back the culture of the New Deal era.

    It’s not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It’s almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.
     
    Fears of communism, essentially, fears of "big government", are mainly for older people. Boomers haven't (and probably won't) produced any dictators* (or at least, they won't vote for them) because most of them still detest New Deal norms of tightly regulated behavior (if they didn't feel this way, they wouldn't have started the obesity epidemic and the AIDS epidemic).

    It's true that younger generations could produce Red brigades of fanatical enforcers of commie dogma, which certainly is not what we want (though a valid argument could be made that true-blue communists were still more behaviorally conservative than libertarian/neo-liberal Reaganites). But if such a thing were to happen, then the Boomers would need to take responsibility for the political culture falling into such chaos that an authoritarian regime could arise. The Boomers firmly rejected the tight, but generally well-reasoned, moral regime of the New Deal era. And in doing so they betrayed a lot their naivete and ingratitude. Under the leadership of Boomers (and elders championed by Boomer voters and donors), the top 20% has mostly abandoned moral regulation of society while also economically abandoning the lower 80%. Boomer CEOs and shareholders routinely shredded worker's rights and pensions, refused to offer better pay to hourly workers, brought in tons of immigrant labor, and off-shored what remained of much of American industry (GI and Silent Gen leaders began this stuff in the 1970's, but that was nothin' compared to the massive off-shoring and open borders that have occurred during the last 20 years of Boomer dominance of politics and industry.

    *Historian David Kaiser (an early Boomer) often says that throughout much of the world, the defining trait of the early 21st century of Boomer leadership is an absence of political and cultural continuity. This makes it very difficult to produce political and cultural strong men, strong communities, and strong governments. Individual hedonism ("freedom") and cultural dissolution are the rule. Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society's goals should be. Thus, chaos is the result.

    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80’s

    All ten of them?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I don't recall the name of the book, but someone here pointed to a book written in the late 80's that acknowledged that America did not become that culturally conservative in the Reagan era, aside from the War on Drugs. The growing power of woman, growing numbers of visible homosexuals, the high divorce rate, lots of teen runaways, etc. were all destabilizing trends that happened in the 80's.

    The book also acknowledged that the effort to make government smaller and better run was a total failure in the 80's. So the Reagan admin. was a disappointment to both cultural traditionalists and libertarians.

    There's a lot of modern ignorance about the Reagan era because decadent modern "conservatives" no longer oppose these bad modern trends. Whereas back in the 80's, most people were well aware that society was getting more dysfunctional in some ways, and our government was not getting much better. But you might be surprised at just how many modern "conservatives" do not question blank checks to the Pentagon, and don't even question feminism, gay rights, gambling dens, or marijuana legalization. Not only were New Deal Democrats more conservative than modern Republicans, hell, even the Reagan era Democrats were more conservative than modern Republicans.
  217. @iffen
    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80’s

    All ten of them?

    I don’t recall the name of the book, but someone here pointed to a book written in the late 80’s that acknowledged that America did not become that culturally conservative in the Reagan era, aside from the War on Drugs. The growing power of woman, growing numbers of visible homosexuals, the high divorce rate, lots of teen runaways, etc. were all destabilizing trends that happened in the 80’s.

    The book also acknowledged that the effort to make government smaller and better run was a total failure in the 80’s. So the Reagan admin. was a disappointment to both cultural traditionalists and libertarians.

    There’s a lot of modern ignorance about the Reagan era because decadent modern “conservatives” no longer oppose these bad modern trends. Whereas back in the 80’s, most people were well aware that society was getting more dysfunctional in some ways, and our government was not getting much better. But you might be surprised at just how many modern “conservatives” do not question blank checks to the Pentagon, and don’t even question feminism, gay rights, gambling dens, or marijuana legalization. Not only were New Deal Democrats more conservative than modern Republicans, hell, even the Reagan era Democrats were more conservative than modern Republicans.

  218. @Aft
    Whites marrying Hispanics who are often 40-80% European, white men marrying Asian women, and the fattest and least educated white women boiling off into the mixed population is not exactly a sign of enthusiasm for more aggressive forms of racial intermarriage.

    That is why white-Hispanic and white-Asian offspring will never be seen as visible minorities in America (whether they choose to play up the other side for ‘diversity’ reasons, which don’t benefit Asians anyway, is another matter).

    Whites marrying Hispanics who are often 40-80% European,

    The average is 40%. Hence, the offspring is 70% white. Effectively, an Italian-looking offspring (if that).

    white men marrying Asian women,

    By 2nd gen, the gender balance is a lot less lopsided, as Twinkie’s data has shown. The offspring will always be at least upper middle class, so will never be seen as a visible, problematic group.

    But white-Hispanic and white-Asian intermarriage is rising quickly. That is not in dispute.

  219. @Audacious Epigone
    Subconsciously, yes, I suspect some do--and more will.

    Consciously, from a K selection perspective it makes considerable sense.

    I used to have interest in East Asian girls, before I encountered something called “r/Hapa”.

    No thanks, I don’t want my sons hating me.

    If “the box” acquires greater potency under a perma-blue government, it would certainly force me to adjust my preferences.

    Otoh, conservative women that are SES peers don’t really exist; so I doubt I will be marrying anytime soon.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I used to have interest in East Asian girls, before I encountered something called “r/Hapa”.

    No thanks, I don’t want my sons hating me.
     

    That’s the obverse of thinking you should only date and marry an Asian, because you expect the son from the relationship to turn out to be another Nathan Adrian.

    What sane person thinks that “r/Hapa” is representative of actual people in real life?

  220. @S. M. Coulton
    Are you fucking retarded or something? Yes you are. Your chart does not even plot the distribution of interracial pairings and my chart (whch does) clearly shows that interacial Asian pairings are roughly half distributed between white/nonwhite and that Hispanics (bogus category anyway) are roughly 80/20.

    Your chart does not even plot the distribution of interracial pairings and my chart (whch does) clearly shows that interacial Asian pairings are roughly half distributed between white/nonwhite and that Hispanics (bogus category anyway) are roughly 80/20.

    My chart indicates that 89% of all interracial pairings involve one white spouse. That means only 11% do not.

    Your chart largely corroborates this.

    What you are screeching about is that half of Asians don’t outmarry, while half do. But the half that do still overwhelmingly go for whites.

    Note that in your chart, a Korean marrying a Chinese still counts as interethnic, when at the interracial level, that would not register.

    For clarity, your claim is that half of Asians that marry interracially marry non-whites. No one else here supports your claim, btw.

    In other words, your claim is only true if you count Chinese-Korean, or Japanese-Filipino, or Vietnamese-Cambodian marriages as ‘interracial’. Of course, no one here does that.

    Are you a White Trashionalist? Members of that group are infamously bad at reading graphs and charts.

  221. @S. M. Coulton

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90’s or 2000’s.
     
    Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia.

    No, it’s area-dependent. If you’ve lived in a once middle-middle class Midwestern suburban area that now is home to more prole trashy white girls dating black guys or toting around Uncle Sam funded mulatto kids, then that is going to leave an impression. Elite whites are still very resistant to black-white pairings in their own lives (how many blacks do you see with Jewish biological parents?), but a lot of prole white girls are still getting knocked up by black dudes.

    I think we’re seeing more and more evidence of the elite-prole divide that’s been widening for 50 years. There are now large chunks of the Northeast, Midwest, and South full of hopeless section 8’ers and SSI recipients, white and black alike. They are being left behind, and often are breeding with each other across the racial aisle at a rate far higher than what we saw pre-1990 (per Charles Murray, the 90’s is when elite and prole whites fully split from each other). But the Western US, and the affluent areas of the Northeast, Midwest, and South, house affluent whites and a growing number of Asians and talented tenth Hispanics. Here, interracial dating when it does happen usually doesn’t involve the most undesirable/poor/incarcerated demographic, black males.

    But my over-all point that the current dating patterns of whites is science-fiction from the perspective of pre-1990 America still stands.

  222. @Audacious Epigone
    If it's Judo to the death, no one is going to be sticking to judo, I assure you.

    Hey, there’s a huge market in knife, and blunt-object defense to be exploited.

  223. @OscarWildeLoveChild
    Fascinating topic. I am a white Hispanic (who identifies basically as just "white"), married to a brown (high IQ) Latina from S. America. I have many darker more "non-white" Hispanic/Latino family members, and of course have had friends all along the Hispanic/Latino spectrum for decades. With the exception of clearly already-mixed Puerto Ricans and other misc (dark Hondurans, etc), and actual black Latinos from DR, I have never known Hispanic/Latinos to approve of any type of relationship with blacks. The distaste for it is much more overt if discussed openly than it would be in a white culture-family. Blacks are looked down upon as though they were another species.

    Also, in the Latin culture, if you are basically white looking with known white ancestry, you are white...the one drop basically works in the other direction. Culture plays a part too, as well as social class (there are clearly high-caste mestizos that are part of the white latin culture). Many "blacks" in the US would be considered White or White culture in Latin America, especially Brazil. Same with many self-identifying Latinos in the US, that go on and on about "Anglos".

    Is American cultural imperialism changing that at all? I have no handle on it, but it is an extremely interesting question to me.

    • Replies: @OscarWildeLoveChild
    Not that I have seen, maybe on the margins or in certain areas, but generally, you find them same thing world wide, most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks, outliers (i.e. fat women, occasional normal Becky) aside. There seems to be a natural instinct to avoid something so "other" in every culture, unless it is looked up to (White Westerns love affair of Japanese).
  224. @iffen
    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.

    I'll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.

    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.

    I’ll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.

    They’d probably have been much happier with the idea of ordinary citizens owning an M79 grenade launcher than with the state owning them.

    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army and an immense surveillance/social control apparatus in peacetime.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @iffen
    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army ...

    So communism was a "good thing" afterall. :)
    , @95Theses
    I couldn’t agree more.

    But, oh, dontcha know ... once you begin espousing that sort of radical talk, you’re going to start sounding like ... our Founders! ツ
  225. @Feryl

    It’s virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals.
     
    This is something that many paleo-conservatives acknowledged in the late 80's and early 90's, but over-time the trend has been to retroactively elevate the character of post-1980 presidents. So Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all got heavily criticized during, and immediately after, their presidencies yet this is now easy to forget (and people too young to have lived through those presidencies won't have a clue).

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending. But on other issues (immigration, pornography, responsible pet ownership, infrastructure building and maintenance, family stability, domestic vs foreign goods) they had an attitude of "to each his own" individualism and "privatization", and globalism. Those who remember (and those who recently have studied) the moral clean-up campaigns that the establishment encouraged from about 1900-1970, often accompanied by measures to maintain economic sovereignty (e.g., we will rely on our own labor and our own industries to produce goods), ought to realize what a radical departure neo-liberalism is from the cultural conservatism and stability of the New Deal era. Modern GOP FDR haters really are a delusional breed. Anyone who has any moral scruples (or anyone who understands economic dos and don'ts) would gladly reject the decadence of the last 50 years in order to bring back the culture of the New Deal era.

    It’s not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It’s almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.
     
    Fears of communism, essentially, fears of "big government", are mainly for older people. Boomers haven't (and probably won't) produced any dictators* (or at least, they won't vote for them) because most of them still detest New Deal norms of tightly regulated behavior (if they didn't feel this way, they wouldn't have started the obesity epidemic and the AIDS epidemic).

    It's true that younger generations could produce Red brigades of fanatical enforcers of commie dogma, which certainly is not what we want (though a valid argument could be made that true-blue communists were still more behaviorally conservative than libertarian/neo-liberal Reaganites). But if such a thing were to happen, then the Boomers would need to take responsibility for the political culture falling into such chaos that an authoritarian regime could arise. The Boomers firmly rejected the tight, but generally well-reasoned, moral regime of the New Deal era. And in doing so they betrayed a lot their naivete and ingratitude. Under the leadership of Boomers (and elders championed by Boomer voters and donors), the top 20% has mostly abandoned moral regulation of society while also economically abandoning the lower 80%. Boomer CEOs and shareholders routinely shredded worker's rights and pensions, refused to offer better pay to hourly workers, brought in tons of immigrant labor, and off-shored what remained of much of American industry (GI and Silent Gen leaders began this stuff in the 1970's, but that was nothin' compared to the massive off-shoring and open borders that have occurred during the last 20 years of Boomer dominance of politics and industry.

    *Historian David Kaiser (an early Boomer) often says that throughout much of the world, the defining trait of the early 21st century of Boomer leadership is an absence of political and cultural continuity. This makes it very difficult to produce political and cultural strong men, strong communities, and strong governments. Individual hedonism ("freedom") and cultural dissolution are the rule. Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society's goals should be. Thus, chaos is the result.

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending.

    They weren’t cultural traditionalists because they did nothing to maintain traditional cultural norms. They didn’t care about such things. Thatcher is the woman who said that there’s no such thing as society. They were happy to see cultural norms get trashed as long as it was good for the economy, because money is the only thing that matters.

    In practice Reagan and Thatcher were individualist social libertarians.

    Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society’s goals should be.

    There was a fear of ideology in the postwar world. Ideology was bad because Hitler and because Stalin. The New Deal was bad because it was ideological. The only respectable ideology in the 50s was anti-ideological. Ideology is un-American! The generations that preceded the Boomers loved Eisenhower because he seemed to be non-ideological and non-intellectual. They loved him because he had no vision. Having a vision is bad because it’s ideological. Having a plan is bad. Having goals is bad. Only commies and fascists have plans or a vision for the future.

    Mostly it was a reaction to WW2.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    They weren’t cultural traditionalists because they did nothing to maintain traditional cultural norms. They didn’t care about such things. Thatcher is the woman who said that there’s no such thing as society. They were happy to see cultural norms get trashed as long as it was good for the economy, because money is the only thing that matters.
     
    The U.K. was a much more nihilistic culture in the late 70's and 80's, compared to the US. Efforts to stop crime and drug use in the U.K were much weaker than they were in the US. Punk rock got a lot of mainstream airplay in the late 70's in the UK, whereas America vastly preferred Disco and AOR. The The UK in the 70's and 80's was much more culturally liberal than the US was (I saw a Brit TV documentary on pedophiles, and it said that the 1980's American authorities were devoting a lot more effort to stopping kittie pron than the UK was).

    Thatcher herself is more widely destested among Brits than Reagan is among Americans. She destroyed the British railway system, and decimated the labor unions whose peak power was in the 1970's.

    Keep in mind that Britain was long past it's empire's glory days when Thatcher came to power, and increasingly since the end of WW2 Britain has obviously been an obsequious coat-tail rider of the US. The US has a long way to go before it is as ugly as 1980's Britain was.
  226. Grandparent cry broken branch

  227. @Aft

    Asians and Hispanics marry a ton of blacks, Hispanics and especially “other"
     
    "a ton" meaning well below 5%

    “a ton” meaning well below 5%

    Indeed. He can’t interpret his own chart.

    I retract that statement if he is colorblind. But otherwise not.

  228. @dfordoom

    Reagan and Thatcher were big government cultural traditionalists on drugs, street crime, and military spending.
     
    They weren't cultural traditionalists because they did nothing to maintain traditional cultural norms. They didn't care about such things. Thatcher is the woman who said that there's no such thing as society. They were happy to see cultural norms get trashed as long as it was good for the economy, because money is the only thing that matters.

    In practice Reagan and Thatcher were individualist social libertarians.

    Boomers are too individualistic, and too prone to bickering, to even agree on what society’s goals should be.
     
    There was a fear of ideology in the postwar world. Ideology was bad because Hitler and because Stalin. The New Deal was bad because it was ideological. The only respectable ideology in the 50s was anti-ideological. Ideology is un-American! The generations that preceded the Boomers loved Eisenhower because he seemed to be non-ideological and non-intellectual. They loved him because he had no vision. Having a vision is bad because it's ideological. Having a plan is bad. Having goals is bad. Only commies and fascists have plans or a vision for the future.

    Mostly it was a reaction to WW2.

    They weren’t cultural traditionalists because they did nothing to maintain traditional cultural norms. They didn’t care about such things. Thatcher is the woman who said that there’s no such thing as society. They were happy to see cultural norms get trashed as long as it was good for the economy, because money is the only thing that matters.

    The U.K. was a much more nihilistic culture in the late 70’s and 80’s, compared to the US. Efforts to stop crime and drug use in the U.K were much weaker than they were in the US. Punk rock got a lot of mainstream airplay in the late 70’s in the UK, whereas America vastly preferred Disco and AOR. The The UK in the 70’s and 80’s was much more culturally liberal than the US was (I saw a Brit TV documentary on pedophiles, and it said that the 1980’s American authorities were devoting a lot more effort to stopping kittie pron than the UK was).

    Thatcher herself is more widely destested among Brits than Reagan is among Americans. She destroyed the British railway system, and decimated the labor unions whose peak power was in the 1970’s.

    Keep in mind that Britain was long past it’s empire’s glory days when Thatcher came to power, and increasingly since the end of WW2 Britain has obviously been an obsequious coat-tail rider of the US. The US has a long way to go before it is as ugly as 1980’s Britain was.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Keep in mind that Britain was long past it’s empire’s glory days when Thatcher came to power, and increasingly since the end of WW2 Britain has obviously been an obsequious coat-tail rider of the US.
     
    Agreed. The Brits still don't like to admit it but they lost WW2. Maybe they were morally right to go to war but it destroyed them. They lost their empire and that was all that their supposed greatness was based on.

    Personally I think it's a good thing they lost their empire. But they still cling to their pathetic delusions. They still hang on to Gibraltar for God's sake. Because Gibraltar is the key to the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean is the key to the defence of their Indian empire. And of course they still have the Falklands, essential as a coaling station for their battleships.
  229. @Feryl

    They weren’t cultural traditionalists because they did nothing to maintain traditional cultural norms. They didn’t care about such things. Thatcher is the woman who said that there’s no such thing as society. They were happy to see cultural norms get trashed as long as it was good for the economy, because money is the only thing that matters.
     
    The U.K. was a much more nihilistic culture in the late 70's and 80's, compared to the US. Efforts to stop crime and drug use in the U.K were much weaker than they were in the US. Punk rock got a lot of mainstream airplay in the late 70's in the UK, whereas America vastly preferred Disco and AOR. The The UK in the 70's and 80's was much more culturally liberal than the US was (I saw a Brit TV documentary on pedophiles, and it said that the 1980's American authorities were devoting a lot more effort to stopping kittie pron than the UK was).

    Thatcher herself is more widely destested among Brits than Reagan is among Americans. She destroyed the British railway system, and decimated the labor unions whose peak power was in the 1970's.

    Keep in mind that Britain was long past it's empire's glory days when Thatcher came to power, and increasingly since the end of WW2 Britain has obviously been an obsequious coat-tail rider of the US. The US has a long way to go before it is as ugly as 1980's Britain was.

    Keep in mind that Britain was long past it’s empire’s glory days when Thatcher came to power, and increasingly since the end of WW2 Britain has obviously been an obsequious coat-tail rider of the US.

    Agreed. The Brits still don’t like to admit it but they lost WW2. Maybe they were morally right to go to war but it destroyed them. They lost their empire and that was all that their supposed greatness was based on.

    Personally I think it’s a good thing they lost their empire. But they still cling to their pathetic delusions. They still hang on to Gibraltar for God’s sake. Because Gibraltar is the key to the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean is the key to the defence of their Indian empire. And of course they still have the Falklands, essential as a coaling station for their battleships.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Many of the Brits also act like they know US culture and people,. Americans are criticized for being "ignorant" of other cultures even though most Americans never pretend to know that much about foreign lands. Well, most people in any given country don't really understand foreign cultures all that well, for obvious reasons. The primary exception being countries that border each other (so yeah, Germans and French have some understanding of each other, and Americans and Canadians do too).
  230. @iffen
    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.

    I'll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.

    You can have a 40mm M79 grenade launcher with payment of a $200 NFA tax; of course, each EXPLOSIVE round will also cost you a $200 tax.

    Unlike machine guns, they can still be legally manufactured for sale to us lowly civilians.

    If you can get by on just 37mm, you CAN buy one for $995 USD. Not even an FFL item!

    https://www.spikestactical.com/collections/havoc/st-thumper/

  231. @OscarWildeLoveChild
    ASA:

    I would consider both to be Caucasian, obviously Khabib is a cross between European, Turkic and Asian (by our traditional classifications). Given that his ancestors precede all those classifications, the bottom line is, just as with many pure Persians and Arabs, they are the original whites (Syrians).

    What was interesting with the whole Conor-Khabib thing is, because Conor basically clowned black opponents (and everyone know he would have murdered Mayweather in an actual fight, i.e. the Octogon), Khabib became the defacto "non white" to black fans--who basically acted like he was some minority beating up an ultra White guy in Conor (who is clearly a mix of Celt and Viking). It was interesting to see how Khabib was caste as the righteous and noble fighter by American blacks, despite being from the original white people !

    By the way, Khabib is the greatest MMA fighter of all time P4P and a great example for all Muslims.

    ASA

    Wa alaikum assalaam…?

    Khabib became the defacto “non white” to black fans–who basically acted like he was some minority beating up an ultra White guy

    Weird, I had no idea about this dynamic. I just know all the Muslims I know, from Somalia to Malaysia were rooting for Khabib.

    Khabib is the greatest MMA fighter of all time P4P

    If he isn’t, he is definitely in the top 5.

    a great example for all Muslims.

    The man is a class act – the way he interacted with Porier after their fight, swapped shirts and helped raise $100K for the man’s charity organization was great – even Dana White ended up saying he’d match whatever Khabib raised.

    Peace.

  232. @OscarWildeLoveChild
    ASA:

    I would consider both to be Caucasian, obviously Khabib is a cross between European, Turkic and Asian (by our traditional classifications). Given that his ancestors precede all those classifications, the bottom line is, just as with many pure Persians and Arabs, they are the original whites (Syrians).

    What was interesting with the whole Conor-Khabib thing is, because Conor basically clowned black opponents (and everyone know he would have murdered Mayweather in an actual fight, i.e. the Octogon), Khabib became the defacto "non white" to black fans--who basically acted like he was some minority beating up an ultra White guy in Conor (who is clearly a mix of Celt and Viking). It was interesting to see how Khabib was caste as the righteous and noble fighter by American blacks, despite being from the original white people !

    By the way, Khabib is the greatest MMA fighter of all time P4P and a great example for all Muslims.

    a great example for all Muslims.

    Sure, after beating an opponent, running out of the cage to start punching one of his training partners and thereby instigating a dangerous brawl in the arena is a great example of sportsmanship.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  233. @216
    Consciously, from a K selection perspective it makes considerable sense.

    I used to have interest in East Asian girls, before I encountered something called "r/Hapa".

    No thanks, I don't want my sons hating me.

    If "the box" acquires greater potency under a perma-blue government, it would certainly force me to adjust my preferences.

    Otoh, conservative women that are SES peers don't really exist; so I doubt I will be marrying anytime soon.

    I used to have interest in East Asian girls, before I encountered something called “r/Hapa”.

    No thanks, I don’t want my sons hating me.

    That’s the obverse of thinking you should only date and marry an Asian, because you expect the son from the relationship to turn out to be another Nathan Adrian.

    What sane person thinks that “r/Hapa” is representative of actual people in real life?

  234. @dfordoom


    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.
     
    I’ll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.
     
    They'd probably have been much happier with the idea of ordinary citizens owning an M79 grenade launcher than with the state owning them.

    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army and an immense surveillance/social control apparatus in peacetime.

    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army …

    So communism was a “good thing” afterall. 🙂

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army …
     
    So communism was a “good thing” after all.
     
    Communism was an awesomely good thing for a lot of people. It was fantastic for the officer class of the U.S. military - a huge standing army required lots of generals so there were great opportunities for promotion. It was superb for defence contractors - they made untold billions out of the Cold War. It was terrific for the spooks - agencies like the CIA got mountains of money thrown at them. It was great for American politicians - so many opportunities for political grandstanding. It helped Reagan get elected.

    If communism had not existed the U.S. military-industrial complex would have had to invent it.

    An enormous number of people owed their entire careers to the Cold War. They were devastated when it ended.
  235. @S. M. Coulton

    I do wonder though, if the current white-black rate is really that much higher than the rate we had in the 90’s or 2000’s.
     
    Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia.

    “Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia.”

    This is not true at all. Back when the CDC website had easily viewable data on interracial births, I remember seeing that BMWF births were increasing year after year until 2014, which is the last year for which they had easily viewable data. And that’s consistent with what I see IRL.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    When did the increase start? When did it really ramp up? It seems like pre-1990 is when most BMWF pairings often had talented tenth black guys, but over-all dating across racial lines was pretty rare. Then the 1990's happened; cultural liberalism surged, and it seemed like things got so....black. Rap and the NBA peaked in popularity. Clothes got really baggy, clown-like. Older generations, before the 90's, gave signals (to varying degrees of subtlety) to their white descendants that intimacy with blacks was taboo. Charles Murray says that out of wedlock births to whites increased dramatically in the 90's, and reported levels of religiosity also began to decline. So it looks like the 1990's were the real beginning of the destruction of the traditional white community (after all, other than not reproducing at all, the other sure-fire way for whites to not pass on their genes is to procreate with blacks who's genes dominate white genes). It's true that whites did more drugs, and were more promiscuous, in the 70's and 80's. Yet whites in those decades were not pathologically filled with racial self-loathing and still respected basic mores about family structure and under what circumstances you should have kids.
  236. @dfordoom

    Keep in mind that Britain was long past it’s empire’s glory days when Thatcher came to power, and increasingly since the end of WW2 Britain has obviously been an obsequious coat-tail rider of the US.
     
    Agreed. The Brits still don't like to admit it but they lost WW2. Maybe they were morally right to go to war but it destroyed them. They lost their empire and that was all that their supposed greatness was based on.

    Personally I think it's a good thing they lost their empire. But they still cling to their pathetic delusions. They still hang on to Gibraltar for God's sake. Because Gibraltar is the key to the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean is the key to the defence of their Indian empire. And of course they still have the Falklands, essential as a coaling station for their battleships.

    Many of the Brits also act like they know US culture and people,. Americans are criticized for being “ignorant” of other cultures even though most Americans never pretend to know that much about foreign lands. Well, most people in any given country don’t really understand foreign cultures all that well, for obvious reasons. The primary exception being countries that border each other (so yeah, Germans and French have some understanding of each other, and Americans and Canadians do too).

    • Agree: 95Theses
  237. @iffen
    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army ...

    So communism was a "good thing" afterall. :)

    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army …

    So communism was a “good thing” after all.

    Communism was an awesomely good thing for a lot of people. It was fantastic for the officer class of the U.S. military – a huge standing army required lots of generals so there were great opportunities for promotion. It was superb for defence contractors – they made untold billions out of the Cold War. It was terrific for the spooks – agencies like the CIA got mountains of money thrown at them. It was great for American politicians – so many opportunities for political grandstanding. It helped Reagan get elected.

    If communism had not existed the U.S. military-industrial complex would have had to invent it.

    An enormous number of people owed their entire careers to the Cold War. They were devastated when it ended.

  238. @dfordoom

    I’ve tried to tell people about the often contradictory relationship between the two camps of conservatism
     
    It's virtually impossible to explain this stuff to most people. First you have to explain to them that Reagan and Thatcher were not conservative, they were liberals. Then you have to explain to them that cultural marxism isn't marxist, it's anti-marxist. Then you have to explain that liberalism and leftism are not the same thing.

    And they're not going to believe you because the media and the schools have spent decades telling them the opposite as part of a deliberate and concerted disinformation campaign.

    It's not just impossible to explain modern politics to normies. It's almost impossible to explain it to dissident rightists who, to a depressing degree, will insist that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are dangerous communists and that open borders is a communist plot.

    And as far as intellectual freedom is concerned you have to try to get people to understand that as a guarantee of intellectual freedom the First Amendment is pretty much useless. All it does is guarantee freedom of speech to billionaires who own media or social media empires.

    Then you try to explain to them that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army because the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny. You have to try to explain that that battle was irretrievably lost three-quarters of a century ago and that whether you can or can't buy an AR-15 at WalMart is pretty much irrelevant.

    Re: In regard to understanding the function of the Second Amendment, the intent of the Framers is lost on even many (if not most) supporters of gun rights. The amendment was not intended principally for personal defense, but – as you say – as a hedge against the tyranny of the State.

    Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787–1823
    1999, February | Stephen P. Halbrook and David B. Kopel

    … The drafters of the American Constitution trusted the people more than the government, intended the armed populace to be the ultimate check in the system of checks and balances, and meant to reserve to the American people the right affirmed in the Declaration of Independence to “alter or abolish” a tyrannical government. James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe explained that,

    [T]he powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves … Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American … [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

    Tench Coxe’s words from across the centuries are not very different from those of the late Vice President Hubert Humphrey: “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” Consistent with these quotations, virtually every scholar in the last 15 years who has studied the history of the Second Amendment finds that it was intended to recognize, not create, a fundamental human right to possess weapons, a right whose primary purpose was to facilitate resistance to a tyrannical government.

    — Page 13

    https://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf

  239. @dfordoom


    the men who framed the Second Amendment believed (quite correctly) that standing armies would give the state a monopoly on the use of force and lead to tyranny.
     
    I’ll bet that they would let me have a M79 grenade launcher.
     
    They'd probably have been much happier with the idea of ordinary citizens owning an M79 grenade launcher than with the state owning them.

    The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army and an immense surveillance/social control apparatus in peacetime.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    But, oh, dontcha know … once you begin espousing that sort of radical talk, you’re going to start sounding like … our Founders! ツ

    • Replies: @iffen
    It is obvious that their intent was to prevent the federal government from preventing the establishment of militias. It is obvious that they intented to allow the flourishing of state militias and innumberable local ones. The personal right to bear arms would ensure that any individual could join a militia as an armed member. The personal right is the mechanism intended to ensure and facilitate the formation of militias.
  240. @95Theses
    I couldn’t agree more.

    But, oh, dontcha know ... once you begin espousing that sort of radical talk, you’re going to start sounding like ... our Founders! ツ

    It is obvious that their intent was to prevent the federal government from preventing the establishment of militias. It is obvious that they intented to allow the flourishing of state militias and innumberable local ones. The personal right to bear arms would ensure that any individual could join a militia as an armed member. The personal right is the mechanism intended to ensure and facilitate the formation of militias.

  241. @Audacious Epigone
    The four bars above "among whites" shows how white respondents feel about their relatives marrying whites, marrying blacks, marrying Hispanics, and marrying Asians.

    The GSS asks if respondents would be "in favor", which is unfortunate phrasing. I think "would you support your relative marrying an X" would be a better way to do it but we work with what we have. That's how most people are answering, because they couldn't simultaneously favor a relative marrying a partner of all four races simultaneously, yet for every single possible pairing, there is more "favor" responses then "not favor" (which is why all the bars are positive).

    I apologize for both my tardy reply and the length of my follow-up questions, but apparently I still need some clarity.

    1) When you write that “in favor” could have been better said, “would you support your relative marrying an X”, am I to understand this to mean that the respondent’s selection is their first choice or the next best thing after their first choice? And if the latter case, does this assume that marrying someone of their own race is a given preference?

    2) When you say that, “they couldn’t simultaneously favor a relative marrying a partner of all four races simultaneously”, do I understand “simultaneously favor” to mean that their second (and so on) preferences are equal, and race makes no difference in any case?

    3) Could not a category for “least favor” or something similar have been added to the survey? What I mean is, if all the bars are positive is this because this kind of graph makes it impossible to represent a negative response?

    Again, I never took a course in statistics in college – though now it looks like should have. So, lastly, can you recommend a book for tyros like me?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    1) Each question is asked separately. Respondents aren't instructed to do any rank ordering. The interpretation of the question is thus in large part up to the respondents themselves.

    2) The same participants were asked four separate questions--would they favor a close relative marrying X? Because most respondents said they'd favor or be neutral towards a close relative marrying a member of all four major racial groups, many respondents clearly weren't engaging in any rank ordering. A lot of respondents answered they'd be supportive in each of the four cases.

    3) How I wish instead of "strongly support/oppose" we'd have "most/least favor"!

    It's been nearly 20 years and they were just generic textbooks. Email Derb, I suspect he has some good ones.
  242. @Audacious Epigone
    Is American cultural imperialism changing that at all? I have no handle on it, but it is an extremely interesting question to me.

    Not that I have seen, maybe on the margins or in certain areas, but generally, you find them same thing world wide, most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks, outliers (i.e. fat women, occasional normal Becky) aside. There seems to be a natural instinct to avoid something so “other” in every culture, unless it is looked up to (White Westerns love affair of Japanese).

    • Replies: @Talha

    most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks
     
    I don't know about this. I mean, we were just talking about Khabib - and he has been working on charity projects in parts of Africa.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JSopzDb5Sw

    Sure, he is not inviting millions of Africans to move into the Caucasus and doubt that's what he wants to do, but don't you think it's a bit hyperbolic that most non-blacks want to avoid blacks? I've generally had very positive interactions with the vast majority of blacks I've come across, but my experience may be skewed since a lot of my interaction is within the Muslim community. I do however want to avoid any woke-BLM types like the plague.

    Even when I used to deliver some of our college papers out to places like South Central, I had fairly good interactions with people (this was back in the late 90's and early 2000's so maybe things have gotten worse) - though I must admit, I didn't really live there so I didn't experience the environment comprehensively. Also, I was not a Euro and came in looking very visibly Muslim - skull-cap, beard, etc. so that may have skewed things also - random guys would be giving me "salaamssalaikum" and I'm pretty sure they weren't Muslim.

    a natural instinct to avoid something so “other” in every culture
     
    I think it's more a preference for one's own culture and cascading in-group* that's more at play rather than a conscious avoidance (I mean people like to take vacations to exotic places) - but maybe this is saying the same thing and just semantics.

    Peace.

    *The concepts of in-groups being deliberately destroyed by hyper-individualism:
    https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/a/aristotle/379607/aristotle1-2x.jpg
  243. @OscarWildeLoveChild
    Not that I have seen, maybe on the margins or in certain areas, but generally, you find them same thing world wide, most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks, outliers (i.e. fat women, occasional normal Becky) aside. There seems to be a natural instinct to avoid something so "other" in every culture, unless it is looked up to (White Westerns love affair of Japanese).

    most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks

    I don’t know about this. I mean, we were just talking about Khabib – and he has been working on charity projects in parts of Africa.

    Sure, he is not inviting millions of Africans to move into the Caucasus and doubt that’s what he wants to do, but don’t you think it’s a bit hyperbolic that most non-blacks want to avoid blacks? I’ve generally had very positive interactions with the vast majority of blacks I’ve come across, but my experience may be skewed since a lot of my interaction is within the Muslim community. I do however want to avoid any woke-BLM types like the plague.

    Even when I used to deliver some of our college papers out to places like South Central, I had fairly good interactions with people (this was back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s so maybe things have gotten worse) – though I must admit, I didn’t really live there so I didn’t experience the environment comprehensively. Also, I was not a Euro and came in looking very visibly Muslim – skull-cap, beard, etc. so that may have skewed things also – random guys would be giving me “salaamssalaikum” and I’m pretty sure they weren’t Muslim.

    a natural instinct to avoid something so “other” in every culture

    I think it’s more a preference for one’s own culture and cascading in-group* that’s more at play rather than a conscious avoidance (I mean people like to take vacations to exotic places) – but maybe this is saying the same thing and just semantics.

    Peace.

    *The concepts of in-groups being deliberately destroyed by hyper-individualism:

    • Replies: @Talha
    Following up on this - I think most non-blacks would be fine interacting with blacks (not necessarily marrying them or feeling obligated to invite them to every party or something) as long as the interactions are mutually beneficial and respectful.
    , @OscarWildeLoveChild
    Yes, I was basically speaking of the sexual relations/marriage part (thus my comments that perhaps fat women, etc). Socially, at least in Latin America and most of the US, whites and blacks rarely interact above the superficial level , such as mandatory close proximity at work, or joint events where their children are involved in sports. I am not speaking of a lack of respect, or hatred, just simply noting, as the demographic-zip code analysis shows, and every lunchtime cafeteria groupings show, most people don't want to be around blacks. They want to segregate too, but in general, all groups (Koreans, Chinese, Indians, (non black) Latinos, (non black) Arabs, Persians, etc), avoid being around blacks.

    Acts of charity and generosity not only do not indicate people want to be around blacks, anymore than helping a homeless person means you want them in their home.

    Do you think any single person in Khabib's family will marry someone of (significant, noticeable) African descent? Especially any of the women?
  244. @Talha

    most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks
     
    I don't know about this. I mean, we were just talking about Khabib - and he has been working on charity projects in parts of Africa.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JSopzDb5Sw

    Sure, he is not inviting millions of Africans to move into the Caucasus and doubt that's what he wants to do, but don't you think it's a bit hyperbolic that most non-blacks want to avoid blacks? I've generally had very positive interactions with the vast majority of blacks I've come across, but my experience may be skewed since a lot of my interaction is within the Muslim community. I do however want to avoid any woke-BLM types like the plague.

    Even when I used to deliver some of our college papers out to places like South Central, I had fairly good interactions with people (this was back in the late 90's and early 2000's so maybe things have gotten worse) - though I must admit, I didn't really live there so I didn't experience the environment comprehensively. Also, I was not a Euro and came in looking very visibly Muslim - skull-cap, beard, etc. so that may have skewed things also - random guys would be giving me "salaamssalaikum" and I'm pretty sure they weren't Muslim.

    a natural instinct to avoid something so “other” in every culture
     
    I think it's more a preference for one's own culture and cascading in-group* that's more at play rather than a conscious avoidance (I mean people like to take vacations to exotic places) - but maybe this is saying the same thing and just semantics.

    Peace.

    *The concepts of in-groups being deliberately destroyed by hyper-individualism:
    https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/a/aristotle/379607/aristotle1-2x.jpg

    Following up on this – I think most non-blacks would be fine interacting with blacks (not necessarily marrying them or feeling obligated to invite them to every party or something) as long as the interactions are mutually beneficial and respectful.

  245. “The beginning of the Cold War was a turning point. It gave the US Government the justification for maintaining an immense standing army …”

    I have attempted to sideline myself on two issues color baiting and poor grasp of historical events.

    1. The US has always had a standing military. It developed over time, but the founders new that they would need a standing military if they were to have a country. The first school for training military officers was established in 1802. The first established standing army was in 1792.

    2. The United States Navy was officially established in 1792.

    3. What some of the founders thought can be found on a brief look on the net even Wkipedia

    It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious.

    — George Washington 15 November 1781, to Marquis de Lafayette[15]
    Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence.

    — George Washington 15 August 1786, to Marquis de Lafayette[16]
    Naval power . . . is the natural defense of the United States

    — John Adams[17]

    ————————————–

    Anyone who think the turning points for reaffirming the need and expanding the mission of the US military was the cold war needs to head back to HS history courses.

    The Tuning Points:

    1. westward expansion
    2. the war of 1812
    3. the Mexican American war
    4. the civil war
    5. westward expansion
    6. Spanish American war
    7. WWI

    There are plenty of reasons/causes between
    Furthermore youth is no excuse for not knowing that the cold war was not an imaginary made up conflict. And anyone who thinks it was beneficial, has an odd understanding of benefit. Challenging the communist threat to

    “bury the west”

    was costly and wasteful. Tax dollars that should have been invested into all manner of developments, not the least of which leaving money in the hands of its citizens to meet their needs, wants and demands among them. Furthermore the development of the I helped spawn the income gap and the exponential growth of special interests and lobbying . . .

    The cold war spawned a paranoia that left the US scarred and misguided. The n umber of regions that were and have yet to recover from proxy battles is a burden to the global community today and has fueled that destablization that exists today. The overall damage to the global economy is untold. The fact that few benefited is not a sign that the overall impact was a benefit.

    The founders established the foundations for the military we have today. Sure there are issues, but a look back demonstrates that the early tears of the country debated military adventures ever since Pres. Jefferson wanted to enter the fray between the French and the British and reasons for the war against Mexico.

  246. I am biting my tongue in keeping my word on refraining from comment about peculiar notions that crop up about culture and color.

    But as I read, it requires monumental restraint — to ignore the volumes of incorrect social understanding.

    Including the extreme notions espoused by authors on the sight who should know better.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Let the loquacity flow through your fingers for all the world to ponder.
  247. @95Theses
    I apologize for both my tardy reply and the length of my follow-up questions, but apparently I still need some clarity.

    1) When you write that “in favor” could have been better said, “would you support your relative marrying an X”, am I to understand this to mean that the respondent’s selection is their first choice or the next best thing after their first choice? And if the latter case, does this assume that marrying someone of their own race is a given preference?

    2) When you say that, “they couldn’t simultaneously favor a relative marrying a partner of all four races simultaneously”, do I understand “simultaneously favor” to mean that their second (and so on) preferences are equal, and race makes no difference in any case?

    3) Could not a category for “least favor” or something similar have been added to the survey? What I mean is, if all the bars are positive is this because this kind of graph makes it impossible to represent a negative response?

    Again, I never took a course in statistics in college – though now it looks like should have. So, lastly, can you recommend a book for tyros like me?

    1) Each question is asked separately. Respondents aren’t instructed to do any rank ordering. The interpretation of the question is thus in large part up to the respondents themselves.

    2) The same participants were asked four separate questions–would they favor a close relative marrying X? Because most respondents said they’d favor or be neutral towards a close relative marrying a member of all four major racial groups, many respondents clearly weren’t engaging in any rank ordering. A lot of respondents answered they’d be supportive in each of the four cases.

    3) How I wish instead of “strongly support/oppose” we’d have “most/least favor”!

    It’s been nearly 20 years and they were just generic textbooks. Email Derb, I suspect he has some good ones.

  248. @EliteCommInc.
    I am biting my tongue in keeping my word on refraining from comment about peculiar notions that crop up about culture and color.


    But as I read, it requires monumental restraint -- to ignore the volumes of incorrect social understanding.

    Including the extreme notions espoused by authors on the sight who should know better.

    Let the loquacity flow through your fingers for all the world to ponder.

    • LOL: iffen
  249. @Talha

    most non-blacks want nothing to do with blacks
     
    I don't know about this. I mean, we were just talking about Khabib - and he has been working on charity projects in parts of Africa.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JSopzDb5Sw

    Sure, he is not inviting millions of Africans to move into the Caucasus and doubt that's what he wants to do, but don't you think it's a bit hyperbolic that most non-blacks want to avoid blacks? I've generally had very positive interactions with the vast majority of blacks I've come across, but my experience may be skewed since a lot of my interaction is within the Muslim community. I do however want to avoid any woke-BLM types like the plague.

    Even when I used to deliver some of our college papers out to places like South Central, I had fairly good interactions with people (this was back in the late 90's and early 2000's so maybe things have gotten worse) - though I must admit, I didn't really live there so I didn't experience the environment comprehensively. Also, I was not a Euro and came in looking very visibly Muslim - skull-cap, beard, etc. so that may have skewed things also - random guys would be giving me "salaamssalaikum" and I'm pretty sure they weren't Muslim.

    a natural instinct to avoid something so “other” in every culture
     
    I think it's more a preference for one's own culture and cascading in-group* that's more at play rather than a conscious avoidance (I mean people like to take vacations to exotic places) - but maybe this is saying the same thing and just semantics.

    Peace.

    *The concepts of in-groups being deliberately destroyed by hyper-individualism:
    https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/a/aristotle/379607/aristotle1-2x.jpg

    Yes, I was basically speaking of the sexual relations/marriage part (thus my comments that perhaps fat women, etc). Socially, at least in Latin America and most of the US, whites and blacks rarely interact above the superficial level , such as mandatory close proximity at work, or joint events where their children are involved in sports. I am not speaking of a lack of respect, or hatred, just simply noting, as the demographic-zip code analysis shows, and every lunchtime cafeteria groupings show, most people don’t want to be around blacks. They want to segregate too, but in general, all groups (Koreans, Chinese, Indians, (non black) Latinos, (non black) Arabs, Persians, etc), avoid being around blacks.

    Acts of charity and generosity not only do not indicate people want to be around blacks, anymore than helping a homeless person means you want them in their home.

    Do you think any single person in Khabib’s family will marry someone of (significant, noticeable) African descent? Especially any of the women?

    • Replies: @Talha

    I was basically speaking of the sexual relations/marriage part
     
    OK - sorry, I thought it was a more general statement.

    most people don’t want to be around blacks.
     
    Again, I'm not so sure about this. I went to a high school with very few blacks, but they were quite popular. I also knew a convert brother that was black, but in high school (as a non-Muslim) used to hang with the skater crowd. He also said he was one of the very few blacks in his school, but people were friendly to him and he got quite a bit of attention from girls - maybe because he was a novelty...? Don't know if these guys were outliers. Maybe it's a dynamic of numbers - when there are just a few of any minority, there isn't tension since they aren't really seen as a threat, but rather something exotic and different.

    Do you think any single person in Khabib’s family will marry someone of (significant, noticeable) African descent?
     
    Highly doubtful. But I doubt they'll marry outside of their clan-based marriage patterns anyway and marry any outsider (black or otherwise).

    Peace.
  250. @OscarWildeLoveChild
    Yes, I was basically speaking of the sexual relations/marriage part (thus my comments that perhaps fat women, etc). Socially, at least in Latin America and most of the US, whites and blacks rarely interact above the superficial level , such as mandatory close proximity at work, or joint events where their children are involved in sports. I am not speaking of a lack of respect, or hatred, just simply noting, as the demographic-zip code analysis shows, and every lunchtime cafeteria groupings show, most people don't want to be around blacks. They want to segregate too, but in general, all groups (Koreans, Chinese, Indians, (non black) Latinos, (non black) Arabs, Persians, etc), avoid being around blacks.

    Acts of charity and generosity not only do not indicate people want to be around blacks, anymore than helping a homeless person means you want them in their home.

    Do you think any single person in Khabib's family will marry someone of (significant, noticeable) African descent? Especially any of the women?

    I was basically speaking of the sexual relations/marriage part

    OK – sorry, I thought it was a more general statement.

    most people don’t want to be around blacks.

    Again, I’m not so sure about this. I went to a high school with very few blacks, but they were quite popular. I also knew a convert brother that was black, but in high school (as a non-Muslim) used to hang with the skater crowd. He also said he was one of the very few blacks in his school, but people were friendly to him and he got quite a bit of attention from girls – maybe because he was a novelty…? Don’t know if these guys were outliers. Maybe it’s a dynamic of numbers – when there are just a few of any minority, there isn’t tension since they aren’t really seen as a threat, but rather something exotic and different.

    Do you think any single person in Khabib’s family will marry someone of (significant, noticeable) African descent?

    Highly doubtful. But I doubt they’ll marry outside of their clan-based marriage patterns anyway and marry any outsider (black or otherwise).

    Peace.

  251. @cmpx
    "Proportionately, it is lower. BMWF peaked in the 1990s both in terms of actual prevalence and media exposure. People such as yourself are suffering from selective amnesia/dementia."

    This is not true at all. Back when the CDC website had easily viewable data on interracial births, I remember seeing that BMWF births were increasing year after year until 2014, which is the last year for which they had easily viewable data. And that's consistent with what I see IRL.

    When did the increase start? When did it really ramp up? It seems like pre-1990 is when most BMWF pairings often had talented tenth black guys, but over-all dating across racial lines was pretty rare. Then the 1990’s happened; cultural liberalism surged, and it seemed like things got so….black. Rap and the NBA peaked in popularity. Clothes got really baggy, clown-like. Older generations, before the 90’s, gave signals (to varying degrees of subtlety) to their white descendants that intimacy with blacks was taboo. Charles Murray says that out of wedlock births to whites increased dramatically in the 90’s, and reported levels of religiosity also began to decline. So it looks like the 1990’s were the real beginning of the destruction of the traditional white community (after all, other than not reproducing at all, the other sure-fire way for whites to not pass on their genes is to procreate with blacks who’s genes dominate white genes). It’s true that whites did more drugs, and were more promiscuous, in the 70’s and 80’s. Yet whites in those decades were not pathologically filled with racial self-loathing and still respected basic mores about family structure and under what circumstances you should have kids.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS