New Eurobarometer 493 poll (October 2019) [download data] largely confirms what I wrote about this last year.
(1) Poles least based in EE… as usual.
(2) Sociologically, Ossies are now an essentially EE people. According to Cicerone, West German average would be 8.0, while East German average would be similar to surprisingly based Austria’s.
(3) Stockholm metro area = 9.5. Sweden Yes!
(4) Northern Ireland was at 9.8! (though in fairness n=29).
(5) General, unsurprising picture: Acceptance increases with younger age; proximity to capital/big cities; socio-economic success; more Internet penetration; ideological leftism; more education, and presumably IQ.
(6) Soviet Freezer observation: Again we see the influence of American culture, which is highly Negrified. Most accepting in EE are the Poles and Romanians, with their pro-American attitudes and good English language skills; probably would include Latvia and Estonia, if we discount their Russian minorities. Least accepting are insular Bulgarians, and relative Russophiles like the Bulgarians.
(7) Since this is a Eurobarometer poll, Russia isn’t included. (Though I have deduced elsewhere that Russia should fall within the general EE pattern). However, Estonia and Latvia have large Russian minorities, and conveniently, there’s a field for “self-defined ethnic minority” on these questions. Estonia’s minorities gave an average response of 5.5 (n=78) versus the national average of 5.7, while Latvia’s minorities gave an average response of 7.0 (n=52). This would give ethnic Russians an estimated rate of 6.1, i.e. around the rate of Romania or Austria. Though ofc we’re talking about a rather unusual sample (derooted, exposed to Europe, almost entirely urbanized); probably within Russia proper it would be closer to ~5.
What interesting things did you notice? Again, feel free to download the data and dig into the regional/demographic patterns for your own countries. (This “children love Blacks” question is coded QC13.2).
- Cicerone dug into the data and got the following numbers for the German regions:
Schleswig-Holstein 7,5
Hamburg 7,9
Niedersachsen 6,9
Bremen 9,2
Nordrhein-Westfalen 8,6
Hessen 7,9
Rheinland-Pfalz 7,9
Baden-Württemberg 8,4
Bayern 7,5
Saarland 6,7
Berlin 6,0
Brandenburg 5,7
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 5,5
Sachsen 6,4
Sachsen-Anhalt 6,2
Thüringen 6,1
Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
If you are new to my work, start here.
Thank you Bulgaria, very cool.
Ouch for Northern Ireland (and Ireland as a whole). Though I think it can probably be explained with the fact that there’s only 1000 or so Africans in the entirety of the North’s 1.8m people. There’s also the fact that the Unionist population adheres to a vile Polack-like religious ethos where anything goes as long as the faith is shared, and the Nationalist community largely dances to the fiddle of Sinn Fein, who have been thoroughly globohomo’d.
Soviet Freezer must be renamed into Post-Soviet Freezer. Communist ideology was for miscegenation long before it became cool in the West. It used to be a major propaganda point and was (and still is) a matter of pride for Soviet patriots.
As an example, see this, from an iconic 1936 movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUqQRkdMG8
What you are seeing now is the reaction to all that.
I agree, and so does the elderly IRA veteran Richard Behal.
This is 11 minutes long but it may be of interest to some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny7bG6KRfAo
I’m slightly confused here.
IQ[1] and income are goods – in the sense that over the range of observed values in the data, more of them is better (from the perspective of the possessor).
Without even having to open QGIS and map mean IQ and income against the numbers in the graphic above, I can tell that the places which are most hostile to the idea of Darkie grandchildren (i.e., orange and red) are where all the dummies and poor people are. They’re the places still dominated by hewers of wood and drawers of water, as it were.
Are we supposed to base our worldview on the prevailing norms in countries that
① are poor as fuck; and
② have contributed the least (i.e., fuck-all) to Enlightenment values, Western science, technology and so forth?
If so, why? Seems to be exactly the wrong set of people to emulate.
Maybe I’m missing something – then again my grandad was brown (and I was dropped on my head as a baby).
[1] I’ve made clear before that an IQ above 135-ish is more trouble than it’s worth. It might very well give the bearer the cognitive ‘grunt’ to out-compete those in ‘lower’ quantiles, but it also (invariably, in my experience) leads to levels of introspection that are more-than-offsetting. Smart people would rather do stuff that interests them, at salaries barely 1.2×average.
This is why the correlation between income and IQ breaks down at high levels of either: high-income earners are generally sociopaths (IQ~110-120), and high IQ people are sensibly averse to competitions where most of the field are sociopaths (especially given that payoffs are only money; smart people are satisficers and have relatively low marginal utility of money).
Scandinavia is just crazy. Norway is not in this map as it is not in the EU, but it is at least the same as Sweden and Denmark on this metric.
Btw, Zienna Eve is a Danish model who married an African :
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJvKA15JD8CMyFzoL5_Mrx7r_Hl8iRQauypr5C_nr5k1zH2GNg&s
Right, so translation:
In 50 years, “poor and backwards” EE will still be Eastern Europe, with an average IQ of 95-100.
“Rich and open and progressive” 105 IQ Western Europe will be overrun by 70 IQ Africans. You ain’t see “poor and backwards” yet, let me tell you.
Most importantly, they will still have a homeland.
I was stunned by Boris’ pre-election ads in the UK with the white woman and black husband.
Now I get it.
Thanks for presenting this data.
But muh based turkish-jewish-atheist boris is gonna make le UK great again right groyper magapedes???
Sounds a lot like the dire predictions made back when the IQ of Irish and Italian immigrants to the US was in the 80-85 range.
Watch what happens to measured African IQ when they get to first-world living standards.
It’s pretty clear to me that the people who attempt to measure ‘environmental’ contribution, use a fairly naïve model (either accidentally, or not).
My bet is that there’s some level of material well-being below which there’s a hard break-point – i.e., everyone who comes from places well below that economic level, tests as if they’re basically retarded, and once a group gets above that level, Flynn-Effect-style dynamics can get a toe-hold.
(Side note: I’m actually far more race-conscious than you might think. If I laid out my views of some races – some black, some not – you would blanche).
I wonder what the last year would be where the US would have been more based than all these countries including Bulgaria. Surely, in the 1980s? Or, at least, for most.
Re: Northern Ireland, I’d like to see whether Martin Luther King is sanctified in the school curriculum there. One of the big problems in the US is how he is implanted in kid’s minds at a very young age because of the holiday.
Stated preference vs. Revealed preference.
i.e., Real attitudes vs. politically motivated answers.
Personally, I believe the more interesting case (compared to the Soviet Freezer idea) is Greece. It did not end up behind the Iron Curtain but has maintained strongly ethnocentric, patriotic and family-orientated values. The only nation which did not end up behind the Iron Curtain which rivals it is Austria. Of course, post-Enlightenment values have made inroads in Greece but not much compared to Western Europe. Unfortunately, these values do not convert to high fertility.
However, if the global fertility trend reverses at some point, the Greeks have a better chance of retaining some ethnic coherence compared to many European nations that will almost definitely ceased to exist as we know them.
In London, it’s quite common to see Polish women walking to school with their mixed race kid. Polish girls really live to ‘throw off the shackles’ of their more conservative homeland and get on the multi-coloured cock carousel.
Someone could come up with some good revealed-preference data (say, a given region’s marriage patterns vs. the local demographic situation, addressing the question of how much less likely a European of White-Christian origin is to marry a Muslim or Subsaharan migrant than random chance would provide), which, stacked up against this kind of stated-preference poll data, could give us four possible racial-political categories of White-Christian European (also applies to white societies elsewhere):
The four racial-political categories here that I see are:
(1) Ethnonationalist-racialists (willing to tell pollster they are against miscegenation);
(2) Gutmenschen, center-right types or others who will reliably say they are okay with, or even in favor of, racial mixing but secretly are strongly against it, would never do it themselves, and would be disappointed if their children did it, and who raise their children with the same implicit thinking;
(3) People who are genuinely neutral on, or tend to support, miscegenation for maybe some vague ideological reason, but tend not to do it, at least not for marriage/family;
(4) Ethnomasochists and those who actively want to, and do, pair up with Blacks or Muslims including for long-term relationships (defacto marriage in our time) and (critically) procreation.
A politicized poll like this — which, for the West of our day, is like asking a Soviet sphere citizen of the mid-late 20th century whether they support or oppose Marxism! (what answer would one expect?) — will tend to cram together categories (2), (3), and (4). Of limited use because it obscures so much.
I would propose a NATO-bloc, White-Christian breakdown for the b.1980s, b.1990s, and b.2000s cohorts of the following:
(1) 10 to 20%, with signs of trending up.
(2) 50 to 60%
(3) 20 to 30%
(4) <10%
In this kind of survey, much or most of (2), and the great majority of (3), ends up grouped together with (4) as if there is no daylight between them…
Your comment seems to be trolling; even so, there is something of value here but it’s not the point you are trying to make.
You correctly identify that the people most educated, wealthy, and culturally confident following the long period of economic growth (which was especially impressive from the late 1940s to the early 1970s) tend to give pro-race-mixing answers in polls, specifically because they know it is the Right Answer on that “sacred cow” question. This applies at the inter-national and the intra-national levels, per data Anatoly summarizes here.
These are the people most integrated into the Western socio-cultural-political power structure.
If NW Europeans were such extreme xenophiles, as some believe, and as admittedly some recent data suggests, then why were their recent, direct ancestors not so? In the centuries the slave trade was going on, why didn’t these supposedly extreme xenophiles just import some nice Black pets and ‘integrate’ with them in the homeland? It would have been easy to do. It never happened.
This is all recent, with traceable intellectual roots.
Nothing too surprising. Except possibly Italy, which has usually been grouped with Greece on questions like these. Seems Salvini did not have a huge impact.
Either way, these questions are molded by social mores of the times. Ryan Faulk of Alternative Hypothesis dug up old polling data from WWII on US Soldier’s racial attitudes and it would make even the Alt Right squirm. 50 years later and anti-miscegenation is a fringe view. What has been created by man can be undone by man.
This lesson applies for everyone, including Russia. Last week saw a milestone of sorts, a transwedding in Russia where both people had changed gender beforehand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtSS56rFzis&feature=youtu.be
By the way, an even richer data source for European social science research would be the biannual European Social Survey. They released their 2018 data quite recently.
http://nesstar.ess.nsd.uib.no/webview/
You just need to have a (free) account and it’s all in English. There is a treasure trove of information there.
Get over yourself clown. This is Unz, not the NYT. No one’s going to blanche at “racism” here, not even hardcore neonazi 1488 style.
You mightn’t have heard, but blacks have been in America for a few hundred years. So we kinda already have a good idea of “what happens to measured African IQ when they get to first-world living standards” – it remains a standard deviation below native white IQ.
Not that anyone needs IQ to consider Africans completely undesirable. A night out in Melbourne or Sydney and you’ll quickly conclude that these scum shitheads manage to make even Lebanese look good in comparison.
The numbers obviously can’t be taken at face value. But even if they’re only a quarter or a third true, that still portends a miscegenation rate of about 25-30%. A miscegenation rate that high today can only be expected to grow over time, as the mixed products grow up and mix themselves – their mixed features make them more palatable/attractive than the unmixed non-white original, to the point that many whites would be unaware their partner is mixed. Long story short, as we say down my way, it’s all over red rover for whites.
(A twit like Kratoklastes imagines that this all about “hating” non-whites and mixed whites. In fact, it’s about recognizing that miscegenation – not immigration per se – is what actually causes racial extinction. Hey, I wish it weren’t so. But it is. And if you prefer that whites live on rather than die off, that fact has to be squarely confronted.)
US CDC data has it that 9-10% of newborns born to white women in the 2000s and 2010s in the US were fathered by nonwhite men.
This means that a 1.70 White TFR is effectively a 1.55 “Full-White TFR,” and a 0.15 “Mixed Race, Part-White TFR.” Some of the latter fall away into the nonwhite genepools of their nonwhite parent. This means the pool of full-Whites is still much, much larger — at least 10x larger among those to be in the core procreation age cohorts from roughly the mid 2020s to early 2050s — than the pool of partial Nonwhites on the periphery of the white genepool. I also suspect mixed-race relationships may have a lower final TFR than white-white relationships.
In other words, while what you say is definitely true in the abstract/long-term, it is not imminent and there is a significant cushion to turn things around politically.
Yes, I made the same point here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/alt-center/
Africans (the ones from actual Africa) aren’t that dumb. They’re not the sharpest people, but certainly sharper than the inbred Middle Easterners or Latin American goblinas.
However: a smart African is a larger menace (to you) than a dumb one.
Do you think that everyone on the planet has the same goal – to get rich on ‘assets’ and die childless from the Poz? You have another think coming. The Africans are gonna take your ‘Enlightenment values’ and make you eat them.
Back when CDC data was searchable by parental race and county, I found that the miscegenation rate in the larger and more diverse counties ran around 15-20% in 2013. Essentially, the more racial diversity in a given locale, the more miscegenation. Stopping immigration obviously then becomes imperative if the increase in miscegenation rates is to be slowed.
I’m not sure how useful it is to speak of mixed whites falling away into the non-white gene pool. If they continue to live in the same areas in which the parents mixed, I would consider them perfectly viable candidates for mixing with whites. The number of such mixed people may remain a small fraction of the total white population, but each occurrence of intermixture tends to inure a further few white people against white racial self-assertion – the couple’s family and friends and so on. So the impact of miscegenation on white racial attitudes is much greater than suggested by a simple headcount.
That is some stupid logic, in case you have failed to noticed, but blacks have been living in America for long and they are still an inferior race, despite the billons thrown at them.
I think you mean “insular Hungarians” instead of “insular Bulgarians”?
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/blacknaep.png
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/whitenaep-1.png
Propaganda. In Stockholm (and Cologne) I saw posters in shopping malls – a blonde chick in the arms of an Afro-immigrant. In Cologne on the TV was the series – the Arab policeman struggled with Nordic Gopnik.
It would be interesting to do a state-level analysis on intermarriage with Asians in the USA. I suspect you’d see a similar pattern.
‘Asian’ in the UK means ‘poor Pakistani’, not ‘rich Chinese’, so it wouldn’t track exactly. No clue about the rest of Europe.
NI has changed a lot since the early ’90s.
Back then, the one thing prole Prods and Papes agreed on was a fairly virulent racism (mostly aimed at the tiny Chinese population – there were ~zero Blacks in NI then).
Nowadays, Sinn Fein has coopted the Roma immigrant population as a handy vote bank. You see hilarious pics of ex-IRA gunmen campaigning with mono-browed Gypsy kings.
There is almost no race mixing taboo in Britain amongst the natives, even the most ardent right wingers in Britain stop short of condemning race mixing. I would speculate this is because native British culture is not very cohesive to begin with, and also is often based around regional identities.
What I mean by that is Northerners and Southerners, for instance, see themselves as very different and there is sometimes hostility. Most Northerners would rather date or marry a fellow non-white “Northerner” than they would a white Southerner, and the same is probably true vice versa although to a lesser extent I think.
A good while ago I remember watching some BBC (or some similar state media) documentary about US soldiers in Britain during WW2
The Brits were bragging about convincing the US GIs that miscenegation is no biggie, and they showed footage of British girls dancing with blacks
Americans should’ve stayed out of London
https://youtu.be/6zkL91LzCMc
I’m about to do some shopping at the new mall nearby. I’ll do a small experiment and snap a pic of every ad with people in it, let’s see if I can find a single one without multiracial imagery.
I’ll also note it if I actually see any multiracial friends or families. Back in a few hours!
Laughable. The “2 or more races” category is the fastest growing demographic in America; the fertility of mixed race couples is way higher than white-white and all other groups.
Fast growing but at 4% among the under 21 population.
https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019.06.24_metro_frey_census-data_table1datacorrection_FINAL-edited.png
This happens to be an actual person who married another actual person.
You mean fastest growing. They doubled from millenials to Gen Z. No other census designation increased that fast at any point in of the last 80 years according to that chart, including Hispanics. If their growth rate increases even more (as projected) they will be over 1 in 10 Americans under age 18 by 2030. Remember, as the “mixed” cohort grows, the other races shrink as a percentage of total population, as appears to be happening to Asian Americans, who lost 2 percentage points from millennials to Gen Z, despite Asia being the number 1 source of immigration to the USA for years, compensating for their very low intraracial birth rates.
More to the point, a substantial number of mixed race people pick a monoethnic racial category to identify as, or their parents do it for them, meaning we don’t know the full extent the mixed race population based on census figures alone. Hardly anyone actually believes less than 1 in 10 kids out there are not mixed race. If you want to get technical, the USA is already 50% mixed race, since Latinos and Aframs are at least 30% European.
There’s one litmus question…
SD1.3 Do you have friends or acquaintances who are Roma?
Latvia:
Respondents who claim to have Roma friends or acquaintances: 31%
Actual Roma among the population: ~0.35%
Estonia:
Respondents who claim to have Roma friends or acquaintances: 12%
Actual Roma among the population: ~0.03%
Those Roma guys are quite social, aren’t they?
Helsinki?
I’m also not sure what the asterisk at the end of the “2 or more races” segment is meant to imply.
It reads “*Non-Hispanic members of racial group” – does that mean people who identify as “Hispanic – 2 or more races” are lumped in with Hispanics? If so, the proportion of people under age 18 who are mixed is definitely above 1 in 10.
This chart only includes black-white and black-Asian and a paltry number of natAm-x relationships. 42% of interracial relationships involve Hispanics.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-733babd145061509bab5aeac30aedef5
This chart only includes black-white, white-Asian, black-Asian and a paltry number of natAm-x relationships.*At least 42% of interracial relationships involve Hispanics.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-733babd145061509bab5aeac30aedef5
Those adverts are not really about black husbands. Their election advertisements are recreating a scene of an old, very bad (but very famous in London) film – “Love Actually”
Here is the scene of this film “Love Actually”, where the girl will separate from a (black) husband for the man who likes her.
The message of this Johnson advert, is that historical voters of Labour should abandon their sleepy “husband” and go with a Conservative who likes them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7u6bMBlCXw
And here is the election message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-YK3JJCIU
English are a typical “higher average IQ” population, and this kind of intelligent marketing is successful for them.
Johnson’s team wants to correlate to “Love Actually”, because it is showing a popular political leader at Christmas (it was the first time a UK election was near Christmas, which are typically over summer).
In this film “Love Actually”, UK’s Prime Minister is also fighting against bullying by America at Christmas. Johnson’s marketing team, wants people to think about this, as he is fighting against the EU in a similar way, in the same time of year.
I hope they have a ton of kids. More offspring of folks like melanf would be a net benefit to homo sapiens.
From the little I could know (which is not much) – English (at least bourgeoisie young people) have clearly higher social status for dating than brown immigrants in England.
You see nerdy/ugly English men, with better looking brown or yellow girlfriends. On the other hand, hipster English students, all with English girlfriends.
Ironically, liberal better looking, English bourgeois hipsters are probably a group with very low rate of dating of brown people.
I remember visiting a hipster restaurant of East London. In such restaurants, you might laugh when you notice it is 100% white hipster couples, even though it is an area of London with many brown/black people. At the same time, I would assume those political views of those hipsters are radical liberals.
Probably because “enlightenment values” have themselves contributed fuck all to western technology or material prosperity. By the time they became “popular” (which to be generous would be the 1960s when racial/religious liberalism triumphed in law, partly through slight of hand), the western world had already been heavily entrenched as the world’s economic and technological leaders for centuries. And since then “enlightenment values” have done nothing but retard progress and lower quality of life while more illiberal powers rapidly close the technological gap.
We’re not emulating backward slavs by embracing nationalism, but emulating ourselves of yesteryear who actually produced the great prosperity we’re in the process of squandering.
But addressing the polling, it’s probably best to knock of a few points almost everywhere, revealed preferences vs. stated, etc.
One of stars of that film, Hugh Grant, was campaigning for various globalist candidates (every single one lost – the “curse of Hugh Grant”).
I imagine that these results would be less pozzed, if the survey also included certain stats, such as the rate of abandonment of white women by black men, or stuff about criminality and IQ. Half the trouble with political correctness is that it increases the energy barrier to learning the truth.
https://twitter.com/NotAPrentice_14/status/1206329969745506312
Yes, but that’s only after a massive decades long anti-race propaganda campaign (aka ‘anti-racism’) aimed at the people of Britain. As part of that campaign an organic individualism existing amongst Anglo-Saxons has been greatly hyped far beyond reality.
[A paralleling situation existed in the old Soviet Union in regards to the Russian people’s organic collectivism. This collectivism was hyped beyond all measure as well so as to promote Communism’s own anti-race effort.]
As some others have noted, within the Anglosphere countries, many have been conditioned to the point that even to be simply accused of ‘racism’ is seen as a fate worse than death itself.
Anything but that!
https://theprisonerepisodebyepisode.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/mind01.jpg?w=600&h=446
Miscegenation is a loaded term. And nowadays a pejorative. Does it mean hostile mulattos or quadroons? Or even octoroons with negroid features? If so I’m not thrilled with this product and kind of frown on it.
But what about whites and Asians? You’ll find this combo in the most desirable neighborhoods in the U.S. The areas with the best students and the lowest crime. The whites with NE Asian spouses/SOs are almost always of a higher caliber while the inverse is the case re: whites with blacks.
Which group do you think could glide down the stairs of Highclere Castle in 1922 in a dinner dress and fit right in while getting admiring glances from the men and which group, um, couldn’t and wouldn’t?
Eurasian will be the dominant human species in the future. I don’t know why but it’s obvious white women have become harmful in the evolutionary process.
Interesting that Asians in Gen Z are again almost at the low share they had in Baby Boomers.
you only have to watch porn for a while before you know what their attitudes are, country by country.
then again, desperate women will do desperate things for a US visa.
I love this.
They are basically turning social desirability bias into Karlsson-on-the-Roof.
Surprised how pro-race mixing Turkey is, completely out of step with the surrounding region and on par with Western Europe. I wonder why that is.
Note that among babies born, 15% were already ‘2 or more races’ in 2010-2015, which means that by 2020, it is already about 4 points higher per state.
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
89% of all babies have one white parent, so almost all intermixing is white + Hispanic, or white + Asian.
Blacks are not a large fraction of interracial mixing in the US.
4.1% of Gen Z, but even that is a very flat pyramid. 20% of babies born now are interracial. The oldest in GenZ (i.e. born in 1997-2000) were at a time when very few were.
The English term ‘miscegenation’ has an interesting history.
The term was first introduced in the United States in 1863 as the title of a 72 page pamphlet presenting itself as the ‘progressive’ advocacy of the ‘blending’ of the African slaves with the then still largely Anglo-Saxon (ie ‘White’) portion of the population.
An example of some of the chapter titles:
And, it’s filled with platitudes such as excerpted here:
It fit in so well with the so called ‘progressive’ agenda of the time, (yes, the progressives were around then too) quite a few progressives, even some of real political and cultural influence, believed and advocated the pamphlet’s message when exposed to it.
Only after the election of 1864 was it informally revealed to have been a purported hoax, ie a ‘political dirty trick’, created by the New York World newspaper aimed at discrediting Abraham Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
So close does this alleged hoax come to the actual ‘progressive’ mentality (in 1863 and today) in it’s subtle sarcasm, that someone at the archive.org site felt compelled to alert the reader to the fact that it was a clever hoax.
Modern day ‘progressives’, with some apparent cognitive dissonace, bitterly denounce the pamphlet, as they do England’s Powell. [Is it because in their heart of hearts they sense that both Powell and this 150 year old pamphlet might just have been possibly right with their forewarning, something they dare not admit to themselves?]
The 1863 pamphlet ‘Miscegenation’ is worth the time to read as it’s quite telling, as are the modern day responses to it which can be found on the net.
https://erenow.net/ww/the-civil-war-in-50-objects/the-civil-war-in-50-objects.files/image078.jpg
https://archive.org/details/miscegenationthe00crol/page/n2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Goodman_Croly
https://erenow.net/ww/the-civil-war-in-50-objects/42.php
Basically, Black men + White women in modern advertising is affirmative action for the previous norm of propaganda, which was white men + black women (a large portion of modern southerners are the distant progeny of such relationships).
Although white males on websites such as this one tend to complain about BM+WF in advertising, imagine being a black man (enslaved?) or a white woman (absolutely powerless) in the 1800s and constantly seeing propaganda such as this.
The difference being that, in the real world, BM+WF is actually fairly rare, much rarer than interracial relationships involving white men, so the frequent BMWF portrayal isn’t working in the USA. That also seems to be the case in Sweden, where immigrant males are less likely to have been with Swedish females than immigrant females are to have been with Swedish males.
Yes. New mall “REDI”, actually a whole new neighborhood (former harbor) getting built with high rises and stuff. Will be interesting to see how it turns out – people who bought apartments are going to get fucked if goes diverse in the wrong way.
It’s Christmas time though so the shop window ads and stuff is mostly kids, didn’t actually see couples unless you interpret some of them as gay couples (easy to get the impression).
https://imgur.com/49VNi46
Everybody should know by now that race doesn’t exist but the people who make advertisements still have a mysterious belief in representation by all the three classical races.
https://imgur.com/TPNRmr7
Awww cute kids getting presents on Christmas. The day when families are together. That’s all cute but how many families actually have a white kid and an Asian kid? Every single one of these ads has an implausible multiracial configuration.
https://imgur.com/lScg4ia
Nope, can’t have a picture of a Finnish family for Finnish Christmas shoppers. The mall didn’t have a single one. I have dozens of photos like these of the multiracial set of kids but I’ll skip that.
https://imgur.com/7ihMXWf
This is the one picture that broke the rule and included two white guys and no diversity! But no worries, it’s a part of a set with a really pozzed looking black guy so it’s allowed.
https://imgur.com/XqVwph0
If there’s two people one of them always has to be non-white.
https://imgur.com/iG2Hw3u
Two people of the same race is totally fine though if they’re both African.
https://imgur.com/Oj0urYq
Not an ad but some random poz: the mall has an actual physical safe space! This kind of stuff is everywhere now and usually tax payer funded. I’m not sure if it’s safe enough though since you can still run into Russian trolls while using the free wifi.
https://imgur.com/fhqxio9
If it’s a single person that person can be Finnish looking. But it’s only allowed for singles.
The mall had plenty of racial diversity, of course, but people don’t speak to each other and in the mess of hundreds of Finns, Russians, East Asians, Africans, Arabs, gypsies etc I only saw one multiracial group and that was some Chinese people plus one Finn who spoke Chinese (now that’s something I don’t see everyday).
The multiracial family is still a unicorn and if it exists it’s almost always white + yellow (or in lower class neighborhoods single mom with a mulatto kid). But all the ads present a bizarro universe where monoracial families don’t exist. Merely going shopping is jarring. There is absolutely no escape from the constant diversity propaganda.
Actually, there is a fair amount of white male/black female in American TV. American Horror Story has multiple examples of this coupling (and none of the opposite), and I believe the Joker movie dies too, to take two recent examples.
Following the career path of Heidi Klum?
Yes, WMBF in media has definitely become more visible over the years.
What about the Ottoman Freezer? Look at the Balkans. https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1600/index.html
Interestingly, among black-white celebrity marriages, WM-BW is not as vastly uncommon as some here claim. The former appears about one-third to one-half as often as the latter. Especially when the WM marries a BW that is not famous.
Roger Ebert
Dirk Nowitzki
Robert DeNiro
Bill Burr
George Lucas
David Bowie
Wolfgang Puck
I am not sure Prince Harry counts, as she isn’t majority black, but whatever.
I am not even counting famous black women who marry less famous white men.
But if you compare this to a list of equivalently famous BM-WW marriages, it is only 2-3 times more common, contrary to the narrative from some of the WN wiggers here that this is a 100:1 oddity relative to the reverse.
Yeah, no escape, visually they are everywhere. First the virtual world, the real world will follow.
But, what the f…k., Lidl? That is just sad, I expected better from Finland.
Northern Ireland was at 9.8! (though in fairness n=29)
Small sample size but they are probably lying. (I know, I know a lot of data nerds can’t believe that ever happens). I doubt there is anywhere in Western Europe where girls who mate with black men are more looked down on within their community than Northern Ireland. I saw it first hand in the workplace (2000-2001) when a girl who was merely rumoured to have had sex with a black guy was treated abominably by males and females, young and middle aged, Catholics and Protestants alike. Mind you, it has changed a lot in the last two decades – the young being very different from previous generations – but even still.
Re: Northern Ireland, I’d like to see whether Martin Luther King is sanctified in the school curriculum there. One of the big problems in the US is how he is implanted in kid’s minds at a very young age because of the holiday
He wasn’t when I was at school but I did get the MLK (and Gandhi) sanctified treatment later in a New Zealand school. The NI Catholic civil rights movement – ‘NICRA’ – of the 1960s consciously copied the US movement. King was regularly quoted by them and the politicians (John Hume) who came out of the movement. There have been numerous wall mural featuring MLK in Catholic areas – example. Mandela also featured in a number of them but for many people it’s just propaganda, which all NI people learn at a young age.
Funny thing about Gandhi is that Westerners likely care more about him then Hindus do
Probably because he was non-violent, helps push the passive cuck mentality
In fact, Gandhi was killed by a Hindu nationalist for being too soft on Muslims
Meanwhile I doubt even the average well educated folks in the world could tell who this bloke is, even though Hindus erected the largest statue in the world to honor him
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Statue_of_Unity%2C_as_dedicated_on_October_31%2C_2018_%28cropped%29.jpg
That’s a good explanation. Just about every political site I go to has had pointless venting about the Johnson ad. The topic of mixed race relationships almost always causes a mental meltdown, low IQ comments, and general nastiness from people I otherwise agree with on nationalism, immigration, repatriations, etc.
He might be getting ‘cancelled’ soon anyway. A Gandhi statue at some university in Ghana was recently taken down after protests by local students due to his racist views of blacks.
Regarding the ‘Soviet Freezer’ I’d noticed something like that during the Cold War regarding clothing styles..ie Soviet leaders wearing fedoras still well into the 1980’s when that had largely stopped by the mid 60’s in the US. [Seemed rather 1950’s at the time.]
The gigantic bows/ribbons that elementary school aged girls wore in the Soviet Union had disappeared in the US during WWI more or less, just about the same time as Red October occurred.
So, yes, something like a flash freeze occurred socially for the Russian people with the advent of Communism, with both it’s good and bad points.
You left out Boris Becker who divorced his black wife and got remarried to a younger black wife.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/is-boris-becker-colorstruck.1675519/
They are divorced now too and der spiegel reports he is now broke. : (
Ireland is the best example of why this is not a true measurement of attitudes, but in fact a measurement of hypocrisy (aka, in the West, as “being polite”). No American mongrel would allowed to leave Romania without indigenous gonorrhea. Almost any interested groid from the depths of Congo could get a wife here as long as he can project an image of wealth. The three Irish women who married blacks are well-known stars, being as rare as bearded women. But, yeah, the Irish would pay lip service to diversity, while the Romanians don’t know any better.
Like Gandhi, Che Guevara had some very non pc thoughts in that area as well. So, if Gandhi’s statues ultimately have to go, Che’s might have to go too.
‘The revolution like Saturn devours its own children.’
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Che_Guevara_statue.jpg/800px-Che_Guevara_statue.jpg
You’d have to cite actual fertility data to make that argument.
You can’t just look at the growth rate of mixed people and conclude that the fertility of mixed couples is “way higher.”
In fact, the fertility rate of mixed couples could be much lower than the fertility rate of monoracial couples and yet the proportion of mixed people in the population still rise.
To demonstrate.
Say a country’s population is 10 million, and of those 600 thousand (6%) are mixed.
Say 200,000 couples produce offspring in the next two years, and 25% of those couples are mixed.
If the monoracial couples have two children per couple in those two years, they will add 600,000 to the population. (200,000.752*2)
If the mixed couples have one child per couple in those two years, they will add 100,000 to the population. (200,000.251*2)
Ignoring deaths (reasonable, for a two-year time period), mixed people will grow to 700,000 and their proportion of the population will grow to 700/10700 = 6.5%
So in this example the fertility rate of mixed couples is only half that of monoracial couples, yet the proportion of the population that is mixed rises anyway.
Now, if the ratio of monoracial fertility to mixed fertility were the same, but of the couples giving birth, only 10% were mixed, then the proportion of the population that is mixed would actually fall.
We know that the proportion of mixed couplings has grown over the decades from almost non-existent in 1950 to some 10 perhaps 15% today, so I think it’s much more likely that it’s the growth in mixed couplings that is driving the increasing proportion of mixed-race people rather than the outsized fertility rate of mixed couples.
Yeah but they could easily be seen as gay, which is not racial diversity, but still diversity.
Well, if the correct answer to the age-old question is that life imitates art, I’m sure you’ll start seeing living confirmations of this “ideal” before too long.
That reminds me Australia in the 90s. Plenty of these people had been here since the 60s and 70s, but multiracial groups, although hardly unknown, were still fairly uncommon. A quarter century later, I see mixed groups all the time. I think most people still associate based on racial perceptions (even just subconsciously), but I think nationalistic predictions that people will forever stick to their own kind have proven rather unfounded.
Good point. I had forgotten about that. That is a very, very good example.
Yes, there is still some cushion, but I would have to caution against a false sense of security.
Way before – at least many decades, more likely centuries before – whites are actually extinct they will reach a demographic point of no return.
Look at Brazil today. Politically, what chance is there that that country could be geographically resolved into its constituent races? (Whites go here, blacks there, amerinds that way, mixed this way, etc.) Essentially zero, right? As I see it, the main reason for that is the tremendous mixed population, who in any potential separation scenario would be left totally uncertain about where they belong and to whom they owe their loyalties (they are not uniformly mixed, after all). Even if a majority of every other race in Brazil ardently desired racial separation, the mixed population could be expected to resist it; and at some 50% of the population, plus their allies among monoracials, their resistance would be successful.
So whites in Brazil are basically fated to eventually mix away into non-existence, even if this takes centuries.
If whites in Europe, America and Australasia fail to achieve separation before reaching the point of no return, they too will have to contend with the same long-term fate.
Sardar Patel is not hardmode.
Try Savarkar instead for right-wingers and Bhagat Singh for leftists. And even those are fairly easy.
You might have missed this, but Africans have been living the US for a few hundred years. Yet, despite 20-22% White admixture and numerous outreach programs their IQ remains at least 1SD below White IQ.
For people on Unz it isn’t, but show it to a random normie (who got good grades in history, went through Uni, etc.) next to a picture of Gandhi, I’d bet a nickel he’d know only about the skinny non-violence man who never held any elected office
Gandhi is way over exposed
And as Matra pointed out, it looks like he wasn’t cucked enough for modern liberals
It seems the percentage of WMBF couples in the media is vastly higher than in real life.
That’s a long-winded way of saying “I ain’t no stupid Slav”.
I hope you enjoy being ZOG’s fodder, cuck.
PS – when you find the likes of AaronB in agreement with you, maybe it’s time for a critical self-examination.
Surprising just how high the number of privately educated English friends married other privately educated English women. We are cliquey people. The number who marry other Europeans is where there has been an increase, also a few Chinese girls in there too. The abuse Harry got for marrying a mulatto is a good indicator.
I do not really have any objections to the conclusion of your post, however, your scenario concerns family size, not fertility rate.
Hail said that interracial couples had a lower fertility rate, or more specifically, lower TFR. That’s not the same thing as the number of live births. For this reason, your scenario, which explicitly ignores death rates, is incomplete.
If we are going to simulate the conditions of modern developed countries (and also many developing countries), where, in many instances, the death rate exceeds the birth rate for the monoracial majorities, or in the case of developing countires, where total mortality is very high, we have to include all the death in our math.
Your scenario gives a monoracial majority fertility rate of 2. That’s well below replacement in most developed countries, where the fertility rate for the majority would have to be above 3 to recoup the enormous losses of their ingroup, due to sustained low birth rates in an aging (and therefore, dying) society.
Most white Americans are above reproductive age (which should be more accurately defined as below age 35). Many of them are dying, and the number of deaths will increase sharply, no matter what, as the largest generational cohort (early boomers) begins dying off in the next 3 years.
So, even if monoracial whites had a larger family size of around 2 children, that still wouldn’t make them more fertile. The net fertility is all that matters under the new phenomenon of advanced societal age, combined with small family sizes.
You describe interracial relationships as being practically nonexistent in 1950. Yet, white American women’s fertility rate was below replacement from 1900-1940, from 1969-1991, and from 1995 onwards. In actuality, after the baby boom, whites never generated enough children to resist the gravitational pull of aging. White and black women’s low net fertility contributed just as much, if not more, to the growth of the “2 or more races” cohort as the birth rate of women who give birth to biracial children.
So it really is more accurate to say that mixed race pairings have a higher fertility rate. Whoever is doing the most breeding and the least dying is the most fertile.
Correction:
What I should have written here was this:
I would really like to emphasize this point here because it just goes to show how deeply historically entrenched white American women’s low fertility is. Aside from a mid century baby boom and a micro-boom in the early 1990s, white women in America were effectively infertile for the entire century. The persistent low fertility rate white women in America has been the norm for over 100 years, and only monumental historical events (typically devastating wars or the dissolution of world empires) have managed illicit a pulsatile increase in births by them.
1st and 2nd wave feminism were sufficient to affect a below replacement birthrate in the early 20th century, given the higher mortality rate of that era, meaning it really was white women, and in particular WASP women, not Jews or globalism, who are directly responsible for North America being the fastest demographically changing places on Earth. The conditions were set in the idealistic environment of the early 20th century, when there was no “Leftism”, and when over 10% of the US white adult population were members of the Ku Klux Klan.
Autochthonous white women’s feminism; not immigration, globalism, Gloria Steinem or the media, is what generated the most bizarre demographic transformation in world history. It seems likely that the white women’s fertility rate could only aporoach a normal level under Taliban-like behavior.
*elicit
I don’t think the anti-Meghan Markle sentiment is to do with her race, more that she is a divorcee and her profession as an actress is not seen as befitting of royalty, especially as she has done various “racy” scenes. Also people don’t like the callousness she has shown towards her ill father who lives in Mexico.
People sometimes compare her with Wallis Simpson, who was also disliked because she was a divorcee and seen as a social climber in the same way. I actually think the fact Meghan Markle is half-black in itself is an irrelevance to the vast majority of British people.
Imagine still cargo culting for the bs which is currently used for justification of the idiotic policies of total genetic replacement of Western Europeans
The West was made great by strong ships, big cannons and people willing to use them, not by enforcing the belief that that Sub-Saharan Africans and Nordic Scandinavians are exactly the same
??
That was never a part of the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment (and the renaissance before it) is what enabled the creation of those big ships, cannons, etc. It also gave birth to the scientific racism you espouse.
Before the Enlightenment, everyone assumed Scandinavians were the same as Negroes; as the Bible said: “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek”
Lots of commenters here interpret miscegenation in a cattle breeder sense. As we are not cattle, for humans the most important things are cultural and intellectual. Genetically, whites are a lot closer to blacks than to East Asians, but culturally and intellectually whites are compatible with East Asians and mestizos, and incompatible with Africans. Thus, the poll cited is meaningless, possibly intentionally so.
Strange statement-europids and Mongoloids diverged genetically much later than they diverged from the ancestors of Africans
I have a theory that Gandhi is sactified so that everyone comes off looking OK, what I mean by this is that Indians can appear have rose up peacefully and skillfully and the British can appear to have left on their own accords as opposed to being whipped out like they were in America.
I am not overly familiar with the history of Indian independence, but I do remember reading that the PM of the UK at the time said to an aide that Gandhi was a non-factor in the British decision to leave, which was i fact caused by a looming insurrection lead by Bose, who collaborated with the Japanese.
I agree, it was more that she brought her “blackness” into things and also did typical Hollywood things. For example I recall during the wedding she had a black preacher be the guy conducting the wedding ceremonies.
However I think the above things allowed people to vent their furstrations with plausible deniability, if she had just stayed low like Kate, abuse against her for “not being traditional like Kate” would have been less common as this would obviously be racism and Brits generally don’t do overt racism.
Right now when someone on the Daily Mail comments along the lines of “Kate is much more traditional”, it could mean either that she is British OR that she is more humble and down-to-earth.
I don’t see that marriage lasting long.
First, humans are a relatively young species, so overall genetic diversity in humans is at least an order of magnitude smaller than, say, in a fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Second, genetically East Asians diverged from Europeans a lot more than Europeans diverged from Africans (all within that small diversity found in our species). Yes, the ancestors of whites and Asians likely were the same when they migrated out of Africa, but then Asians diverged further from whites than whites from their African ancestors. There are many studies, but a lot of the newer ones are suspect because of PC BS. However, there are some facts that the “woke” crowd likes to overlook. E.g., Han Chinese do not have armpit sweat glands, which both whites and blacks have.
Tycho Brahe predated both Newton and the Enlightenment. His work paved the way for future discoveries and aided Kepler.
I think both race (she had a nose job) and class are a factor as well as her left-wing brand of American hubris.
Thank you for taking the time to document. I also remember checking up on the department store Stockmann and finding weird random examples of interracial couplings. I wonder if they are still doing that, going into the holidays?
As far as I know it is a subject of discussions. In particular (at least among Russian scientists) quite popular the hypothesis that australoids and Negroids form one branch, and europids and Mongoloids – another branch .
To the best of my knowledge, human genetics do not support this model. Then again, I am not a geneticist.
Bad example. Tyco Brahe was forced in to an early retirement by the apes who were in charge at the time. We’ll never know what we lost thanks to an unEnlightened crown.
Yes, Anti-white sentiment in America is at least in part due to the zombie of decades old KGB propaganda intending to stroke fires of racial tensions. The KGB are gone but their message still spreads like a virus .
The constant fighting between European states is what enabled it, constant need to make vessels sturdier to survive the wars would lead to a ship capable for rounding Africa and/or reaching America
This isn’t even to mention the religious justifications that Columbus used to fund his voyage
Theres a reason Portugal and Spain were the first
“Niggers are stupid” is something even Arabic scholars could conclude, and they did
This is pants-on-head level of retardation.
If biologists were intellectually honest, sub-Saharans would be classified as a different species.
I mean, there are animals that have less genetic distance between them than Africans and the rest of the humanity – and biologists classify them as different species.
And, as ZOG has taught us, culture and intellect have nothing to do with what’s in your DNA.
Lucky for us, your brought along your galactic brain to straighten us out.
Dear god. It has been known for decades that Europeans and East Asians are much closer to each other than either is to Sub-Saharan Africans. Here’s an article from 1989:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613254
This issue is hush hush and only talked about in technical terms because the reality is that the difference of Sub-Saharan Africans to everyone else is huge. If this were any other species, we’d be debating whether Africans can actually be considered the same species as Europeans+Asians+Amerindians. Eg. 2003 paper
https://biosci-batzerlab.biology.lsu.edu/Publications/Watkins%20et%20al.%202003%20Genome%20Research.pdf
Distance of Europeans and Africans: 0.0883
Distance of Europeans and East Asians: 0.0384
Distance of Africans and East Asians: 0.1049
East Asians are indeed the most distant from Africans but Europeans and East Asians are vastly genetically closer to each other than to Africans. The reason there is a difference in the distance between Africans to Europeans and to East Asians is that there are human groups like Neandertals and Denisovans that diverged from Africans much earlier and some of them were absorbed by the proto-Euro-Asians that left Africa. Africans are pure Homo Sapiens, Europeans have a bit of non-Homo-Sapiens human in them and East Asians a bit more.
Newer papers build much more detailed trees of human branching with all these now discovered trace remnants of Neandertals etc but the basic story of the three major races has remained the same – a group left Africa, spent some time diverging from Africans as one proto-Eurasian group, then split off to Europeans and Asians (and Amerindians etc).
Australian aborigines are not in branch with Africans. The dark skin, kinky hair and other features in common with negroes either mean that these are convergent evolution (adaptation to heat and sun) or they are the ancestral features of all humans so that the population that later became Europeans and Asians also had them but lost them as they colonized northern spaces. We know this is true of skin color which is lightened due to mutations that have already been identified (and Europeans and northern Asians have different mutations that lead to depigmentation so there’s some convergent evolution).
Your comment illustrates the fact that the less you know, the more self-assured you are. Bush Jr is an excellent example of this.
FYI, in biology the species issue is well defined. If two animals produce fertile progeny (as opposed to sterile progeny, like mules), they belong to the same species. In fact, genetic variation in humans (all of them, including Sub-Saharan Africans and Australoids) is remarkably small, smaller than in any other mammalian species studied.
Well, ZOG lies, what else is new? Your DNA has a large input into your intelligence. Culture is separate: in every culture there are smart people, dumb people, and total morons.
There is a huge difference between “known” and “believed”. Humans have a history of believing all sorts of ludicrous things for millennia (part of it is called the history of religions).
As for human genetic variation, see #110.
I really hate being a pedant, but that’s wrong.
There is quite a lot of archaic admixture within Africa.
Both in Bantus (West Africa) and in San (South Africa).
By simple process of elimination, that leaves East Africa as the origin of “pure Homo Sapiens” (assuming such creatures existed for long)
Anyone who claims whites are closer to blacks than to East Asians is exactly that.
Yes and it’s rather notable since they try to be a high end brand so they often do their own ads instead of just grabbing stock photos. It’s doubly ridiculous because it’s an expensive place so diversity is notably absent – they may get Russian and Asian tourists but they’re not going to buy more fur coats because they see photos of them on African models.
Stockmann is not doing too well these days, I guess their business model has been hit really hard by internet retail. The new two big malls in Helsinki are notably built with lots of services, food court, cafes and other Amazon-proof stuff. Stockmann’s fresh food part is still nice since they have staff with some expertise (in a strange development of recent years even chain grocery stores in obscure rural towns have gotten big exotic fruit selections but my favorites like coconuts and lychees are always spoiled because the staff doesn’t know wtf they’re doing).
Oh yes you’re right, I had a brain fart of just thinking about the earlier expansions into Eurasia as non-Homo-Sapiens humans. East Africa has recent back migration from Eurasia so I guess “pure Homo Sapiens” doesn’t actually exist.
I’ve already wasted too much time on Jews (some of the comments censored), so I’ll just throw in a few casual observations (some of them already covered in posts above)…
IQ ideology is of tertiary importance re this stuff: most is a combination of pervy sexuality & social status
long since I’ve learned not to extrapolate my opinions or values on other people: what may seem self-evident to me, to others could be something unimaginable. So, I’ll just speculate, using other sources without referencing them:
white men, as a rule don’t find black females attractive on any level (very rarely, only as a curiosity “I’ve tried that, too”); white females find black man attractive at a significantly higher level, but this too is not as common as media would like us to believe. Black fetish does exist, and it is just this- a fetish. Technically, there is a possibility of romantic love between blacks and whites, but I’d say it is virtually non-existent (especially in the case black male-white female).
Romance is, among those races, actually a joke.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/the-question-of-female-masochism/
https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/masochism4-680×1024.jpg
https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Nights-with-Sasquatch-627×1024.jpg
So, it is not as simple as Sailer had claimed years ago that women see black men as more masculine; I’d say those attracted to them see them as animals, potent humanoids and that kicks something subliminally pre-human in them (like screwing monkeys or dogs, make your pick).
https://www.unz.com/isteve/islamic-negrophobia-in-the-arabian-nights/
Islamic Negrophobia in “The Arabian Nights”
So anyway, King Shahryar sends for his kid brother, the Shah of Samarkand, to come for a visit. But as the Shah sets out,
….
Perhaps later…
Arab scholars couldn’t understand the concept of genetic differences between human groups nor the possibility that they were separate species (polygenism). These concepts arose during the Enlightenment, as did the search for and understanding of DNA (kicked off by Friedrich Miescher of Switzerland, an Enlightenment stronghold).
As for Columhus he was a child of the Renassaince. Not Christianity.
For hundreds of years, Christianity produced nothing but poverty, filth, ignorance, failure, cuckery, diarrhea, pestilence, and decay in Europe (and elsewhere). It is the religion of the ghettomensch.
No, it concerns fertility.
It’s perfectly possible to compute the fertility rates of the two groups from the numbers I provided.
Anyone who’s ever modeled demographic scenarios for modern times knows how relatively unimportant death rates are for population growth. Don’t just take my word for it. Run the numbers yourself and you’ll see. In any case, there’s no good reason to think that the death rates of mixed and monoracial would differ significantly.
The fertility rate I gave was completely hypothetical!
Which has what to do with what the prevalence of mixed relationships was in 1950?
That’s entirely possible. But to know for sure, we’d have to see actual data on the fertility of mixed couples, since, as I pointed out, it’s entirely possible for the proportion of mixed people in the population to rise despite mixed couples having a lower fertility rate than monoracial couples.
You haven’t demonstrated this at all.
No shit. But as I’m going to repetitiously point out to you once more, greater fertility may not be the most relevant factor in the proportional growth of mixed people in a population.
It’s a pity you didn’t bother to check the data before going on to emphasize a point that, apparently, didn’t require making in the first place.
White TFR:
1900 – 3.56
1910 – 3.42
1920 – 3.17
1930 – 2.45
1940 – 2.22
Declining, yes, but it looks above replacement to me. (And since interracial couplings were virtually non-existent in those years, essentially all those babies would have been monoracial.)
Spain and Portugal were first because of geography and the desire to get in on the spice trade, the Mediterranean access to which was denied to them by the Venetians and Genoans. After discovering new lands, the experience they had acquired from ‘colonising’ territories they had won back from the Moors aided them in settling, first, nearby island chains (Azores, Canaries) and then later the Americas. Religious justifications only came after the process was well under way.
That’s a question. Of course black skin of australoids arose independently from the black skin of Africans, but there are other signs that bring together australoids and Negroids. For this reason, the question of the existence (or non existence) of an Equatorial meta-race (including Negroid and Australoid) remains unresolved.
Here is an overview of the discussion in Russian
http://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/601/
Have you ever been to Britain or known any English people?
These rates are all below replacement for the mortality rates of that historical period.
Australoids aren’t black and their skin color didn’t “arise independently”; it’s an ancestral skin color that all human beings on Earth had until the Holocene.
The skin of Australian Aboriginals is a reddish brown color, ranging from nearly black (but still visibly reddish) in some regions and individuals, to a medium reddish brown in others.
In Oceania, Bougainville Islanders are the closest thing to “black skinned” — with a caveat, they aren’t Australoid, but Mongoloid-Australoid/Caucasoid. They also have more Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry than East Asians (Sankaraman 2016).
Australoids are more genetically removed from Africans than East Asians are.
*Sankarararaman 2016
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(16)30247-0
No, it concerns family size which is not the same thing as a fertility rate.
Absurd. By their higher common age alone, more whites are dying than are people in mixed race relationships or their offspring.
Whites have experienced exponentially shrinking generational sizes due to sustained fertility declines, which lasted for decades aside from a few statistical “bumps” in the road (mainly mid-millennials).
There are way fewer Zoomers than there are Boomers, for example. Zoomers would have to be having way more than 3 kids per woman to compensate for the dieoff of a massive number of Baby Boomers, which will begin happening in the early 2020s. The death rate is a huge factor in population growth when your shit-tier fertility has created an inverted population pyramid.
It doesn’t matter that there were no mixed race relationships in 1950, because when they did start to rise, white fertility had been in the dumps for decades. And long before that, white fertility was below replacement for over 40 years, particularly in urban areas. So mixed race pairings got a big “head start” on white populatuon growth.
It’s already demonstrated in the figures. Whites aren’t reproducing enough to keep their numbers from falling due to the huge number of dying white people, while “2 or more races” is gains. Whichever pairing is growing more is the more fertile.
Repetitiously — because you still don’t realize that the crude birth rate isn’t the same thing as the fertility rate.
Sorry, you’re obviously correct here. A serious lapse of reasoning on my part. I was fixated on comparing two people at the same age and couldn’t see any reason why one should be more likely to die. But yeah, clearly mixed people are much younger on average and will have a far lower death rate.
I guess this depends on what you mean by huge. Remember, I specified modern demographic scenarios, in which the vast majority make it old age. So the death rates I had in mind were within the parameters that that metric could realistically take. Obviously if you make the death rate absurdly unrealistically high (or low) it will make a major difference on population growth.
But consider this. Say the TFR is stable at 1.6 and that women are fertile for 20 years. If the death rate is 5 per 1000, then after 25 years, the population will be 30% higher. If the death rate is 25 per 1000, the population 25 years later will be 20% lower. Now, that’s a considerable difference, but it took increasing the death rate by a factor of five to achieve it.
If we leave the death rate at 25 but slightly more than double the TFR to 3.6, the population after 25 years will again be 30% higher. So in this case varying the TFR by a factor of 2.25 is equivalent to varying the death rate by a factor 5.
Now in this simplistic example 25 years is a short enough period of time that below replacement fertility doesn’t greatly alter the age-structure of the population. If such low fertility persisted over generations, of course, the age-structure would be significantly altered, and death rates would exert a much great bearing on population. Furthermore, death rates vary slowly, not by anywhere near as much as by a factor of 5 (or even a factor of 2) over the course of one generation. Whereas fertility rates can vary very quickly, easily doubling or halving in the space of ten years. So the main driver of population in any real world scenario is going to be birth/fertility, not death.
With respect to our discussion, while it’s very true that whites are an aging population, and death rates will rise, they’ll do so (and have done so) at a vastly slower pace than in the illustrative example here. Deaths rates haven’t varied nearly enough for them to be much of a factor in accounting for the rise in the proportion of mixed people in the population – and even if they had, that could count as evidence in favor of my position anyway, lol.
My example provided the raw data, from which computing a fertility rate is straightforward.
Just to recap where we stand, because this is getting a bit messy:
Your claim is that the sole reason that mixed people have increased rapidly as a proportion of the population is that the fertility of women in mixed couples is much greater than the fertility of women in monoracial relationships.
My position is that that this one possible reason for the rise in the proportion of mixed people. But another possibility is that the rise in the proportion of mixed people is being driven simply by a growing number of mixed couples, and that the fertility rate of women in mixed relationships may well be lower than that of women in monoracial relationships. I haven’t argued that this is the case, but I think I have demonstrated that it could be.
Thank you for this response.
The total fertility rate tells us nothing about population growth/replacement rate because it does not take in to account the overall mortality rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
In the early 20th century USA, mortality rates were very high (higher than the third world today) due to incurable (at the time) infections, childhood accidents and less advanced childbirthing practice. The fertility rates of ~3.5-2.5 were below replacement back then. There’s multiple articles on the below replacement fertility in the early 20th century USA.
The “death rate” of all white americans alone doesn’t tell us a whole lot. What matters is who’s dying, and who’s of reproductive age. When the majority of people are not of reproductive age (as is the case in white people), you have a situation where a very small number of reproductive age white people are having to make up for a huge number of people age 65-75 who are going to be dying in the 2030s and 2040s. The death rate for people age 65-75 is about to start skyrocketing. An equally large number of people currently aged 50-60 will seamlessly follow them to the grave.
Of course it will. Your example doesn’t tell us what the fertility rates were like in the 75 years before the TFR fell to 1.6. If it was anything resembling normal, as it was in most countries in the 20th century, you’re going to have tons more people over the age of 30 than you did before the fertility rate dropped to 1.6. And that’s exactly what’s happening.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicolae_Done2/publication/278050215/figure/fig5/AS:667875614412804@1536245363257/Population-pyramids-for-South-Korea-1960-1990-2010-and-2030-Source-3.jpg
https://images.populationpyramid.net/capture/?selector=%23pyramid-share-container&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.populationpyramid.net/spain/2019/%3Fshare%3Dtrue
https://www.buddinggeographers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/germany-Uganda-2014.png
You have only demonstrated that the crude birth rate of monoracial women could be higher than that of women who reproduce with men of another race. But that’s not fertility. Fertility, as a measurement of population growth, is equated not just by births but also population structure. Currently more white people are dying than are being born, and so the fertility rate of monoracial white people can never exceed that of women who mix. The “baby boomer equivalents” of mixed race couples are not even 21 years old yet.
My position is that the fertility rate of same-race white relationships is lower than that of mixed race relationships. It is probably lower for black monoracial births, and presumably Hispanics as well (China-Russia-All-The-Way’s chart doesn’t tell us how many biracial Hispanics are being lopped in with Hispanics, but it’s pretty clear a lot of them are).
The crude birth rate of of biracial pairings may well be lower — although it makes no sense to compare them to monoracial averages, as biracial couples tend to be either lower working class or upper middle class –; but their fertility will always be higher.
The higher net fertility rate, and the “head start” effect of over 100 years of below replacement white fertility are the most compelling reasons for the increase of the biracial population, in spite of a potentially lower crude birth rate.
Just to reiterate, my position is that the extreme fertility void of the 20th and 21st centuries, and the resultant “upside down” age structure of white Americans, is a more weighted contribution to the growth of mixed race people, rather than the increase (from 1% to ~10-15%, happening over a 35 year period) in the number of biracial pairings. So yes, I do believe that white American fertility is substantially lower than biracial fertility.
The fact you think dislike of Meghan Markle is a race thing makes me wonder if you’ve ever been to Britain. Dislike of Markle is about many things, but race isn’t one of them. Also, there is a tradition of disliking the spouses of royals, Kate Middleton wasn’t very well liked before Markle came along.
In fact I don’t think most British people would even perceive her as black based on appearance, she doesn’t even look very black. The only reason people know she is part-black is because SHE and the media continuously make a point of it, otherwise I don’t think most people would even realise.
Wouldn’t agree. Brazil is the best example of racial continuity. Whites were less numerous than now, and although there was an official policy of “whitening” (it failed), races there seem to live mostly apart. Whites (and almost whites) keep to themselves, as do blacks and pardos.
Just because Brazil’s racial identity culture is not radically segregationist, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. On the contrary, it is even stronger than American. The chief difference is that Brazil’s whites (and almost whites) don’t self-flagellate & are not “woke” as Anglo-American lunatics.
Pro-humanity vs. anti-race mixing.
Thankfully, we live in a civilized world where men and women have the liberty to date and mate with members of their own race or with members outside of their race. This behavior is not going to be “stamped out” in the future.
Remember, Alt Right icon John Derbyshire (white) married an Asian and sired two offspring (mixed). Nothing immoral or unjust about it at all.
Things are not that simple.
Of course, in the modern world, it seems unthinkable that an individual’s wishes & preferences re these matters, which don’t directly hurt anyone else, could be scrutinized or even submitted to some kind of ostracism.
But I wouldn’t be so naive.
Simply, people live in groups, and racial/ethnic groups tend to compete, and in most cases such competition can escalate not only to animosity, but to open war. It is an idealization to think that mixed people will somehow “smooth the edges”. On the contrary, they will fall into one group or another, and competition will only increase due to heightened insecurities of the mixed people who will be forced, one way or another, to take sides (when they can).
In the case of the recessives (whites, Asians, Indians,..), it may be not completely radical (although I don’t know for certain, considering Peru & Bolivia, where Indians have succeeded to retain their language & many aspects of culture).
With blacks, who are so different from other big races- I don’t see there is an easy solution. Blacks always lag behind all others; as a group, they are open to race mixing, more than others- just, others seem to vanish into black race group, so that blacks’ numbers grow with race mixing, while they, as a group, retain distinctiveness & hostility toward others (it doesn’t matter who is to blame, if anyone).
At some point, a racial ethnic or group will dismiss individual rights & impose strong group divisions. For instance, although they don’t belong to different races, Protestants & Catholics don’t mix.
In Africa, whites were expelled from all (or almost all) black-ruled countries, as were Indians & others. Will Chinese power, emergent in Africa, accept partial negrification of the local Chinese? Highly doubt it.
Or shortly: when sheer numbers of mixed people increases, the core groups are always up in arms & those “mixed” are either assimilated in a more colored group or expelled/segregated.
Now we have the bird troll along with our base sikhs.
Will wonders never cease?
“Of course, in the modern world, it seems unthinkable that an individual’s wishes & preferences re these matters, which don’t directly hurt anyone else, could be scrutinized or even submitted to some kind of ostracism.”
Throughout human history such wishes and preferences have been vetted, debated, and fought over. It’s who we are as a species. Nothing surprising here.
“But I wouldn’t be so naive.”
Thanks for the strawman.
“Simply, people live in groups, and racial/ethnic groups tend to compete, and in most cases such competition can escalate not only to animosity, but to open war.”
Simply put, people live in groups, and racial/ethnic groups have shown to coexist, and throughout the course of civilization, have sought to cooperate to live in peace and prosperity.
“It is an idealization to think that mixed people will somehow “smooth the edges”.”
Not idealization, fact. Think about the United States. Disparate European groups who colonized and immigrated our land. Competing ethnicities found a way to create a new identity.
“On the contrary, they will fall into one group or another, and competition will only increase due to heightened insecurities of the mixed people who will be forced, one way or another, to take sides (when they can).”
COULD fall. It is also likely that a mutual appreciation of such differences, again as shown in America, is able to make its people demonstrate resolve and resiliency.
“With blacks, who are so different from other big races…”
According to Who/Whom?
“Blacks always lag behind all others; as a group, they are open to race mixing, more than others”
No. PEOPLE regardless of race or ethnicity are open to race mixing. It’s really not that big of a deal.
“At some point, a racial ethnic or group will dismiss individual rights & impose strong group divisions.
COULD dismiss. It is also likely that those groups, mindful of their own past history of discrimination, will not engage in a similar action.
“For instance, although they don’t belong to different races, Protestants & Catholics don’t mix.”
Yet they have gotten along fairly well in the U.S.
“In Africa, whites were expelled from all (or almost all) black-ruled countries, as were Indians & others.”
Well, how did whites get to Africa in the first place? How did they “set up shop” there?
“Will Chinese power, emergent in Africa, accept partial negrification of the local Chinese? Highly doubt it.”
You mean will Africans who have enabled Chinese investment there allow it. They may or may not.
“Or shortly: when sheer numbers of mixed people increases, the core groups are always up in arms & those “mixed” are either assimilated in a more colored group or expelled/segregated.”
Certainly in some cases.
“Now we have the bird troll along with our base sikhs.”
LOL. In the grand scheme of things, the “problem” of race mixing pales in comparison to corruption, poverty, and a myriad of other issues. Regardless, people are going to make their own decisions about race and culture.
Few people who hang out on this blog care about European + East Asian mixing. The poll in the original post was about mixing with blacks and Derbyshire is definitely not a fan of that.
“Few people who hang out on this blog care about European + East Asian mixing. The poll in the original post was about mixing with blacks and Derbyshire is definitely not a fan of that.”
The post is about miscegenation, the mixing of races. Specifically, about black-white mixing. Either race mixing is desirable or undesirable. There is NO middle ground here or “cherry picking” here, i.e. white-Asian good, black-white bad.
Now, that’s illogical. Culturally compatible is OK, culturally incompatible is not.
Why not? I tell my relatives to avoid mixing with blacks but I have relatives who’ve mixed with Koreans, Chinese, Scandinavians, Anglos etc and I approve of that just fine. I don’t have any difficulty “cherry picking”. Nor do any of my relatives – even the ones who support diversity ideology in public will have different opinions about some groups in private discussions.
(Just mentioning Koreans and Scandinavians etc in the same since I am Finnish and we are Eurasian so it all sort of counts as race mixing. Strangely even though all my relatives and indeed my whole ethnic group is mixed race by the classical division of races I still want them to avoid certain mixings…)
“Now, that’s illogical. Culturally compatible is OK, culturally incompatible is not.”
Lucy has some ‘xplainin to do. A white English man marries and has children with a Chinese (Asian) woman, and that is “culturally compatible”, but not “undesirable race mixing”? You are trying to eat your cake and eat it, too.
“Why not? I tell my relatives to avoid mixing with blacks but I have relatives who’ve mixed with Koreans, Chinese, Scandinavians, Anglos etc and I approve of that just fine. I don’t have any difficulty “cherry picking”. Nor do any of my relatives – even the ones who support diversity ideology in public will have different opinions about some groups in private discussions.”
Then you approve of race mixing. There is no “being selective” here. It’s either you are in favor or against the mixing of the races regardless of the combination. Otherwise, you are being a “cuck”.
I know that stuff about Finns, but, sorry, you’re super-white. You’re one of the whitest people on earth.
I think it’s much more valuable that we’re all in unity that in a state collapse, we’ll shoot you first.
You don’t have to be so concerned about what happens afterward.
On a literal level of skin color, possibly, but on a social level I’ve found Finns very compatible because they do have certain Asiastic characteristics. Its much less “Faustian” than much of European culture, both for good and ill, and I argue its actually one reason why despite the annoying things like Stockmann posters, I think it is much less pozzed.
It is difficult to characterize Finns in spiritual matters because they’re not numerous & they live in godforsaken darkness. I’d rather stick to phenotype- it is much easier & it matters more in everyday life.
And I would agree they’re more mentally sane than other Northerners.
Look, I am not a racist, I am a biologist, and therefore a realist. East Asians are OK in pairing with whites (in either M-F combination) because they are culturally compatible. Many US GIs brought Vietnamese wives, and they did not create any problems, even in predominantly redneck South. There are quite a few Russian-Chinese families in the Russian Far East, many Russian-Kazakh families, etc. When both partners are civilized modern humans, this only yields healthier and prettier children (ask farmers: outbreeding always improves stock of animals and plants). Most Latinos (both mestizos and Amerindians) are just as compatible with whites and East Asians. Some blacks are also culturally compatible (quite a few Caribbean blacks), so they are OK as mates of whatever gender. Many blacks, true Africans and especially the US blacks, are culturally incompatible. So, the genetically mixed child will be either a normal civilized human (i.e., w/o black “heritage”), or culturally “black”. There is no middle ground there. In biology this is known as “behavioral isolation”, pretty common in birds: the individuals can give fertile progeny, but do not mate because of behavioral incompatibility. Humans sometimes (a lot rarer than libtards would like) mate with culturally incompatible individuals, with sad results.
“Look, I am not a racist”
Never stated directly nor indirectly.
“East Asians are OK in pairing with whites (in either M-F combination) because they are culturally compatible.”
That’s not what nativists had touted. But you are conflating “race” with “culture” here. Now I have no issues with ANY mixing of the races.
“Many US GIs brought Vietnamese wives, and they did not create any problems, even in predominantly redneck South.”
It was not about”creating problems”; objections by Southerners there centered around the inferior biological genes that would be passed down to offspring, i.e. a Vietnamese peasant woman and a stout Anglo-Saxon man.
“There are quite a few Russian-Chinese families in the Russian Far East, many Russian-Kazakh families, etc. When both partners are civilized modern humans, this only yields healthier and prettier children (ask farmers: outbreeding always improves stock of animals and plants).”
So do white-black mixtures.
“Most Latinos (both mestizos and Amerindians) are just as compatible with whites and East Asians. Some blacks are also culturally compatible (quite a few Caribbean blacks), so they are OK as mates of whatever gender. Many blacks, true Africans and especially the US blacks, are culturally incompatible.”
PEOPLE regardless of race and culture and ethnicity are compatible based on their own personal metrics and attitudes.
“So, the genetically mixed child will be either a normal civilized human (i.e., w/o black “heritage”), or culturally “black”.”
No. The genetically mixed child will be a human being who will be civilized by their society.
“In biology this is known as “behavioral isolation”, pretty common in birds: the individuals can give fertile progeny, but do not mate because of behavioral incompatibility.”
You assume that there is this “behavioral incompatibility”. The fact is that you are using tortured logic to justify one type of race mixing. It’s really simple–either race mixing in its entirety is desirable or undesirable.
“Humans sometimes (a lot rarer than libtards would like) mate with culturally incompatible individuals, with sad results.”
Offer a definition of “culturally incompatible” as well so I understand your line of thinking. Then cite examples.
“I think it’s much more valuable that we’re all in unity that in a state collapse, we’ll shoot you first. You don’t have to be so concerned about what happens afterward.”
LOL, another Internet armchair warrior. You lack the guile and gumption to pull the trigger. Trying to front on a blog is not a really good look for you. Stop while you are behind.
Btw, Daniel Chieh has a white wife, and mixed race kids himself 🙂
What’s wrong with that? I’ve seen many white-East Asian mixed children, or white-Kazakh mixed children (Kazakhs are Mongoloids), they tend to be more beautiful than either race alone. Healthier, too: after far outbreeding virtually any allele with an error is compensated by a perfectly normal second allele. Whereas inbreeding often results in homozygous mutant alleles, hence various genetic disorders, including birth defects. It’s elementary genetics. The only possible downside is cultural incompatibility. That ruins all the advantages, often resulting in perfectly healthy moral monsters.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
It’s just that Daniel seemed to be attacking Corvinus for saying race mixing is OK.
I’m attacking Corvinus(and you) for a much worse sin: being annoying.
There is no evidence for this. The chances that you share a particular damaged allele with a member of your own ethnic group are not particularly high in the first place, and not necessarily significantly different than a person from another ethnic group, except in the case of genes that are fixed in one group but not the other. A member of a different race might well have the same damaged allele as you, since people from different races share many genes. The often misleadingly mentioned fact that there is more genetic diversity within populations than between them is actually relevant here.
Past the level of your fourth cousin, you are already less than a 10th of a percent related. What you have done is taken the theory of inbreeding depression and extrapolated. One can easily do the same for outbreeding depression and reach the opposite conclusion. You cannot make this extrapolation.
Mechanical motion of the trigger is really a function of hand muscles.
You are right that the frequency of each mutation in human population is fairly low. However, we have >20,000 genes, and there is measurable diversity between populations. Thus, the overall low probability of getting two bad alleles (homozygous or compound heterozygous for the damage to a particular gene) is lower in cases of far outbreeding than in cases of closer outbreeding you mentioned. As far as looks and health of mixed-race children or other children produced by far outbreeding (say, Irish-Italian), both are better, and that’s an experimental fact. No extrapolation needed.
There are a number of diseases with much higher frequency in certain populations (e.g., European Jews) than in others. Inbreeding (or outbreeding that is not far enough) is the only known explanation.
LOL, I didn’t realize offering cogent points in a online discussion is “annoying”.
Now, is it true that you are married to a white woman and have mixed offspring? A simple yes or no should suffice.
Furthermore, are you not opposed to race mixing on general principle, or are you just opposed to race mixing that you do not prefer? Perhaps you are like Michelle Malkin in that she opposes anchor babies…even though she is one?
Hopefully, you won’t run away from responding to serious questions.
“What’s wrong with that? I’ve seen many white-East Asian mixed children, or white-Kazakh mixed children (Kazakhs are Mongoloids), they tend to be more beautiful than either race alone.”
There isn’t anything wrong with race mixing at all. The problem here is that some people are saying certain kinds of race mixing is acceptable and other kinds of race mixing is unacceptable. In that case, race mixing is more a personal preference rather than an ideology that must be upheld regardless of the combination.
“The only possible downside is cultural incompatibility. That ruins all the advantages, often resulting in perfectly healthy moral monsters.”
OK, please offer studies–since you say you are a “biology” person–that has offered insight into this specific topic, i.e. race and cultural incompatibility, because I would say with relative certainty that you are conflating the two terms.
“Mechanical motion of the trigger is really a function of hand muscles.”
LOL, mostly after a analysis of the situation, its moral implications, and its legal consequences. Now, I get crimes of passion and those situations where a person “flips out”, but you, a supposedly high IQ fellow, realize what it mean if you went all Rambo and shot up your political and ideological enemies.
Remember, you are the one who is not white. The Alt Right maniacs who tout this “civil war”–if and when they ever become organized and begin in earnest their bloodbath (LOL)–will pass me over and throw out people of color from helicopters Pinochet style.
However, we are fortunate that the posters here who are the armchair Internet warriors like yourself talk smack. You just don’t have it in you, and we normies are all fortunate that you hide behind a screen and call out how “Well, you just wait, someday we’re all going to get our guns and take out our oppressors”. That’s called a clown show. You’re not impressing anyone, and you’re only fooling yourself.
You must not know many state collapses.
Yes, and it is quite possible that there are many who will exterminate me. But really, in such a situation, you’re going first so you really don’t have to worry about me at all!
Annoying people tend to get first placement! 🙂
“You must not know many state collapses.”
I am well versed in many state collapses. The issue here is that, through implication, you direct it to our nation (the U.S.) and that I, as a threat, will be targeted and eliminated, with yourself being part of that crowd. Again, that is classic armchair Internet warrior behavior. It really bothers you that you just don’t have it in you to be a starter and finisher on this matter, so that is why you are now tripling down on something that is not…going…anywhere.
“But really, in such a situation, you’re going first so you really don’t have to worry about me at all!”
LOL, it’s really cute pretending you have this 100% guarantee of my demise in the event of American Civil War2. It just means you are projecting your own insecurities onto me. Do not attribute your own impotence to go all Hulk on your ideological enemies.
“Annoying people tend to get first placement!”
No, those deemed a direct threat to something are thrown. Desperate are you to label me in this fashion–based on interactions on a blog!–that your capacity to think logically and reasonable have been effectively neutered.
So, you are Asian and married to a white woman. Great, you answered one question. Now here are the others that are critical. Don’t run away from answering them–So why are you seemingly opposed to race mixing between certain groups? You do realize that miscegenation is an EITHER-OR proposition, right? Are you not being contradictory? Why/why not?
I think you’re confused about something; I’m not here to answer anything at all for you or your silly and widely inaccurate rambles about your fellow posters.
You see, if I was going to try to do something for your satisfaction, it would because it was because I cared for your approval or if it was satisfied some consistency in myself. As I’m sure can be viewed from my other posts, I am a person with great intellectual acumen, excellent communication skills and indisputable virtues(especially modesty).
However, you are just a worthless avian troll so your main purpose is to entertain the others. In such, I only bother to reply to the points that’ll entertain others. You’re worthless.
Hybrid vigor lasts for one generation. After that the offspring produced from continued mixing of hybridized individuals get a random assortment of traits from the two genetic lines that might be advantageous but are most likely less adaptive than the mix of traits inherent in the original breeds/varieties.
Farmers buy hybrid seed every year because of this. The seeds produced by hybridized varieties have significantly poorer performance than the plants they came from.
Similarly, if you breed a European with an African you will get a child that has the best traits of both sides, but if you keep breeding these hybridized people with each other then the result will be a group which is less fit, and less attractive, than both of the original groups. Hence the 20%-80% Euro-Africans of the US are less attractive, and less successful, than both pure Europeans and pure Africans.
Because there is much less genetic distance between Europeans and Asians than between Europeans and Africans, the Euro-Asian mix creates less problems over the long term, but the same principle still applies.
FWIW, it might interest you to know that AnonFromTN is a geneticist in real life who has to work with protein folding on a daily basis.
To produce healthy children, you should marry a third or fourth cousin. If you marry farther out, the genetic costs of outbreeding begin to outweigh those of inbreeding. That was the finding of a study of Icelanders born between 1800 and 1964. Fertility was lower if the woman’s husband was either more closely related or more distantly related.
That finding was supported by the results of a Danish study. Using data on Danes born in 1954, the authors measured the distance between the wife’s home parish and the husband’s home parish. Fertility peaked at a distance of around 75 km. This relationship between fertility and marital radius was not explained by education, family income, urbanicity, or mother’s age at first birth. The authors concluded that their findings were consistent with those of the Icelandic study, the cause being the same in both cases: fertility rises with decreasing relatedness up to a peak level and then starts to fall. Inbreeding depression then gives way to outbreeding depression.
References
Helgason, A., S. Pálsson, D.F. Guðbjartsson, þ. Kristjánsson, K. Stefánsson. (2008). An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples. Science 319(5864): 813-816.
http://facelab.org/debruine/Teaching/EvPsych/files/Helgason_2008.pdf
Labouriau, R., and A. Amorim. (2008). Comment on “An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples” Science 322(5908): 1634
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1634.2.full
That is interesting. I guess you could say someone who works on protein folding is a theoretical geneticist. Whereas in real life I am a farmer so I am more interested in applied genetics.
Applying ideas in the real world sharpens the mind. I was educated in physics, and I found that the experimentalists were more practical and competent than the theoreticians. String theorists in particular were the butt of jokes, not to be taken seriously.
It should be called ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs.
You seem not that well acquainted with the Arab (or rather Islamic, Arab-writing) scholars’ opinions on the matter you refer to.
Maybe you should read Ibn Khaldun’s Muqqadimah, or if you already have done that, re-read it.
I just name Ibn Khaldun for the sake of brevity, but I might have named Ibn Sina or others (Al Biruni is one readily coming to mind when “Islamic anthropology ” is pondered upon).
Remember that the Islamic scholars of the Middle Ages were mostly Aristotelian Semites.
You get the idea of their “Racial Consciousness” by just the above mentioned association of Semitic clannish mentality with the remnants of Classic Hellenistic Mediterranean/Middle Eastern heritage of the times.
The “Arabs” of the time and “Arabs” of today are very different…
Inbreeding, outbreeding, outbreeding, inbreeding…
In the long run, it’s selective pressures that matter.
“I think you’re confused about something; I’m not here to answer anything at all for you or your silly and widely inaccurate rambles about your fellow posters.”
There is no confusion about your unwillingness to respond to relevant questions about your statements, nor your gleeful exuberance for others to engage in violence against your ideological foes.
“As I’m sure can be viewed from my other posts, I am a person with great intellectual acumen, excellent communication skills and indisputable virtues(especially modesty).”
Indisputable arrogance.
“However, you are just a worthless avian troll so your main purpose is to entertain the others.”
My main purpose is to debate.
“In such, I only bother to reply to the points that’ll entertain others. You’re worthless.”
Projection on your part.
Now, stop stalling. Don’t run away from answering these important questions–So why are you seemingly opposed to race mixing between certain groups? You do realize that miscegenation is an EITHER-OR proposition, right? Are you not being contradictory? Why/why not?
I have to side with the crow here, Danier-San. Stop being a Mangina and answet the damn question…
Don’t encourage him. At the very least, he needs to learn to use the blockquote button.
I’m not a racist or anything but this is absolutely a disaster. We’ve run this experiment before, we know that letting any appreciable amount of Congoid ancestry into your population wrecks the capacity for reaching the highest levels. It destroyed Egypt, it damaged Arabia, it is holding back Colombia and Brazil.
Moreover, there’s the aspect of preservation. Like we care about the bison. Huge efforts have been made to selectively remove cattle DNA from bison herds. Shouldn’t we care about the races of Europe at least as much? We’re going to allow a race of jungle dwelling mush eaters with 8% unknown primitive hominid admixture to introgress into the Danish or Polish gene pool? That’s insanity.
In the distant future people will be paying money to select embryos with lower Congoid admixture, all because of a few fools in the 21st century. Lots of damage is being done because logical men with skin in the game aren’t in power
This is exactly right. It’s as simple as this: One should support whatever is eugenic and despise whatever is dysgenic. White and NE Asian pairings very frequently fall into the former classification, so they’re permissible on that account. Brazilification, in contrast, is obviously dysgenic and must be despised.
Corvinus, when it comes to dominant genes, you are dead wrong, especially when it comes to blacks.
Black genes mixes with other groups ALWAYS results in the non-black group suffering a deficit.
All one has to do is look at whites who adopt black children.
As pre-adolescent children, they can be cute and somewhat charming, BUT when they reach adolescence, their black genes AWAYS express themselves and are dominant.
Colin Kapaernick was raised by a white family.
By your “logic” and “reasoning”, Kapaernick’s “upbringing” should have ensconced him into white societal norms.
Guess what? The OPPOSITE happened.
Kapaernick embraces his black culture to such a degree, he finds “racism” under every rock, just like every other black who is adopted by whites. I’ll bet he resents his white adoptive “parents”.
There are tens of thousand white parents who are suffering the same fate. Their misguided altruism cannot erase DNA.
one would imagine that the Irish/German/Italian Catholics alloed the TFR > 2.1. But among middle class WASPS etc one could imagine that TFR < replacement
Yeah, it “ensconsed” that N- into black professional athletic culture where his parents will never have to work again, rather than have him spend 22 years trying to get a PhD in Tyrolean History, and drive back and forth between Junior Colleges teaching for $50,000 a year.
It’s the other way around. Protestants have always had higher fertility in the United States. It was catholic Irish/Italian/German women who had below replacement fertility in the USA.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1973195
And today, it’s still protestant whites with the highest fertility in the USA (with mormons and amish in the lead). Ethnic Scandinavians (most protestant group in Europe) also have the highest fertility in Europe. The catholic and orthodox males tend to be very incel.
By the way, there is no “2.1 TFR”. Read Sam Coulton’s replies to Silviosilver. 2.1 is a theoretical replcement rate that assumes near-zero mortality levels; as in modern postindustrial societies. In the early twentieth century, when the USA had a 1 in 40 mortality rate, which is higher than anywhere in the third world, the replacement TFR was closer to 4.
Good point! However, the only reason “black professional athletic culture” exists is due to white creation and support.
Regards,
“Black genes mixes with other groups ALWAYS results in the non-black group suffering a deficit.”
I’ll be charitable here since it is the holiday and say you’re an idiot. Please show me the research that definitively proves your case in EVERY circumstance.
“All one has to do is look at whites who adopt black children.”
Which is a red herring since there is no gene mixing taking place.
“As pre-adolescent children, they can be cute and somewhat charming, BUT when they reach adolescence, their black genes AWAYS express themselves and are dominant.”
That is Fake News.
“Guess what? The OPPOSITE happened.”
There is no such thing as “white societal norms”, just societal norms based on a particular area.
“There are tens of thousand white parents who are suffering the same fate. Their misguided altruism cannot erase DNA.”
Then how did the offspring of millions of low IQ European peasants who trekked their way to the U.S. end up being fairly intelligent? Magic dirt and environment?
I see my friend Corvinus is at it again with the name-calling–so immature on an adult website. The PROOF is out there, but (s)he still clings to the old (un)truth that “we are all equal”.
Corvinus is either black or a jew (they complement each other) and “cannot see the forest for the trees”.
As to “white societal norms” it is almost EVERY OTHER RACE that wants to live under “white societal norms” as most of the other races are incapable of creating and administering such a system themselves.
I wish you well Corvinus, but wish you would remove “the mote from your eyes” and see the world for what it is.
Stop making excuses for aberrant behavior by non-whites.
Yes, and the only reason the trillion dollar industry known as “honkees becomin’ billionaires off shit with angry animal logos” exists, is due to black black charisma, athleticism and malfesance.
Double regards,
“I see my friend Corvinus is at it again with the name-calling–so immature on an adult website.”
LOL. You seem not to have a problem with anyone else making similar statements. Thanks for the virtue signaling wrapped up in concern trolling! Besides, you really should be toughened up for the cruel world that exists. If you get so bent out of shape for someone calling you an idiot, how are you going to handle your female boss accusing you of sexual harassment?
“The PROOF is out there, but (s)he still clings to the old (un)truth that “we are all equal”.”
Then prove it. YOU made the assertion (Black genes mixes with other groups ALWAYS results in the non-black group suffering a deficit), I called you out on it, now submit the evidence.
“Corvinus is either black or a jew (they complement each other) and “cannot see the forest for the trees”.”
More Laugh-O-Lympics on your part. I’m goy, pure goy–German, Dutch, and Polish.
“As to “white societal norms” it is almost EVERY OTHER RACE that wants to live under “white societal norms” as most of the other races are incapable of creating and administering such a system themselves.”
OK, now you have a second assertion to prove–most of the other races are incapable of creating and administrating a system (of norms) themselves. Do you enjoy digging yourself intellectual holes? Do you need a mental booster seat?
“Stop making excuses for aberrant behavior by non-whites.”
I will admit you are a master of projection.
Now, do your homework and answer this question–Did the offspring of millions of low IQ European peasants who trekked their way to the U.S. end up being fairly intelligent? Magic dirt and environment?
It might take you all day, but even showing a modicum of effort would be impressive. “Modicum” means “small quantity”. I need to remind myself of the audience I am speaking to…
Your question: “Now, do your homework and answer this question–Did the offspring of millions of low IQ European peasants who trekked their way to the U.S. end up being fairly intelligent? Magic dirt and environment?”
…is disingenuous to say the least.
These “low IQ” Europeans were a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Starting out with NOTHING, coming to a new, strange country, they did not only pretty well, but spectacularly well, creating and enhancing civil society. Being abused by their European overlords gave them a strength and the will to succeed in their newly adopted land that is unmatched, even today.
You appear to be of the type, the “landed gentry” born with a silver spoon in your mouth who enjoys lording it over others with “your superior intellectual prowess”.
It is apparent that you never lived among the dregs and underclass of society and have NO IDEA of the damage done by those with ulterior motives whose only purpose is to destabilize and eventually destroy white American society.
Grow up, already…
I wish you were right.
It’s just that there’s little reason to think so.
White numbers rose in Brazil because of early 20th century European immigration, not because of miscegenation. The latter could only increase white numbers if white race-mixers were more fertile than non-whites, but indications are that Brazilian fertility is dysgenic (the lower classes, predominantly non-white, have been outbreeding the upper, more intelligent, whiter classes), so this is unlikely to be the case.
You point out that whites still exist. Yes, they do. But recent census data indicates to me that whites are beginning to decline in numbers (or perhaps “defining” oneself as white is starting to be less socially important), and part of the reason for that decline is miscegenation.
What is the point of celebrating the ongoing existence of a tiny remnant portion of whites, reduced from 50% of the population to, say, 5%? You could call that “effective extinction.”
And since, no matter how strongly a parent feels about maintaining racial identity, there is no way to guarantee that the children will feel the same way. If they don’t feel the same way, they will will more likely mix. As time goes on, and white numbers drop and opportunities to pair up with non-whites multiply, the chances that mixing will occur only rise. In the fullness of time, the expectation must be that all will mix.
The only real safeguard for ongoing racial existence is a legally monoracial society.
It does with respect to the hypothetical example I used, which demonstrates that death rates matter much less for total population than fertility rates.
Why would that happen? Is medical care going to horrifically collapse or something? It would have been much better to be age 75 in 1980 than in 2020?
If you meant that the white death rate will start rising because so many more whites will join the 65+ age group, then I would agree, although I wouldn’t describe it as “skyrocketing.” If you look at demographic projections of aging monoracial countries like Japan (a decent analog for white America), the death rates don’t change nearly as greatly as the factor of 5 which I used in my hypothetical example. (As a reminder, we start talking about death rates because we disagreed about the relative importance of the death rate with respect to population size.)
Fertility is a measure of fertility, not of population growth. I have no idea what “equated” means here. Perhaps you meant “is affected by.” I think you’re wrong.
Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to speak of a fertility rate of couples in a given year, but I’ll grant that that’s not what people generally have in mind with the term.
The two main usages of the term “fertility” in demographics talk is the total fertility rate (TFR), and the age-specific fertility rate (from which TFR is calculated). The age-specific fertility rate is the number of births to women of a specific age (or age-group) in a given year divided by the total number of women in that age group in that same year. The TFR is the sum of all the age-specific fertility rates in the given year, and is a projection of the number of children the average woman would have at the end of her reproductive years.
I can’t see how population structure affects this calculation at all, can you? Whether women in their reproductive years are 5% of the population or 25% of the population, the denominator remains the same.
Now, if you meant that the effect of fertility on population size depends on population structure, then I would agree. If women are popping out 3 kids each, it makes a tremendous difference to population growth if fertile women are 5% or 25% of the population. The reason I didn’t say that at the beginning of this post is because I wanted to quickly run through what the term “fertility” normally refers to, and that I – and, as it turns out, you – have been using it differently. (Differently, but still legitimately.)
When you talk about the “fertility rate” in this way, you’re not talking about it in the way I granted it’s generally used in the preceding paragraph. In fact, you’re talking about the fertility rate pretty much the same I was – even though you take exception to it.
What we’re comparing here is:
[number of births to women in monoracial relationship]
divided by
[total number of women of child-bearing age in monoracial relationships)]
to
[number of births to women in mixed relationships]
divided by
[total number of women of child-bearing age in mixed relationships).
The thing is, I don’t see how population structure makes any difference to the fertility rate being calculated in this comparison.
It seems to me that you are arguing in circles. You claim that the reason that the mixed population is rising more quickly than the monoracial population is that mixed fertility is higher, and then you claim as evidence that mixed fertility is higher the fact that the mixed population is rising more quickly.
I think that what prevents you from seeing the circularity of your argument is your fixation on population structure. As I’ve granted, with respect to the effect of fertility on population growth, this is very important.
But isn’t this consistent with what I was arguing myself from the very start, that the mixed population could grow even with a very low fertility rate?
(Also, pardon my tardy reply. I have had crazy insomnia the past week, and it seriously messes with my brain and I didn’t want to make another boneheaded mistake as I did earlier about death rates/population structure.)
Humans die when they get old. Life expectancy in the USA is 78 years. As cohorts move closer to that figure, large numbers of them begin dying. The estimated life expectancy for a male born in 1945 was 12 years at age 65. They’re on their way out soon, with more to follow.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2011/lr5a4.html
This is why population structure is important. Replacement fertility is when you are replacing or growing the existing population.
A small cohort of reproductive age females (zoomers and early millennials) cannot make up for the deaths of males and females of more numerous older cohorts (such as boomers and gen x). Hence why American whites (and Japanese, Koreans, Russians, Greeks, Italians, Balkanites, etc) are shrinking and are going to continue shrinking even if the women aged 18-35 raise their TFR to 3.
There are fewer of them 2day than there were in 1975.
American white women and other women of the developed world staved off their fertility for too many years/decades. That has eternal consequences.
In a real Man’s dictionary, there is no such thing as “permissible “, Old Sport, there is only “encouraged” and “discouraged,” because as real men know, you’re either part of the problem, or part of the cure.
So which is it? Is rice-burning to be encouraged, or discouraged?
No. Do your homework. Quit shirking you responsibility.
Besides, what you are saying about the hardworking peasant classes who came to the States as immigrants and made out fairly well is supporting “magic dirt”.
Why do you think Heritage Americans insisted that the newcomers be literate? Why do you think the quotas were designed to target Poles, Italians, and Serbs and not the English and Welsh? Eastern and Southern Europeans were viewed as the dregs who would taint and ruin WASP society.
You have to go back.
“Landed gentry”? “Silver spoon”? That’s rich coming from someone who lords over those who come to this great land seeking to succeed in a newly adopted land…similar to your own ancestors. Hypocrite.
There will be no legal remedies to ensure a mono racial society. That time has passed.
And there is no “effective extinction” of whites, either. White people are still here and going strong. We take our own path.
Once again, your jewish roots are showing.
You jews ARE the “landed gentry” with an “out”.
You can always hightail it to israel when your crimes against the “goyim” are exposed.
Us ordinary gentile Americans don’t have that luxury.
“Once again, your jewish roots are showing.”
Once again, you vigorously press your default button that “anyone who opposes my line of thinking is a Jew”. It’s tragically comical.
Now stop stalling and do your homework.
GFY
You really need to diversify your comebacks. They lack sophistication. Must be that peasant stock low IQ regression to the mean coming to the forefront.
Regardless, do your homework.
Ha Ha
Why does it seem that most treat the question of any ethnicity’s demography as a neutral one? Does it not occur to anyone that a competing ethnicity would be extremely interested in the demographic demise of its opposition? That in fact, the competing ethnicity might go so far as to influence social policies, create social movements, cause wars and so on in order to secure the demographic decrease of its enemy if it had the power to do so?
Adverts in Britain have been exactly like this over the last few years, with a 2017 study showing companies admit they were overloading adverts with so-called diversity in order to “prevent perceived discrimination”.
The study found that the proportion of BAME (black, Asian, minority ethnic) people represented in adverts rose from 12% in 2014 to 25% – double the their representation in the UK population – in 2017, but this was not good enough.
From The Drum:
Black people make up 3% of the UK population but are like 90% of the minorities in adverts…
I have to say, though, that most of the biggest companies seem to have toned down the diversity in their 2019 Christmas adverts. I have been shocked to see white children and white families in this year’s crop, as previous years’ offerings would make one think that these demographic groups didn’t even exist.
Yes, I obviously get that, but he said that the death rates of 65+ year-olds would start to rise. (He was probably just get confused.)
Just to save you time, know your opinion is of zero interest to me.
They don’t have any blacks. To them, “race mixing” probably means “Rumelian×Anatolian” or at most “Turk×Kurd” or “Turk×Greek” or “Turk×German”.
What people understand by the term “race” (in various languages) creates some fog in this kind of survey.
You didn’t answer his question though. His name ‘LondonBob’ should give you a clue as to whether he’s ever been to Britain. As for you, your remarks in this thread show you are miles and miles and miles off base about the place and its people…
While there might have been some top-level ‘pro miscgenation’ propaganda from the soviets and some pro-african cold war politicking etc, the practice was very different on the ground, extra-european workers were brought into the euro commie-bloc but they were not well treated and largely kept separate. & certainly not encouraged to establish their own communities in the name of ‘multi-culturalism’.
So no, I don’t think it’s just a ‘reaction’ to some supposed pro-miscg. attitude the soviets had. It’s quite clear that stuff comes from the west (i.e. America) and the Soviets semi-inadvertently protected E. Europe from it.
My understanding is blacks are mostly in the north of Brazil while the south is mostly white.
From my casual observations it’s actually very white in the south, by latin-am standards – even compared to Argentinians who are supposed to be but often don’t really look it.
So if Brazil were somehow to splinter for some reason, the southern provinces below the Tropic of Capricorn could end up being a de-facto ‘white’ state without need for some explicitly segregationist movement.
You kind of remind me of Democrat high-level pols. Their untrue statements are getting mind-blindingly blatant.
Black Africans are vastly more genetically removed from Whites than Whites are from east Asians ; what is more interesting and less expected is, that Africans are also genetically removed (vastly) from the people of India, even those Indians who are very dark.. Too bad Razib Khan isn’t around anymore to elaborate.
Now, let me tell you that a comparison of anyone with Dems is a vile defamation. You can agree or disagree, preferably presenting real arguments, but accusing a person of being like high-level US Dems is plain offensive. Those are shameless liars for profit, whereas normal people can be wrong without pecuniary interest.
“BRITISH BRAIN SIZE 1235cc he he he.” this is rich cowardly britsht descandants thaht cant fight AIDS, skin cancer,small brain, long limbed curly haired opioid addicted fools , superior than the mighty EDAR gene carriers, sinodonts thats funny.
No one has ever objected to WMAF. Most white men (particularly in the south) would prefer to be with an Asian woman.
Besides, white women are inferior to Asian women, including southeast Asian peasant women, and they know that.